Scottish Parliament, 26 January 2012

500 contributions from 83 members. The official report.

Public Transport

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01824, in the name of Richard Baker, on public transport.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

Scottish Labour has selected bus travel for debate because we are concerned about the erosion of bus services across Scotland, which is often accompanied by higher fares, and about bus operators’ prediction that allocations in the Scottish budget for 2012-13 will exacerbate the situation.

The previous Scottish Executive introduced the concessionary bus fares scheme for older people and all the parties supported that because we understood how important bus services are, particularly to older people who might no longer wish or be able to run a car. That applies to people who are on low incomes, too. Of course, in rural areas, bus services might be so infrequent that not owning a car is not an option.

It is unfortunate that increases in fuel prices and other pressures have led in the past few years to a reduction in bus services across Scotland. Buses have become less frequent; routes have been shortened, which means that passengers must walk further to reach a bus stop; and fares have risen substantially. Fares rose by an average of 7.3 per cent above inflation between 1999 and 2010.

Research by Strathclyde partnership for transport in its area of operation revealed that cuts in bus services were most acutely delivered in the 15 per cent most deprived areas and in semi-rural areas. A week ago, Richard Baker and I asked colleagues to advise us of proposed cuts that they knew of to bus services in their constituencies and regions. It is clear that the reduction in services is escalating. Services continue to be cut and withdrawn. I have been provided with examples from East Kilbride, Aberdeen, Coatbridge, Dumbarton, Kilwinning and Airdrie, and I know of some in my region.

A major concern of the bus companies is the cut to the bus service operators grant, which has been reduced in every year since 2009-10 but which will fall sharply—by £10.3 million or more than 17 per cent, according to the Scottish Parliament information centre—between this financial year and next year, when it will be £50 million. The Confederation of Passenger Transport UK points out that the cut means that that budget will be 25 per cent less than the £66.5 million budget that the Scottish Government originally agreed with the bus industry back in 2010.

The CPT also points out that diesel prices have risen by nearly 15 per cent in the past year and that it was advised only as late as November last year that the bus service operators grant was to move from being a payment based on fuel consumption to a payment based on the distance travelled. To be fair, that change was intended to assist rural services and to encourage fuel efficiency. I cannot argue with either of those aims but, unfortunately, the late notification of the changes has made it difficult for bus operators to adjust to them.

Scotland is not alone in reducing the bus service operators grant. The United Kingdom Government made a similar announcement in October 2010 and its reduction will be introduced in April. That has already created outrage, as two thirds of authorities in England have decided to cut back on their subsidised services. Communities outside major urban centres will be most severely hit, and petitions on the subject have been submitted to the UK Parliament and others. Transform Scotland predicts a “wave of cuts” similar to those in England as the consequences of the Scottish Government’s cut are felt.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The member mentions the consequences of the cut. Does she realise that such cuts are the consequence of the cut that we have had from Westminster and of the situation that the departing Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury described when he said that there was no money left? Will she confirm that, if she thinks that the cut is wrong, she will move an amendment to the budget to reinstate the money?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

As Keith Brown knows, the Labour Party cannot lodge amendments at stage 2 of a budget bill, when only the Scottish Government can lodge amendments. Liam Byrne was making a joke for a friend. As I develop my argument, I will tell members more about what we can do with bus services in Scotland.

The problem is not just the effect on the bus companies, but the pressure that is put on local transport authorities, which subsidise socially necessary but commercially unviable routes. As fuel prices are high and central Government subsidies are reducing, bus companies are asking transport authorities for ever-increasing subsidy to match the shortfall. The public sector can ill afford that funding at present.

Moreover, some marginally commercially viable routes may become unviable as the costs to operators increase, with further pressure on transport authorities to subsidise those routes, too. Local government finance is highly constrained, and consequently subsidised routes may have to be discontinued or reduced in frequency.

If bus services deteriorate in frequency or route, people are more likely to use their private cars. That is not a green solution, but people in rural areas who do not have cars become more isolated where bus services may already be very infrequent. Older people may have a bus pass, but no access to any bus to use it on.

That is where demand-led transport solutions such as community transport can make such a difference, and I am pleased that the Government seems to agree with us on that in its amendment. I will make one suggestion. I know that there are pressures on community transport initiatives: two in Dumfries and Galloway had to go to the council for crisis funding last year. I ask the Scottish Government whether there are other ways of supporting those valuable social enterprises, perhaps through including them in the concessionary transport scheme. As it stands, older and disabled people living in remote areas cannot exercise their entitlement to concessionary bus travel.

I know that it may seem as if I am asking for yet more spending on the concessionary travel budget, but it is just a suggestion. The Finance Committee heard yesterday from the Auditor General for Scotland, Robert Black, that £34 million is currently used in funding concessionary travel for people over 60 who are working and using their bus pass to go to work. Retired people living in rural areas who cannot use any type of public transport are possibly more entitled to that funding than people who probably could afford it because they are still in work. I am just asking the Government whether it would be prepared to look at that.

I have referred to the concerns of bus operators with regard to the reduction in the bus service operators grant and the cap on the concessionary travel budget. However, I am not saying that the solution is simply to give more money to large bus companies; the issue of market failure and the role of regulation must be addressed.

Public subsidy—as we have said in relation to other areas—should be used to purchase public goods, and regulation is a mechanism to define the nature of those public goods and to ensure that the public receive value for money. If the market is dominated by a small number of powerful operators and it is difficult for smaller companies or new ventures to enter the market, it is hard to ensure value for the public pound.

At one time, the Scottish National Party believed that some regulation of bus services was necessary, but for some reason it changed its mind before the 2007 election.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

No, I have only a few seconds left—I am sorry.

In support of regulation, I draw the Government’s attention to the Competition Commission’s report, published in December, which used Fife as a case study. Unfortunately I do not have time to go into the report, but it indicated that one operator controlled 95 per cent of the services, which I do not think ensures competition or that fares are kept low. I urge the Government to look at regulation. My colleague Patricia Ferguson will introduce a bill on regulation of the bus industry, and I hope that the Government will consider supporting it.

On the two amendments, the Conservatives have obviously not moved on since the 1980s when they deregulated the bus services; and as for the Scottish Government, I do not understand how its members do not all have sore arms from perpetually congratulating themselves and patting themselves on the back.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the importance of local bus services, particularly for people on low incomes and older people; is concerned at the withdrawal of bus services and sharp increases in fares in a number of communities across Scotland and believes that these will be exacerbated by the proposed cut in the Bus Service Operators Grant; notes concerns regarding the proposed cap on concessionary fares in 2013-14 and 2014-15; urges the Scottish Government to consider ways in which it can support demand-led transport solutions such as community transport in rural areas; notes the SNP’s 2003 manifesto promise to “bring forward legislation to allow the regulation of buses”, and believes that further legislative action is required to ensure effective regulation of the industry for the benefit of passengers.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I was surprised by the tone of Labour’s motion, not least because the Scottish Government supports the bus industry. Our annual funding for the sector still stands at nearly £0.25 billion, which is a generous settlement when one bears in mind—as I have mentioned already—the swingeing cuts to our capital budget. It is interesting that Elaine Murray rightly identifies the other side of the issue, which is what local authorities can do. In England there has been a 28 per cent cut in local authority budgets, which has not been reflected in Scotland.

I will say something positive about our plans for bus, which we will work closely with stakeholders to develop. I will start with a bit of context. Why do we value bus? Well, it is flexible, it carries a large number of people, it promotes sustainable economic growth and it helps with our climate change targets. What do we want from bus in return for our investment? As Elaine Murray said, we subsidise things to achieve a public good. We want affordable, innovative, good-quality bus services and a competitive marketplace that delivers such services, with appropriate but not burdensome regulation. There is currently regulation in the bus industry.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

In his discussions with bus operators about the bus service operators grant, what action did the minister take to ensure that fares would not increase, particularly for people on low incomes who rely on buses? In my city, Aberdeen, there is a fare increase of 8.5 per cent.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The largest part of a fare is comprised of labour and fuel costs. Elaine Murray talked about the cost of fuel; Labour’s fuel duty escalator has added to the burden over the years and the 15 per cent increase in diesel costs also adds to it. The reduction in the bus service operators grant would justify an increase in fares, if any, of about 1 per cent, not the 7 or 8 per cent increases that are happening elsewhere. That is a decision for the bus operators.

I will talk a bit more about our aspirations for bus. We want to improve connectivity, improve the quality of service, maintain the bus network and increase modal shift, through patronage growth. We can do that in part by maintaining global funding levels for the sector and in part by better partnership working. That is why I am bringing forward to March the inaugural meeting of a new bus stakeholder group. Members of the group will include the regulator, local authorities, operators, customer representatives and the Community Transport Association. We want to ensure that we move forward on partnership working. Some of the best innovations in the bus industry have been the result of close partnership working.

I will talk about specific initiatives. We want to regulate—and we do regulate—service changes. I will take further advice from the traffic commissioner for Scotland and others on whether we should alter the short-notice period for service changes and the fact that such changes can be made throughout the year. We need greater stability of services. On radical service improvement, I want our commitment to, for example, £40 million for the Glasgow fastlink project to showcase what can be achieved when the public and private sectors come together to crack the infrastructure problems that often hamper growth and patronage of the network.

On technical innovation, I want us to have a stronger low-carbon bus fleet in Scotland. Our green bus fund has delivered 48 new low-carbon vehicles and we recently announced a second round, to the value of £2 million this year. There will be more to come, thanks to the Scottish future transport fund. I very much welcome the associated investment by the operators.

Elaine Murray talked about demand-responsive transport. We have been talking about doing some of the things that she mentions. We want better community services. As of April, I intend to allow demand-responsive transport services that are available to the general public to be registered as local bus services and thereby qualify for BSOG and concessionary travel. We will continue to work with the Community Transport Association on affordable bus services in more remote areas.

We can develop the area further. A constituent of mine is quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair. He cannot access any bus or taxi that is available and he relies on a dial-a-journey service, which, because it does not provide a service to the general public, does not attract concessionary travel income. We are willing to look at that matter.

I was surprised to hear that there is a proposal—if that is what it is—to take away concessionary travel from people over 60 who are in full-time employment, many of whom will be low-paid employees. Richard Simpson made such a proposal before the election, and I have asked in the past whether it is the Labour Party’s position. I understand the rationale and I am not suggesting that the proposal is not worth looking at. The Labour Government took such an approach in England. It is good to have clarity.

The bottom line is that overall bus funding for the spending review period is about £248.5 million per annum. To put that in context, there is a reduction of about £7 million on the current figure.

The bus service operators grant is paid as a direct subsidy to operators. For a number of years we have been discussing the need for change to the approach, and the changes that we are making this year reflect those discussions. The aim of the grant was always laudable. It was intended to help to keep fares down and support the bus network and community transport services.

Why, then, are we changing the scheme? BSOG payments currently track the amount of fuel that each operator uses, and more fuel means more subsidy. So, we are removing fuel from the calculation and substituting route length. We are also taking away payment for dead mileage, when there are no passengers at all on the buses. We believe that those moves will incentivise greater fuel efficiency and emission reductions; they will also tend to benefit rural services, as Elaine Murray acknowledged, providing a degree of protection for our vulnerable rural communities. BSOG will also continue to provide additional incentives for low-carbon vehicles and for some biodiesel fuels.

We are reducing the BSOG funding to £50 million, but we are adding a £3 million investment fund for bus infrastructure. The reduction therefore represents about 1 per cent of fare costs. It does not justify significant fare rises or withdrawal of services.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.

However, I have agreed that for 2012-13 only the £3 million investment fund will be used to make a transition payment to operators who are most affected by the changes in May 2012. That will give them adequate time to adjust, which is fair, right and sensible

The national concessionary travel scheme is of course the other main funding mechanism, which is rightly celebrated and retains—I think—cross-party support. We have seen its funding increase over the past three years, and we have maintained the annual cap at £187 million for the spending review period. That figure was reached in discussion with the CPT, and we will continue to work with the bus industry to ensure that the scheme remains affordable in the long term.

I believe that the Government has worked hard to provide adequate funding for the bus sector. I look forward to continued partnership working through the new bus stakeholder group in the years ahead.

I move amendment S4M-01824.4, to leave out from “is concerned” to end and insert:

“welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to maintain funding for concessionary fares in 2013-14 and 2014-15, despite the public spending cuts imposed by the UK Government; approves the development of a more environmental focus for the Bus Service Operators Grant and the introduction of a new bus infrastructure; welcomes partnership working between the Scottish Government and industry to invest in hybrid buses; urges the bus sector to minimise the withdrawal of bus services and increases in fares, and urges the Scottish Government, the bus sector and local government to develop demand-led transport solutions such as community transport in rural areas and more effective use of legislation and partnership working through provisions such as statutory quality partnerships.”

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The opportunity to discuss bus services does not arise as often in the chamber as it might. I welcome the fact that the Labour Party has brought forward this debate. In preparation for the debate, I reread the similar debate on a motion in the name of Des McNulty, which I thought had taken place perhaps a couple years ago, but it turned out to have been in June 2008. We are all getting older, but that is how it goes.

I suspect that many of the same arguments will be rehearsed today, but of course in the intervening time things have moved on. As has been said, the Conservative Party is quite proud of its record of deregulating bus services in the 1980s. Scotland has a great deal to be proud of in what has happened since then, not least that as a result of the deregulation two of the world’s largest transport companies evolved in Scotland: one in Perth and one in Aberdeen. We should never forget that a proper regulatory environment is absolutely essential to the development of good business in the future.

However, we are here to talk about the services that those companies and others provide right here in Scotland. Since the previous parliamentary debate on the subject, there has been plenty of evidence that bus companies continue to invest in higher-quality and more comfortable buses, that they are achieving greater fuel efficiency and that a great deal has been done to improve access for those who find difficulty in accessing public transport. For example, there are buses that can be lowered to allow people to get access. We should do more of that kind of thing, and the evidence is that that is happening.

During the debate so far, we have heard about the changes that are being made to the bus service operators grant. Having read the objectives that have been set out for that grant, I continue to be open-minded and believe that there is evidence that the changes will be positive, particularly in ensuring that we get greater fuel efficiency in our bus fleets and better value for money from the Government.

However, one or two things have not changed since the debate three and a half years ago. It seems to me that we see the differences in a party’s position when it is in opposition compared with when it is in government. The Labour Party, while it was in government, was keen to avoid the regulation of buses, while the SNP was keen to regulate; now, we find that the Labour Opposition wants more regulation and the SNP Government is resisting the calls to move towards a stiffer regulatory environment.

The truth is that flexibility generates good bus services. We all have mailbags that are full of complaints about individual services, but overall the service satisfies a large number of people. Unfortunately, the satisfied customers do not bother writing to us.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Is it not the reality that, when in the previous Executive, we legislated to introduce quality contracts and quality partnerships? We very much regret that none of those have been introduced. They would give more importance to accountability and having fully operational services in local communities.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

There was a fear that quality contracts and quality partnerships might add costs, so I am not in the least surprised to discover that none of them have been employed. If a thing is not fit for purpose, it will not be used. Therein lies the evidence.

In the time remaining, there are a couple of issues that I need to cover, one of which—bus passes or free transport for the elderly—I was almost afraid to raise but, luckily, Elaine Murray raised it for me. I am not opposed to free transport for the elderly; in fact, I think that it is one of the Parliament’s great achievements. However, it is inevitable that the cost of maintaining it will increase over time, and the question must be asked—Elaine Murray has already asked it—whether increasing that budget is an appropriate use of funds for the provision of bus services. As we talk more generally about the increase in the retirement and pension ages, does it make sense for us to continue to give everyone over the age of 60 free bus travel?

There are those who suggest that, to preserve that system and ensure that our pensioners continue to benefit from it in the long term, we must consider whether people at the lower end of that age scale are an appropriate target for those resources. I want that debate to continue in the Parliament, and I would like the Government to engage in it in a more practical way.

The Government is taking other measures that are improving bus services in Scotland. In the past, I have praised it for its persistence in improving our road network. We must always remember that buses need roads and that, as the roads improve, the bus services that run on them can become more reliable, more cost effective and, above all, more punctual.

My final point is about budget.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Indeed.

Within global budgets, bus services continue to receive a fair deal. The cost of maintaining any service is high and, given the pressure that the Government is experiencing, we must accept that tough decisions will have to be taken. It is essential that we recognise that we must make bus services affordable. The one thing that the Labour Party has failed to recognise is that it has some responsibility for the budget pressure that we are experiencing. Even the Labour leader Ed Miliband says that he would not change the funding arrangements that are currently in place, so we all have to learn.

I move amendment S4M-01824.1, to leave out from “is concerned” to end and insert:

“encourages the Scottish Government to explore innovative solutions to the provision of cost-effective bus services such as demand-led transport in rural areas, and believes that the dogmatic demands to re-regulate bus services are inappropriate and potentially counter-productive.”

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I welcome the commitment to ensure that we will still have concessionary fares in 2014. Concessionary fares were a big issue during the election campaign, particularly among older and disabled people in places such as Paisley, who were keen to ensure that they remained in place.

It is important that we work within the current framework, because the most important people are the users of the service. As others have mentioned, nine times out of 10 bus users belong to vulnerable groups or have less capital.

If we look at the history of what has happened with the buses, we find that in Scotland, after regulation, we have an east-west divide. That is largely down to the fact that, in the east, an element of local authority control was retained through councils still having a stake in the bus company, whereas, in the west, the predecessor of SPT, in effect, sold all the corporation buses to whatever commercial company was available.

We need to look at where we are now. I assume that members get up to date with all the relevant political facts and issues before a debate, but I can inform them that there is a statutory quality partnership out there. Believe it or not, ladies and gentleman, it is in existence in Paisley. It has taken Renfrewshire Council only 12 years to use the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 to get to that position. Mr Baker mentioned that it was the Labour Party that brought that act into being, but it was part of the problem and one of the reasons why it took 12 years for Renfrewshire Council to set up a quality partnership.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

If the problem was the ability to introduce such schemes, why did the previous SNP Government oppose our proposed bill to make it far easier to introduce them? I am afraid that the member is making no sense whatever.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I think that the sense of the situation is that Labour introduced legislation to try to make things better, but it made things extremely difficult. However, the good news is that, in Renfrewshire, we had the political will to stick to the plan and, in 2007, when the SNP-led administration came in, we worked towards achieving the establishment of a statutory quality partnership, which has made a massive difference in Paisley and given a better-quality service to the people of Paisley.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

Does the member agree that, in the wonderful area of Renfrewshire, where we both come from, the public have huge concerns about the proposed takeover of the Arriva services by McGill’s, and that there is a great fear that service levels will suffer and services will be cut?

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I expected that question from one of the Labour list members for West Scotland. The whole idea of the statutory quality partnership is that we have a control mechanism within the process that enables us to ensure that we can still get the delivery of service. That is the important thing. The Opposition parties’ scare tactics are causing fear among the elderly, the disabled and the users of those services.

It is important that we have control in such situations. The statutory quality partnership gives us control over the type of buses, the quality of those buses, their cleanliness and other issues that users regularly complain about. In Paisley—in, as Mrs Fee says, the wonderful world of Renfrewshire—we are making a difference and are changing things.

It is important that the service user is the main factor in all our decisions. We have to ensure that we can deliver for the bus users in our communities. Thankfully, in Paisley, we are doing that, and we ask that other authorities do likewise. We can deliver a better bus service in Scotland if the political will exists at a local level to do so. We must serve the public good and find the solutions to problems, not create further problems. Working in partnership, we can achieve that.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

This debate matters to my constituents in a direct way. Coatbridge and Chryston has one of the lowest levels of car ownership in the country—nearly 40 per cent of households have no car. Also, as Labour’s motion intimates, people on low incomes rely heavily on public transport. Unfortunately, as has been proven time after time, services for the poor are often poor services. That is clearly shown in the case of buses in my constituency.

For people who cannot afford a car, reliable and affordable public transport is a necessity. If the buses are unreliable, non-existent or overpriced, those who can do so will choose not to use them. However, those with no choice depend on buses to get to their work, the shops or their leisure activities and, without buses, they are trapped. Also, the better the bus links, the more accessible an area becomes and the easier it is for people to find work. The opposite is also true, of course, which is particularly worrying during this time of rapidly rising unemployment in Scotland.

Because of the bus issues that have been brought to my attention, I undertook to campaign for bus reregulation, and thousands of my constituents joined me in signing a petition for better buses. One thing that was perfectly clear during that campaign was that the current, deregulated system is not working in terms of providing those lifeline services in my constituency.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I understand the points that the member is making. If they are true, they must lead to the logical conclusion that she intends to put more money into buses. Is she able to quantify that or to say what model of reregulation she would have, and how much it would cost?

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I will come to the model that I would recommend in order to reregulate the buses, but one thing is for sure: they certainly are not working. I will give the chamber examples of that, in case members are in any doubt.

What is happening in Coatbridge—about which the minister should not be in any doubt, as I have written to him about it often enough—is causing concerns due to services being cancelled or altered at short notice, which causes major problems for commuters. For example, when the Moodiesburn bypass was suddenly opened early, the buses just bypassed my constituents and left them standing at bus stops. Similarly, in Carnbroe and Townhead last year, people were left with no buses at all. On that occasion, I contacted Councillor Fagan at the SPT, which ensured that bus services were quickly provided. However, the SPT cannot always step in, as it has a fixed budget.

Bus timetables and routes are often changed at short notice with no regard for the needs of passengers, and in Coatbridge there is little or no information at bus stops. In November, I addressed a public meeting on buses that was organised by Coatbridge Federation of Tenants & Residents Associations.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

At that meeting, the SPT advised a further withdrawal of services from Coatbridge by private operators this month. The 62 service, which connects Coatbridge with Glasgow, will cease, cutting off south Coatbridge in the evenings and at weekends. That is completely unacceptable.

Following the 2003 manifesto commitment, which is mentioned in the motion, the SNP conference in 2006 pledged to take bus services out of the control of private profiteers, but that promise was dropped. The Scottish Government is not standing up for ordinary people on the issue. The sad reality is that the SNP seems to be on the side of the big bus companies. If it wants to change that perception, it should immediately evaluate the privatised bus industry and ensure that its focus is on accountability, affordability and service provision. That would show us that the big private profiteers operate simply to boost their already swollen coffers, not to provide a public service.

It is obscene that we allow a few massive private operators to follow a systemic impulse to produce wealth for themselves at the expense of the travelling public. As Karl Marx put it:

“Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!”

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Imagine the restrictions that a fixed budget puts in place. Imagine having to deal with a fixed budget that one cannot increase or grow—just imagine that. [Interruption.] Presiding Officer, I am having a bit of trouble getting on with my speech while members are attempting to instigate a conversation with me.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The minister, rightly, has called for an emphasis on innovation. Yesterday, while other members were discussing matters here, I was at a full council meeting of Aberdeen City Council at which the council agreed unanimously to proceed with a hydrogen bus project. Its delivery is contingent on agreement with partners, but the council has nailed its colours to the mast on that and is looking to progress with a move that could release a number of hydrogen buses into the Aberdeen bus fleet. They would create zero carbon emissions; therefore, that is an important step forward and the kind of innovation that the minister talked about.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Will the member consider an innovation that the SPT and Councillor David Fagan are considering? It is a franchise arrangement, like London Buses, which would not necessarily cost the earth.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am always interested in best practice from other areas. I am, however, not familiar with the scheme that the member highlights, so I cannot give her any firm commitment on that. Also, the decision does not rest with me.

On the bus service operators grant, the minister has rightly highlighted the fact that, where subsidy is provided, it must follow the passenger. Too often, it has not done that, but the changes that the minister has identified will mean that that will happen. As has been identified in the debate, passengers in rural areas should be a priority given the specific pressures that rural areas face, such as high fuel costs and the distances that people are required to travel to access services. The change to the bus service operators grant will mean that funding is targeted more at rural services, which are in need of that assistance, as are rural communities. That is important.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I do not have time.

The managing director of FirstBus said in the Evening Express yesterday that the reason that FirstBus is hiking its fares by 8 per cent is entirely down to changes to the bus service operators grant. FirstBus—a multibillion-pound multinational corporation—has a bit of a cheek if it is claiming that the only way in which it can run a viable bus service is with Government subsidy.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No, I do not have the time.

I welcome the clarity on the bus pass that there now seems to be. I simply note that whenever the Government has considered the bus pass, usually with a view to extending its provision, Labour members have run to the communities howling that we are going to take away folks’ bus passes. It is a little rich for Labour members to turn around and say that the Government should perhaps consider taking away folks’ bus passes when that is the scaremongering that they have used in communities during previous reviews.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

Will the member take an intervention on that?

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am in my last 30 seconds.

I will make the point to Alex Johnstone on why I think that universality on the bus pass is important. In rural areas, people who might not qualify for a bus pass under a means-tested system often use the bus pass to access a route that would cease to be viable without the subsidy that the bus pass provides. If changes were made, the people who access the route without a bus pass could lose that service. That is an important consideration: what would be the impact of changes on bus services, many of which are dependent on bus pass users to keep them viable, and what would be the impact on the communities that lose such a service?

There is much that we need to look at in discussing the bus system in Scotland. The minister has identified key areas for consideration, and I think that we should move forward on that basis.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I want to make a clarification, in case it was not absolutely clear from my speech. The point that was raised at the Finance Committee yesterday—

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Provan)

I disagreed with almost every aspect of Alex Johnstone’s speech, but I agreed with him that the Parliament has not contributed effectively to the debate on bus services and the concerns of communities throughout Scotland about the serious issues that face them in connection with those services.

Even though we have conducted various inquiries into local government and transport in parliamentary committees, we have not considered the fact that something has to be done about the bus deregulation legislation that was passed in 1985. As a result of that legislation, we have seen our local communities being abandoned by bus companies that care little about their needs, despite the fact that those communities and their local authorities have been going out of their way to build an infrastructure that assists bus companies in dealing with the challenges that they face in delivering bus services, for example in areas such as traffic congestion. Indeed, I cannot help but observe that, in a perverse way, we appear to be encouraging the big bus companies to cherry pick in the first place by providing bus lanes, sometimes to the detriment to the needs of local people, who also need services delivered in their communities.

The time is right for the Parliament to take action to protect our communities from the cherry-picking activities of bus companies throughout Scotland. I do not know what world Alex Johnstone lives in, but I ask him to pay attention to the concerns of my constituents in the Glasgow Provan constituency. In Cranhill, they face serious challenges in accessing bus services. In the Dennistoun community, people face challenges with bus companies cherry picking routes. That is the real world of the challenges that our constituents face throughout Scotland.

As Elaine Smith mentioned, we also need to recognise the impact that the withdrawal of bus services has on vulnerable communities, in Glasgow in particular. In Glasgow, where the car ownership rate is among the lowest in Scotland, people depend on bus services as a lifeline to get them to employment opportunities and hospital appointments. Not to take action would be an attack on those local communities and the most vulnerable in our society. For many of those people, as Elaine Smith said, it is not a lifestyle choice to take the bus. Being able to attend a hospital appointment or an employment opportunity is a necessity.

I believe that we are elected to the Parliament to ensure that the vulnerable are represented. That is why I sought election in 1999 and that is why I believe that we need to put in place a more robust system to deal with bus companies and to bring forward proposals to regulate them. If regulation is good enough for the bankers, it is good enough for the greedy bus companies. Let me clear about this: bus companies need no protection. Stagecoach had half-year profits of almost £80 million and those of First reached just under £60 million, so I hope that the Scottish Government will not seek to protect those companies.

I say once again that it is becoming clear that the time is now right for real action, not just talk about partnerships. We have sought to engage through partnerships for many years. The time is right for those bus companies to recognise that the current legislation favours the cherry picking that has been done for many years.

I welcome the minister’s commitment to community transport. I hope that he will commit himself to community transport associations such as the North Area Transport Association, which covers my constituency, and I hope that we can continue to develop such associations. I call on members to support the motion in the name of Elaine Murray.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I start by thanking the Labour Party for drawing attention to public transport issues in Scotland. It does Parliament a service by bringing such a debate to the chamber. Even if I do not agree with the terms of the Labour motion, it is important to say that I appreciate its bringing up the issue.

I was slightly perplexed by a lot of Elaine Murray’s speech. At one point, she said that she did not want to give money to the big bus operators, but then she bemoaned the fact that the bus service operators grant was being cut. Increasing the BSOG would give additional money to the largest bus operators, and it is fair to put that on the record. I would be delighted to hear what Elaine Murray says about that.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

Our motion draws attention to concerns about and possible outcomes of the current situation. The solution that we are proposing is not just to throw money at the problem but to reregulate and ensure that the public pound purchases the best possible value.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am delighted that Elaine Murray has made that intervention, because she has just emphasised the contradiction in her thinking.

I also want to look at the change from using the amount of fuel used by bus operators to the distance travelled as the basis on which payments are made. That is quite important. When I think about it, the idea of giving a fuel duty discount might have been slightly wrong-headed. Why should a Scottish Parliament have to give a tax break to bus companies to provide a public and social service when the huge oil and fuel revenues and taxes flow down south to London? It is simply wrong-headed. Perhaps the Labour Party should look at itself and take a deep look at that issue.

I point out that forms of bus regulation already exist, and I note that the minister is looking at ways of implementing further regulation where appropriate if it is needed.

I commend my parliamentary colleague George Adam, who spoke about the statutory quality bus partnership success in Paisley. I am aware that similar proposals are being developed in Glasgow, and I hope that they will come to fruition shortly. Indeed, I hear talk that part of that regulation might extend to the fastlink scheme that is being supported with £40 million from the Scottish Government. I do not think that we should pretend that no regulatory levers are being used currently.

That said, I want to be reasonable. I hear that Patricia Ferguson is going to introduce a bill on bus regulation. I supported her bill on factoring, so I will look at her bill on bus regulation. However, I am deeply worried about the unintended consequences of the steps that the Labour Party would take, so I would take some convincing.

I want to look at the community transport aspect of the Labour Party’s motion.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I want to develop my point. Labour mentioned rural community transport but, in Glasgow, it is inconsistent on community transport. In the north of Glasgow, which is in the region that I represent, the main community transport provider, the North Area Transport Association, has had its funding cut by £48,000—a 100 per cent cut—by the Glasgow Labour Party.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Will the member give way?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Absolutely.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I have heard from disability groups in north Glasgow that are worried about the success and future of the service. Primary schools are also worried. Perhaps the best way of finishing off is—oh, I have lost it. Perhaps I will intervene on Ms Ferguson—oh, I have found it. A small child—

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I apologise, Presiding Officer. When a small child sends me a picture, which I have here, of the local bus company, which has lost £48,000, and the child is worried that they will not be taken to their playgroup, I say that Glasgow Labour should be consistent on community travel. It is clear that it is not.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Presiding Officer, you might recall, as I do, debates all the way back in 1999 rather than in 2006. If my memory serves me correctly, you took part in some of them. Murray Tosh used to lead for the Conservatives, Kenny MacAskill used to lead for the Scottish National Party, and Sarah Boyack was the transport minister. I think that the general view across all the parties, including among the nationalists, was that, if we shut Murray Tosh and Kenny MacAskill into a room at the back of the chamber, the rest of us could have got on with a pretty decent transport debate.

Time has certainly moved on, but the debate about quality partnerships or regulation versus competition has not. It is clear that the current minister is dealing with that in the same way that all his predecessors did.

What works and what does not work has been referred to; George Adam was interesting on his council’s experience of that. I recall Elaine Smith making a strident speech, which was entirely justified, on that issue many years ago and members of other parties making exactly the same arguments. I also recall that, even in those days, the big bus companies, which have been broadly attacked throughout the chamber, used to get it in the neck about profiteering, cherry picking, which Paul Martin has just spoken about, and other things. They are still getting it in the neck in 2012.

The conundrum for the Government is where it should or should not legislate in seeking to discover the right balance between regulation and competition. Does competition work? As Elaine Smith and Paul Martin illustrated—Bob Doris hinted at this—there is considerable competition in Glasgow and the west at certain times of the day, but there is not the breadth and depth of services that many members want. That is the challenge that the minister has to consider and find a way through. Has the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which was passed by those of us who were members in that session, worked? On the basis of George Adam’s evidence, if there has been only one statutory quality partnership in Scotland since then, it is clear that that legislation has not provided the fit-for-purpose model that is needed. If Patricia Ferguson, members of other parties and, indeed, the Government are going to bring forward new thinking on the matter, I welcome that, as I recognised in the role that I had, which Mr Brown now has, that there are no perfect answers. That is why the complexity of the issue is challenging.

I do not think that there should be a one-size-fits-all policy throughout Scotland. As other members have mentioned, there are different circumstances in rural and urban areas and also within cities that do not lend themselves to having one binding piece of regulation. We need a system that recognises the different challenges in different parts of Scotland.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Mr Scott may recall that, in the previous session, a bill on the same issue in the name of my colleague Charlie Gordon fell because it could not attract support from other parties in the Parliament. Is Mr Scott in a position to commit his party on the matter at this stage?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I am happy to commit to reading whatever proposed legislation members bring forward. I recall Patricia Ferguson taking me to her constituency to show me the challenges that she and her colleagues in all parties faced on the issue. I would therefore be happy to look at any proposed legislation.

In concluding, I want to make a point about the concessionary transport scheme. I see that there is a clear requirement for a review after seven years. I am sure that Mr Brown will tell me if I am wrong about that, but that is my recollection of the system. The benefit of a review is that it allows the Government of the day to consider carefully not just the eligibility points that Elaine Murray and other members have rightly raised but the whole basis of the scheme. I hope that there is a review, as such reviews are the purpose of good government.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I am pleased to be able to highlight the part of our motion that

“urges the Scottish Government to consider ways in which it can support demand-led transport solutions such as community transport in rural areas”.

Across South Scotland and elsewhere, robust and well-organised community transport initiatives are evolving, and they are increasingly developing an interface with public transport. I stress that they are not a reason to cut services, which should be developed, but are an essential complement to what is often a limited service in terms of routes and times. For people of all ages, community transport is a new lifeline that is helping to end rural isolation and bring communities together.

When the Equal Opportunities Committee took evidence on the issue, we heard from the Rural Development Trust in Clydesdale, which runs its minibuses on waste fat from school kitchens. I say to the minister that I hope that support will indeed be forthcoming for such initiatives. As a teacher, I was able to book a minibus to take pupils swimming 15 miles away. It was driven by our headteacher, who became a volunteer driver, thus keeping the costs down. There are also community transport groups in Annandale and Tweeddale, and I am sure that members know of others in their regions.

There are several different models for community transport because such initiatives are demand and community led and they have been developed to suit a range of needs, but that must not be—and does not have to be—a barrier to the interface with public transport and other provision.

Last week, I attended a rural transport solutions event, with Elaine Murray, in Kirkcudbright, at which it was stressed that transport is a crucial element of community structure. The project is funded by the European Union northern periphery programme and it works with a range of local partners—Dumfries and Galloway Council, the south west of Scotland transport partnership, Wigtownshire community transport, NHS Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Ambulance Service. I welcome the minister’s remarks on partnerships of that kind.

The downtime issue is being addressed. Its most ludicrous manifestation is the school bus sitting idle through the summer holidays. There is potential to save a lot of money by enabling community groups to use school buses. The requirements to train volunteer drivers, pass buses from one group to another and share maintenance costs do not have to be insurmountable barriers and they should not be an excuse not to develop new partnerships. The approach is already working.

Wigtownshire community transport is working towards becoming self-financing through procurement. I stress that reregulation is essential if local community transport initiatives are to seek procurement in that way. There are also small charges for community bookings.

Further to Elaine Murray’s remarks, I note that constituents have approached me as well to request that concessionary fares be extended to community transport. I welcome the minister’s remarks on that. One person stated, “Free bus passes are great, but they are useless if there is no bus to catch.”

Community transport addresses many rural challenges. It prevents people from having to stay in town all day if there are infrequent public transport services. It enables households that do not have a car to get to their nearest public transport service, which is particularly important for people who live in very remote places. It prevents parents with small children and carers with elderly family members from being left trapped in the house when the only car user has left—in the case of one-car households—hopefully to go to work or training. It enables people in remote places to which public transport will never come to get to appointments, and it enables groups to get together in such areas.

It also stops the branding of transport for groups who feel isolated and enables them to become more integrated in their community, and it enables managers in places such as day centres to get on with their jobs rather than working out the complexities of bookings.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I would be grateful if you would close now, please.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Community transport is meeting the needs of schools, hospitals, healthcare, social services and tourism by developing sustainable systems, and it will also help us to meet our climate change targets. I commend the model to the Scottish Government and ask it to give community transport as much support as it can.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Like my colleague Bob Doris, I welcome the debate and thank the Labour Party for bringing the subject to the chamber. I suspect that I am like every member in that many of my constituents rely on the provision of reliable, regular bus services, so it is a hugely important issue. In my constituency, there are some good examples of such services. The Abronhill area in Cumbernauld has good, regular bus services—although we are always willing to see further improvements, of course.

However, some areas, such as the area of Cumbernauld north of the M80, have a particularly poor bus service. It is often assumed that everyone in Cumbernauld has a car but, judging by my postbag, I think that that is not the case in that part of the town. Many people in that part of the world would like to have a decent, regular bus service but do not. I have consistently raised the matter with the relevant authorities. For all the bluster from certain members, it is interesting that the two pertinent authorities in this case—SPT and North Lanarkshire Council—are dominated by the Labour Party and have refused point blank to intervene.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Aw.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

It is wonderful to see Ms Baillie arriving in the chamber and welcoming my contribution so readily.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

You are deluded.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

It is an interesting posture—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member give way?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Of course.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I hesitate to say it, but I think that the member is deluded this morning.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I hesitate to point out that Ms Baillie delivered that as well from a sedentary position as she did when she intervened. Welcome to the debate, Ms Baillie.

The posturing from Labour members is interesting because, when they have the opportunity to intervene on the ground, they do not do so. It was also interesting to hear Elaine Murray speak about funding levels for the bus service operators grant. Bob Doris made an excellent point. We hear Labour bemoaning the fact that public money is being funnelled into large bus companies—I understand that point—while in the same breath bemoaning the cut to the BSOG. That position is inconsistent.

As ever, the issue of public transport is raised with no context whatever. Every time we hear a party—usually Labour—bemoaning cuts to individual budgets, no context is given.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

That is a bit rich considering that, if we do make a suggestion—for example when I pointed out what the Auditor General said—it is immediately translated as being Labour Party policy. It makes us rather anxious. I would rather put ideas out there and have them discussed than have other parties immediately say, “That’s Labour Party policy.” Let us listen to what others are saying.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am always willing to listen to discussion, but allow me to make my point. The context is that the Scottish Government’s budget has been hammered by the Westminster Administration. That process began under Labour, and we hear that the current cuts are supported by Ed Miliband. If Elaine Murray gives us a little context whenever the issue is raised, we may be more willing to listen to her ideas.

In response to the minister’s intervention, Elaine Murray said that it is only the Government that can lodge amendments to the budget at stage 2. Procedurally, she is correct, but, earlier in the budget process, at the committee stage, when the various subject committees report to the Finance Committee, the Labour Party could quite easily have suggested the reinstatement of the bus service operators grant. I am on the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee and—I am glad to be corrected—I do not recall a Labour member doing that. It is a bit disingenuous to raise it now.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

This has been a constructive debate, and one or two positive issues have arisen. In fact, if the Government had been a little more careful when it drafted its amendment, it could even have found itself with Conservative support for it. As it is, though, we may have to abstain on that one.

Karl Marx has been mentioned—it has been a while since we had him in the chamber. A number of members talked at length about regulation. I suspect that some on the benches opposite had nationalisation on the tip of their tongues, but perhaps that was still a step too far.

In both amendments, the opportunity was taken to remove the most attractive bit of the Labour motion, where it mentions demand-led services. In rural areas, there are no shortages of examples of empty buses running while, not far away, there are no bus services to cater for people who desperately need them. We should be looking at demand-led services. Claudia Beamish explained the concept quite well but, unfortunately, at a time when budgets are tight, having both kinds of service is a step too far.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am sorry—I have only four minutes.

Innovative solutions are out there and we all need to work together to ensure that the Government pursues them.

As for the unintended consequences that Bob Doris mentioned, there will certainly be such consequences if we go ahead with some of the changes that have been discussed this morning. Reregulation—with the aim, I hope, of providing better services—will inevitably add to costs, which, given the finite budget, will mean that services will have to be reduced. We must target resources where they will be most effective, but the Government already has the power to do that without having to tighten regulation.

I have listened to members’ comments about the delivery of services. The problem of services being changed without notice is particularly annoying and certainly appears in my mailbag. However, it can be dealt with through tighter management by the companies that provide the service. After all, it is not always the management’s fault if a driver decides not to take a particular route.

Mark McDonald seemed to suggest that I was proposing the removal of bus passes from some people and perhaps the introduction of means testing. That is not the case. We should make long-term decisions that allow us to manage costs over time and ensure that those who already have bus passes can continue to have them in future.

Mr McDonald also said that the bus pass system is a subsidy mechanism. Although I fully accept that, in many respects, it is such a mechanism, I am not entirely sure that it should be.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am sorry—I am just coming to a close.

Given that, in these times, budgets must be targeted at where they will deliver the greatest benefit to those who require support, I have every sympathy with the Government’s position. I believe that it is managing its resources to the best of its ability and is delivering the best service that it can under the current circumstances. We need innovation and new ways of using resources to deliver more. At the moment, we simply do not have the unlimited resource that the Labour Party appears to be wishing for.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am struck by the substantial degree of agreement on many of the issues that have been discussed this morning, but I have to say that Alex Johnstone’s final point about resources is pertinent—indeed, crucial. Given Elaine Murray’s intervention late in the debate, I think that it would be useful to hear from either Ms Murray or Richard Baker exactly what is being suggested. Are they suggesting that we consider taking bus passes away from over-60s in full-time employment? Is that a suggestion or is it a policy proposal?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

For the record, the suggestion was made by the Auditor General, Robert Black, at yesterday’s Finance Committee meeting. When someone such as that makes such a suggestion, the very least that we can do is to look at it. Indeed, I have asked Mr Black to break down his calculations.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I take from that and previous comments—and indeed from the comment made before the election by Richard Simpson, who is not in the chamber, that he thought that it was wrong that he received a bus pass—that it is a suggestion that should be considered. There is nothing wrong with saying that such proposals should be considered. However, as Mark McDonald pointed out, these issues have been used in the past as political footballs and, sometimes, to strike fear into people that they will lose their bus passes. Nevertheless, I take the proposal in the spirit that Elaine Murray has suggested.

We think that our funding of around £250 million a year demonstrates a real commitment to bus services. I did not have time to mention it earlier, but hard shoulder running on the M77, which Jackson Carlaw, who was in the chamber at the start of the debate, has mentioned in the past, is an extremely important initiative. I certainly disagree with Paul Martin’s comments about bus lanes. I believe that they tend to help bus services by making them quicker and therefore more attractive to people, more of whom then use the services. We want to look at what we can do to take that process further.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Provan)

I have no concern about bus lanes, which we should encourage, but that should not be to the detriment of local communities if services are not delivered in their areas. There should be a quid pro quo—if services are delivered for bus services, they should also be delivered for local communities that are affected by the cuts.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am not sure that I get Paul Martin’s point. If he is saying that bus lanes should be created elsewhere, we can obviously consider that on a case-by-case basis.

Tavish Scott asked for a review of the concessionary travel scheme, but we have had such a review. People often use the cliché that something is constantly reviewed. The scheme is not constantly reviewed—nothing is constantly reviewed—but we are looking at it on regular basis. That approach has led to changes. For example, the cap that kicks in when the budget level is reached, which was agreed with the transport operators, was one thing that came from the review. However, I give a commitment to Tavish Scott that we will continue to review the scheme. That is only right, because it involves a large amount of public expenditure. Elaine Murray’s suggestion could feed into that debate.

Another change in the scheme is that it has been extended to make it easier to access for veterans who have been injured in active service—they can now access the scheme much more quickly and with much less hassle. We extended the scheme in that way before the Westminster Government did so, although it has now done so, too. That is a welcome change. Therefore, changes have happened to the national concessionary scheme and it has been reviewed.

There are issues to do with the proper management of the scheme, which come down to matters such as driving out abuse of the system. A great deal of work has been done on that. It perhaps does not create headlines, but Alex Neil and I have done quite a bit of work with operators on that. As several members have mentioned—and not only those on the Government back benches—there is a drive to ensure that we get the maximum possible effect from the money that we commit. Obviously, the amount that we can commit is constrained.

Jamie Hepburn made the important point that we are not the only players. We give money to local authorities so that they can subsidise bus routes. We provide the BSOG, but we do not subsidise bus routes. At local authorities’ request, the money is no longer ring fenced. Some local authorities have been good at ensuring that the money is passed on, but others have not. That is where responsibility lies. It is not always down to the Government when the service that might be expected on a particular route is not in place. The local authorities and, sometimes, the regional transport partnerships have a role in that.

There has been fairly general agreement on the need for further consideration of demand-responsive transport. As I said, we have considered that already and we will continue to do so, particularly in relation to the example that I gave earlier about allowing voluntary organisations that cannot currently access the concessionary travel scheme—even for people who would otherwise qualify for concessionary travel—to do so. That is entirely right.

The motion mentions the SNP’s 2003 manifesto, which must have made a big impact when it was produced. Equally, we could refer to Labour’s 1983 manifesto commitment to abolish nuclear weapons and various other things that have gone by the board. Our 2003 manifesto was three manifestos ago, but we are still discussing it. Paul Martin rightly mentioned fundamental problems in his constituency. Those are deep-rooted and long-standing problems. Between 1997 and 2007, the Labour Party had the chance to do something about them. It was in power in this Parliament for eight years. Labour members concede that the problems started before then and lasted right through that period. That is just another issue on which the Labour Party thinks that the long-standing problems that it has left subsequent Governments to deal with are all the responsibility of the current Government. The Labour Party must take some responsibility for those problems.

As Jamie Hepburn said, we must see the issue in context. We have maintained local government expenditure, whereas in England it has reduced by 28 per cent, which produces knock-on effects including, in some areas, the abolition of concessionary travel. We have not done that. We have stuck by the bus industry and, in particular, the bus passenger—that is who we are trying to help in all this. The measures that we are taking and will continue to take demonstrate that. Therefore, I ask members to support the amendment in my name.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Several members have mentioned that this is not the first time that Labour has brought the issue of bus services to the Parliament. We make no apology for returning to the issue, because we have heard again today, sometimes in feisty discourse, how important bus services are. So often, they are lifelines for communities. That applies in rural communities, such as those that Elaine Murray and Claudia Beamish referred to, as well as in urban areas, as Elaine Smith highlighted.

Members have discussed the many reasons why bus services are vital, but a key reason is their importance to excluded groups and to older people and the disabled. The concessionary travel scheme has been important for those groups. Too often, they have been financially and socially excluded, but there are now no financial barriers to their using buses, whether it be for shopping trips into town or to visit friends and family. That is why the continuation of the scheme is important to us. We also hope that, in future, consideration will be given to extending it into areas such as community transport.

Of course, it is not only older people and the disabled who rely on bus services; they are vital for our economy because they are the method that many Scots use to get to work. There should be unanimity in the Parliament about encouraging more people to use public transport for such journeys. Affordable bus services are also crucial for those in our society on lower incomes, for whom times are particularly tough right now.

That is why we are so concerned about what is happening in Scotland. A number of important services are being withdrawn from communities throughout the country and, following decisions by the Scottish Government, there are hikes in bus fares as well.

In this debate, I clearly do not agree on every point with the Confederation of Passenger Transport, but its briefing raises important issues. It makes it clear that the Scottish Government was made aware that its decision to cut the bus service operators grant by 20 per cent would lead to fare increases. I am not persuaded by the minister’s maths on that issue. In Aberdeen, the cut has resulted in fare increases of some 8.5 per cent, which will start on Sunday. Such increases particularly affect those who are on low incomes, and there is no evidence that ministers made any attempt to take account of that fact in their decision or to mitigate its impact.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Given what he has just said, will Richard Baker say whether he is committed to reinstating that cut during the budget process?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

We will vote on the entirety of the Scottish Government’s budget. As Elaine Murray said, the Scottish Government is able to lodge amendments at stage 2, but we are not. I very much hope that the minister will lodge an amendment, because the 8.5 per cent fare increases in Aberdeen will hit the poorest, will hurt others in other parts of Scotland and are totally unacceptable.

The situation was made all the worse because of the late notice that operators were given of the cuts. That will be a great disappointment for those who will have to pay higher fares. How will that contribute to the Scottish Government’s stated aim of encouraging more people to use our buses?

The Scottish Government says that it wants to use its budget to protect Scotland from the coalition’s reckless spending cuts but, again and again, the rhetoric does not match the reality. The situation that I outlined is yet another example of those in Scotland who are least able to afford increased charges having to pay more.

Let us be clear about local authority budgets as well. For councils, the Scottish Government has doubled the cut that it received. It is making the situation doubly bad for local authority budgets, so to say that they have been protected is simply untrue.

We part company with the Confederation of Passenger Transport, the Conservatives and the SNP on regulation. Paul Martin made an important speech on that. Tavish Scott made some thoughtful comments on the issue, too. Deregulation has not worked. Too many areas have, in effect, monopoly services and no accountability.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will Richard Baker give way?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I am fond of Mr McDonald, but he must learn that, if I am to take his interventions, he must take mine in future.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Is it not a bit rich for Labour to bemoan the deregulated framework when, in government, it did nothing about it? Will Richard Baker also reflect on the fact that the traffic commissioner for Scotland, the bus service operators grant and the concessionary travel scheme are all forms of regulation?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

We introduced more legislation for regulation. In opposition in the previous session of Parliament, we proposed a further bill, which the SNP opposed. However, to judge from George Adam’s comments earlier, we can look forward to the SNP supporting Patricia Ferguson’s bill when she introduces it, because the party has indicated that it favours more regulation. On a UK level, we acted on the matter through the Local Transport Act 2008.

Elsewhere in the UK, more regulation is working effectively. We are also starting to see at least some bus quality partnerships in Scotland. We wonder why the SNP, having previously supported reregulation, opposes it so vigorously in government. The more cynical among us might wonder whether Mr Souter had a word in the SNP’s ear. As I am not a cynic, I will leave others to muse on that.

It is clear from increasing bus fares and the loss of key services that the Scottish Government is letting down bus passengers and communities across Scotland. We would have thought that a party that aspired to run an independent country would want to show that it could run the buses properly first—right now, it is not managing that. Most Scots would prefer the Government to get on with the job of ensuring that vital bus services are available when people need them, at a price that they can afford.

Kinship Carers

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01828, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on supporting families. As soon as Ms Baillie is ready to speak, she will have 10 minutes.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The debate is about kinship care—it is about the people who provide care for children in an extended family setting and the children who are cared for. According to the 2001 census, some 15,000 children are in that situation.

Some kinship care arrangements are formal—the children are deemed to be looked after by their local authority—but often the arrangements are informal and have been arrived at between families. In 2001, one in 10 looked-after children were placed in kinship care. By 2010, that figure had increased to one in five. Now, more children are in kinship care than in residential care. The number of children who are in kinship care is fast catching up with the number in foster care. We are not sure whether that increase is the consequence of a change in demand or of a better response to existing demand. Whatever the reason, the needs of the children who are cared for in kinship care arrangements cannot be dealt with on the cheap.

The underlying causes of children being placed in kinship care are remarkably similar to those of children being placed in foster care. The children might have experienced drug and alcohol addiction in their families, bereavement, neglect, abuse, violence or illness. It follows from those similar experiences that the children will have similar support needs.

In 2007, the First Minister recognised that position. In an exchange with Labour’s former leader Wendy Alexander, he promised to deliver funding so that kinship care allowances would match foster care allowances. That was a straightforward commitment—with no quibbling and no caveats—to provide £10 million to deliver that by 2011. I say three cheers to that.

I acknowledge that kinship care payments are at least being made in every local authority area, but the amounts that are paid and the criteria that apply vary hugely. In all but a handful of council areas, the disparity between foster care payments and kinship care payments remains stark. We need only look at the work that Citizens Advice Scotland has undertaken to see the truth of that.

To be frank, the Government’s amendment is churlish. As with so much of the Government’s approach, it seeks to blame everybody else. The Government says that the fault must lie with the previous Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive, although—incidentally—that Executive started the consultation on the need to support kinship carers in 2006. Perhaps the Scottish Government blames the United Kingdom Government. Now, it also wants to blame local authorities.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Not at this point.

I would be the first to recognise that there are issues to explore in the interaction of benefits and allowances that are paid to kinship carers, but that cannot be used as an excuse for inaction by the Scottish Government. Kinship care is firmly within the Scottish Government’s responsibility. It is devolved. The Government needs no more powers to do something to make a difference.

I commend the Scottish Government for taking our consultation and developing a strategy for kinship care in 2007. Then, that strategy enjoyed support across the chamber, as it does now. When the First Minister promised to deliver £10 million so that kinship care allowances would match foster care allowances by 2011, we were all delighted. That was the Parliament and the Government at their best—recognising need, putting in place the right strategy and providing the resources to back that up. A promise from the First Minister himself—it does not get much better than that. He promised to support the army of kinship carers who on a daily basis provide vulnerable children with safety, security and a loving home. We are now in 2012, and the First Minister and his Government have failed to deliver. Is the First Minister a man of his word or is he not?

So, exactly what happened? It would appear that the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities came to a new understanding. Let me be clear about this: I do not blame local government. It is for the Scottish Government to signal its priorities. It did so in the concordat, but then it downgraded that commitment. The Scottish Government said that the issue was not important to it any more.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Does Jackie Baillie acknowledge that we very strongly recognised the army of kinship carers by legislating for the first time to recognise them formally, which Labour failed to do during two terms in government?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I welcome the legislation, which enjoyed support among members on all sides of the chamber, but you promised the £10 million of support. The First Minister promised it. You then signalled to COSLA that it was not important any more. How can you take something that important and negotiate it away? Those children are among the most marginalised and vulnerable in Scotland today. What did you trade them for?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Indeed, Presiding Officer.

Was it the class size pledge, which was later to be dumped too? Was it something else? I am sure that all members in the chamber want to know what was more important than kinship carers.

Mark McDonald (North East Scotland) (SNP) rose—

Mike Russell’s letter to COSLA, dated 9 December 2009, is most illuminating. It stated that COSLA had made a “major and significant contribution” to that commitment—in other words, “You can forget about it now—you can use the money for our other, more pressing priorities”.

Mark McDonald rose—

The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Derek Mackay) rose—

That is what Mr Russell said. A promise that was made at the end of 2007 was dumped by 2009.

When we raised the subject of kinship carers at the start of the year, we were told that the Scottish Government had met all its commitments. It said that it had

“supported this with significant financial resources for local authorities.”

Those are the same local authorities that were told by the Government that they did not need to bother now.

On the same day came COSLA’s response, which challenged the Scottish Government’s claim that councils have been given significant resources. Already, the Scottish Government is trying to lay the blame elsewhere, but it has the responsibility and it needs to step up to the plate.

Mark McDonald rose—

Derek Mackay rose—

The poverty truth commission looked at kinship care and came up with a number of focused and reasonable recommendations that I sincerely commend to the minister. However, it was the words from Jessie—a kinship carer—that struck me most. She said:

“We’re saving the system £500 million a year and yet we are expected to just get on with it, with no recognition or help. It has been proven that kinship care is the best situation for these kids. In 6 years I have never known of a kinship child being taken into care ... early intervention most certainly works and if we can give them stability it would be in everyone’s best interest as these kids are the future”.

The Government should listen to Jessie—or listen to its very own Twitter queen, Joan McAlpine, who I am delighted is in the chamber. At a kinship care round table, she said:

“it is of great concern that there is a perception that the Parliament has not delivered: Parliament exists to deliver for the most vulnerable people in Scotland.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 17 January 2012; c 634.]

Indeed it does—and so does the Scottish Government. I hope that Joan McAlpine will not label me as anti-Scottish if I demand that the Scottish National Party does something for kinship carers.

Let us have an end to the postcode lottery. We need policies that are centred on the needs of the children who are cared for, access to social work, education, psychological and carers support services, and a fair kinship care payment that is on a par with that for foster care.

I will close with the words of my constituent Anne Schwartz, who is a kinship carer looking after three teenage grandchildren. She says:

“When I started caring for my grandchildren, my life was turned upside down. I lost my job. I felt like I was on my own, with nobody I could turn to for help. We face exactly the same challenges as foster parents, yet we do not get the same financial support or training. The fact is we are getting a raw deal from this government. Alex Salmond made us a promise—it is time he delivered on it. If he had made good on his promise back in 2007, I might have been able to keep my job and hang on to some of my savings. Children in kinship care face the same issues as children in foster care, yet there is a great disparity in that they cannot access appropriate services to meet their needs. At the end of the day, it is the children who suffer out of all of this.”

It is about time that the SNP put that right. The First Minister and his Government must deliver on his promise. If he does not deliver, we will know that he and the SNP Government cannot be trusted.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the crucial role that kinship carers play in supporting the most vulnerable children and believes that they should be supported financially at an equivalent level to foster carers; notes the commitment given by the First Minister on 27 September 2007 to fast-track £10 million to fund this; further notes commitments made by successive ministers for Education and Lifelong Learning and Children and Early Years that this promise would be met via the concordat with local government by 2011 at the latest; regrets that these promises to kinship carers and the people they care for have been broken, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that local authorities are provided with the funds to ensure that kinship carers are properly supported and that this promise is finally met.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I welcome the opportunity to debate the subject constructively, to set out the facts, to show my commitment as Minister for Children and Young People to all Scotland’s children, and to show my passion, which is shared by the Scottish Government, for caring for the most vulnerable people in society.

Last year, nearly 16,000 children and young people were being looked after by our local authorities. They are the responsibility of us all. I look forward to closing the kinship care conference in Perth on Monday.

The Scottish Government moved quickly in 2007 to publish our strategy, “Getting it right for every child in kinship and foster care”. In 2009 we introduced legislation that recognised kinship care and kinship carers for the first time, offering the chance of a safe, stable, nurturing home with the wider family. The introduction of permanence orders under the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 enhanced the chance of a child finding a permanent home with the wider family.

We should acknowledge that kinship carers are unique. They do what they do for love, not money. We recognise their incredible efforts and remain committed to doing all that we can do for them and for their children, and we understand the financial challenges that they experience. By working with our partners in local government we have made progress, and all local authorities are financially supporting kinship carers. We have also worked with the third sector on the provision of support and guidance for kinship carers.

The Government has made progress, but despite positive changes, in discussion with councils and the United Kingdom Government, we have not yet achieved enough. Despite our Government’s formal recognition of kinship carers, our efforts have been constrained by a UK benefits system that does not recognise kinship carers’ parenting role and even claws back existing benefits when allowances are received.

The Scottish Government secured changes in 2010 to mitigate that effect. Kinship carers can now be confident of receiving housing benefit and council tax benefit without any deduction. Allowances are now tax free, and some kinship carers are up to £50 a week better off. However, those are sticking plasters compared with giving kinship carers access to all benefits that are available to parents, such as child benefit and child tax credit.

Since 2007, the number of children in kinship care has grown more than expected. That is a concern for local authorities throughout Scotland. However, we know that kinship care is an effective care placement that offers scope for councils to provide a safe, supportive and nurturing environment for children and young people. To get the best from kinship care, we need to continue to invest.

Family support is fundamentally about supporting children and their parents, which is why we are developing a national parenting strategy. The strategy will be for not only mums and dads but grandparents and the wider family, as well as foster, kinship and adoptive parents. In other words, it will be for anyone who is involved in bringing up children. It will cover parenting of children of all ages, from the pre-conception stage, through early childhood, school years and adolescence to adulthood.

At the heart of our strategy will be recognition that all parents might need support from time to time, which will vary according to their circumstances. Our highly successful play, talk, read campaign is an example of action that we are taking to provide advice and support for all parents. The campaign’s aim is to promote the importance of positive interaction between young children and their parents or carers, from the very start.

Some parents will require more intensive support. It is vital that they receive such support, so that we can avoid negative cycles in which poor outcomes are perpetuated across generations. For young first-time parents who are particularly vulnerable, we have piloted the family-nurse partnership, which is a preventative, intensive home-visiting programme that is delivered by highly trained nurses.

The programme, which is being delivered exclusively to teenage first-time mothers, begins at the early pregnancy stage and lasts until the child reaches two. It takes a holistic approach to the family, focusing on different aspects at different points, based on the age and stage of the mother and the baby. The programme is based on a deep, therapeutic relationship between the mother and the nurse, leading to long-term positive outcomes for the family.

The Scottish Government has also shown its commitment to moving towards an early intervention approach through the creation of the early years task force, which comprises key children’s champions across Scotland. That important group will identify how best to drive further forward our key priorities on parenting, family support, play and early learning and childcare. We have announced funding to support care provision for looked after two-year-olds.

I take very seriously the concerns that kinship carers have raised. We have made efforts to improve what they do and how they do it.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am supportive of much of what the minister says. However, given the terms of our motion, will she tell us what she will now do to ensure that the SNP Government fulfils the First Minister’s commitment, so that kinship care allowances will match foster care allowances? That is what we want to know.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

As I have said, we have been working very hard with local government on the issue, and COSLA has agreed to deliver our manifesto commitment and the resources, given time. The Association of Directors of Social Work has been supportive of efforts to bring meaningful financial support to kinship carers, particularly in relation to the way in which support is delivered through the UK benefits system. We continue to lobby the Westminster Government to ensure that the UK benefits system recognises kinship carers as this Government has done—but as Jackie Baillie’s Government never did.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

No, I am going to move on. I want to make some progress.

I remind Jackie Baillie that despite having two terms in office the Labour Party did nothing to recognise formally this important group of carers. It took the election of the SNP Government and our legislation for that to happen. However, we are not complacent and we understand that more needs to be done.

It is unfortunate that this Parliament has no competence over welfare and social security, as that system is under threat from the coalition Government. We will continue to press for changes to the UK benefits system and to have kinship carers recognised as parents. Of course, with independence we will no longer have to lobby Westminster for progressive change to realise our country’s vision for a fair, equal and better society.

This Government is committed to ensuring that all families in Scotland receive appropriate and timely support based on their needs. That is what we continue to do through the getting it right for every child approach and our early intervention strategies.

Bringing up children is a hugely rewarding job, but it can also be the hardest job that there is. I have outlined the range of work that we are driving forward to support parents and families in order to break the cycle of deprivation and poor attainment for our children, with a focus on early intervention. We will continue to build on that as we move forward. I will remain committed to ensuring that the child is at the heart of all that we do.

I move amendment S4M-01828.1, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert:

“welcomes that substantial resources have been provided to local authorities to allow them to provide financial support to kinship carers; recognises that, unlike its predecessors, the 2007-11 Scottish administration acted to introduce regulations to allow financial support to be provided to kinship carers; supports wider efforts to empower families, including the development of a national parenting strategy, the Play, Talk, Read campaign and the roll-out of the Family Nurse Partnership; condemns the UK benefits system as not being fit for purpose as it penalises kinship carers and other vulnerable groups, and calls on the UK Government to fairly support kinship carers.”

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am happy to support Jackie Baillie’s motion, though I am sorry that this is the third time since 2007 that Labour has felt obliged to raise in Parliament the on-going lack of adequate support for kinship carers in carrying out their invaluable task.

Progress has undoubtedly been made—I do not think that anyone is denying that—and we hear from Children 1st, which delivers the national kinship care service, that there is evidence of good practice. However, Children 1st also states that support for kinship carers is still inconsistent and that carers are still having to fight for the support that they need and deserve.

The commitment by the SNP Government to put kinship carers on a par with foster carers with regard to financial support is still not being achieved across Scotland—I think that the minister acknowledge that—despite the promise that it would be delivered via the concordat with local government by 2011, which now of course has gone.

The Official Report of last week’s Education and Culture Committee round-table discussion on kinship care makes interesting reading. Not being on the committee, I read the report in full. Citizens Advice Scotland kinship care service said that

“kinship carers of looked-after children often feel like the poor relations of foster carers,”

and

“kinship carers of non-looked-after children feel even lower down the ladder of access to services and support.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 17 January 2012; c 610.]

The words of Tommy McFall, who has looked after his granddaughter for 11 years and who took part in that discussion, are worth repeating. He said:

“kinship carers do not want ... parity with foster carers ... We are arguing that the children we look after in kinship care should have parity, as the Scottish Parliament decided in 2007.”

He went on to say:

“I make a brief point about other support services, which we sometimes miss. We are talking about some of the most vulnerable and damaged children in Scotland ... I have heard people say that counselling and psychological services are available but, believe me ... support for these kids ... is not there”.

He also said:

“There are not enough support services, psychological services or counselling services out there ... When we talk about priorities, the most vulnerable children in Scotland should be at the top of our list of priorities and we should stop making excuses.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 17 January 2012; c 621-2.]

As we know, kinship carers play a hugely valuable role and give enormous, unquantifiable support to their families. They need support, they need respite and they need freedom from serious financial worries. The willing self-sacrifice of people such as Mr McFall gives many children a much better early life than they could otherwise expect and at a fraction of the cost, were the state to be providing their care. That must appeal to a Government that has preventative spend as its mantra.

We know that there are issues with the benefits system—there have been for a long time—but, rather than merely condemn it as not fit for purpose, in that it penalises kinship carers and others, I wish that the SNP, in its amendment, had taken cognisance of the fact that, in the discussions that have taken place on the Welfare Reform Bill, the Scottish Government has made representations to the Department for Work and Pensions on kinship care. Indeed, Nicola Sturgeon has spoken directly to Iain Duncan Smith about the issue, as was confirmed in evidence to the Health and Sport Committee by Neil Couling of the DWP, who said that ministers had been impressed by the case that had been made from Scotland. It is clear that what has been a long-standing matter of concern, not just under the current coalition, is being taken seriously and it is to be hoped that progress will be made.

We owe it to kinship carers to find a resolution to their problems. That needs to be done in a spirit of co-operation and without the political point scoring and grandstanding that we tend to see from the majority SNP Government—it disappoints me that we have begun to see a bit of that in this morning’s debate. The army of kinship carers in Scotland are not only saving their relatives and giving them the best chance in life, but saving the country huge amounts of money, and without them the system would collapse.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Will the member give way?

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am just finishing.

I just hope that the support that has been promised to them will be in place across Scotland before Labour feels the need to hold yet another debate on this important matter.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

We come to the open debate. Speeches should be a maximum of four minutes.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

I am delighted that Jackie Baillie was able to hotfoot it along here—I congratulate her on her endeavours last night with my friend and colleague in a walking on hot coals charitable event. It feels slightly as if we are doing that in the debate.

It is acknowledged that more can be done for kinship carers, but I want to congratulate Aberdeenshire Council, because in my discussions with the council, there has been a recognition that kinship care is extremely important. The council has taken the view of the national guidance in relation to payments for kinship carers, which, it states, should be in accordance with the payments for foster carers. When I discussed the matter with the director of social work, he agreed and acknowledged that there was more to be done. He would welcome further debate on how we can move forward on the issue, and I am sure that the minister will take that on board by holding further discussions with the ADSW and COSLA with a view to securing what I believe was an agreement, through the concordat, to make progress on payments for kinship care and to achieve a degree of unanimity.

Let us put the child at the heart of the debate. Kinship carers provide care that is fundamental for the young children concerned. It is much better that children are with kinship carers rather than in foster or residential care, but it is disturbing to realise that more children will require such care. We should, however, look at what has been done, and I believe that the Government has made progress, as others have agreed.

We have the national advice and support centre, which supports our kinship carers and enables peer-group support as well. We have the centre of excellence for looked-after children, which is still in its infancy but which I believe will make good progress and will become a place to which kinship carers can turn for assistance with providing the devotion and care that the children who rely on them require.

Nanette Milne made an important point: the emotional and psychological needs of some of our most vulnerable children need to be considered properly, and we need to ensure that they are given the support that they need. That is a matter for our local authorities, through social work, for our health boards and for our third sector organisations. I hope that, when we think about providing those services, we make sure that everything that can be done is done to ensure that a high priority is given to children in kinship care.

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

I assure the member that, contrary to what Jackie Baillie has been saying, in no sense has local government been told to ditch or drop any commitment with regard to kinship carers.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

Welfare reform will have a damaging effect on our kinship carers. Nanette Milne said that Westminster has taken the evidence from the Scottish Government and thinks that we have made a good case. What we require from the UK Government is a commitment to our kinship carers.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Kinship care should be of vital concern to this Parliament and to this Government, not least because the outcomes from kinship care placements are better than those from foster care.

It is quite clear that the First Minister’s promise in 2007 to match the foster care allowance has not been fulfilled. That is undisputed. Although, by 2010, most councils had started to make some payment, a new postcode lottery has been established, and COSLA is now saying that the full payments cannot be made. As Joan McAlpine—we seem to be quoting her a lot today—said:

“Financial provision ... is often inadequate.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 17 January 2012; c 634.]

The Government’s response is, once again, to shrug off its responsibilities and blame local authorities and the UK Government. In other words, as usual, it is everybody else’s fault. Meanwhile, there are 20,000 kinship carers providing care for some 15,000 children.

My biggest disappointment with Aileen Campbell’s speech is that she seemed to refer only to children who are looked after formally, when there is a larger group of children who are looked after informally, whose needs we must address as well. Many have a background of neglect due to drugs and alcohol. As with other carers, we rely on the good will of kinship carers and their sense of family responsibility. Indeed, I would say that we are taking gross advantage of their good will.

I will describe to the chamber the history of one such carer. June Cotier is 78 years old. Her 19-year-old grandson still lives with her, as he has done, along with his sister, from an early age. Like many kinship carers, she received those two children into her care without any warning. For many years, she received no support, training or advice. In particular, she received no advice about the likely damage to the children as a result of the loss of their parents.

Like other carers who have been discussed this morning, June had to give up work. She was not assessed—indeed, she was hidden—until she went to her general practitioner when she was having problems. She was, therefore, in the group of informal carers that I am talking about. The health visitor and the school must have known about her situation but, despite the report “Getting Our Priorities Right—Good Practice Guidance for Working With Children and Families Affected by Substance Misuse”, which was published in 2002 and the GIRFEC approach, which appeared in 2006, there is still no statutory duty on communication.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I entirely take on board the issues that Richard Simpson raises. However, in my speech, I talked about the national parenting strategy and interventions that we can make early on in order to support kinship carers, who, as a group, say they that need more than just money and that they need support as well. That is why we have commissioned Children 1st to run an advice service and give support to kinship carers.

We realise that professionals need to communicate issues to one another, and we are making efforts to ensure that early intervention is effective.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I listened to the minister’s speech, which she has just repeated. It is not an either/or matter: the £10 million for foster care should have been delivered.

Like many carers, June has no emergency plan and has never been offered respite. Kinship care is yet another area in which the Government bathes us all in warm words in order to create the mood music of a caring Scottish Government; for most kinship carers, the reality is a cold shower. In the spending review 2007, the Government promised a strategy and better support, including allowances and access to psychological and education services. The 2011 spending review does not mention kinship carers at all, and the carers strategy does not mention kinship carers.

What needs to be done? The GIRFEC requirement needs to be enshrined in law. COSLA and the Government should agree to fund allowances properly and fully. There should be new definitions to tackle the inappropriate divisions between formal and informal kinship carers, which should embrace both permanent and temporary placements. Every child placed in kinship care should be assessed, and every kinship carer should be offered assessment and an emergency plan.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The issues around school meals, school uniforms and respite must also be resolved. Above all, the First Minister’s promise should be kept—and kept now.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I welcome the debate. None of us would demur from the view that carers—not least those who care for dependent children—play a critical role, irrespective of the carer’s age or background. Despite the carping tone, I recognise and accept the integrity behind the motion.

I was not an MSP at the time, but I understand that, in 2007, there was an expression of sympathy with the view that the lot of kinship carers and others should be improved, and that, not long after, a positive announcement was made regarding the issue. No one can challenge the intent of the Government and SNP back benchers to support carers in general and kinship carers in particular, nor can we dispute the fact that the emotional experience of kinship carers is different from that of foster carers.

We believe that we are doing more to support kinship carers than was done previously. Do we want to do more? Of course. Investment has been and is being made to provide secure, long-term support for those carers. That security and support can best be exploited within the family and under the auspices of the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009.

However, the debate, once again, highlights the fact that our desire to achieve our overall objectives—which, I believe, are shared by Labour members at least, if not by many from the other parties—is thwarted by a funding and welfare system over which we have little or no control. Others argue that we are not meeting our “commitment”, but Citizens Advice Scotland has confirmed that 30 of Scotland’s councils are offering kinship care payments. Labour will argue—it has already done so—that access to financial support seems to be a lottery. However, we argue—and will continue to do so—that sufficient resources have been included in the total financial settlement for local authorities, based on the estimates of the number of kinship carers that we believe there are. Nevertheless, as Jackie Baillie stated, lack of knowledge of demand might be a problem.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member give way?

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

No. I have only four minutes.

The harsh fact is that a key sector in and key contributors to our society are being impacted on because we, in Scotland, have to fight for funding against a UK welfare reform agenda that flies in the face of the kind of society that we—and, I believe, Jackie Baillie and her colleagues—want.

We are working hard to improve financial support for kinship carers. We are working with, and will continue to work with, local authorities to change the welfare reform agenda. We seek to change the benefits system so that we can support kinship carers meaningfully. We have launched initiatives such as the national advice and support service and the others that the minister referred to. As Mr Robertson said, we also launched the centre for excellence for looked-after children in Scotland to improve outcomes.

Finally, I say to Jackie Baillie and the Labour Party: remove the shrug and share what we on these benches wish to see—I believe that by and large members on the Labour benches wish to see it, too. We should recognise that those shared objectives and outcomes will be achieved only if we can exercise full control over all the objectives. I support the amendment in the minister’s name.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

This is a hugely important subject and—this is not a criticism of anybody—I am sorry that we have only four minutes each to discuss it. It means that it is difficult to have anything resembling a serious discussion but, characteristically, I will try.

Uncharacteristically, I point out to Labour members that they are perhaps not on the best ground, having spent a long time doing precisely nothing. This Government has made some progress. More important, we have recognised that the issue is currently in the hands of local authorities. The list of local authorities and the payments that they make is in front of me, and my understanding is that most of the councils that make the poorest payments are run by members of the Labour Party.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I will, but let me say first that I think that Labour members have the option of convincing their councils to have a go, given that others seem able to succeed.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

There are both SNP and Labour councils that are performing well on the issue and SNP and Labour councils that are performing not so well. It would be silly for Nigel Don to trade on that.

In the spirit of consensus and given that we believe that kinship care is so important, will Nigel Don comment on why Mike Russell sold out kinship carers for smaller class sizes?

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The Minister for Local Government and Planning, who was leading a local council at the relevant time, has already refuted that point, and I do not think that I need to do anything more than stand by his comments. I merely make the point to Jackie Baillie that most of the worst councils seem to be somewhere near her party. I am sorry that—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

West Dunbartonshire Council—

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Jackie Baillie should just take the point. Labour members have some influence, and it would be helpful if they used it. I now want to make some progress.

I have time left only to reflect on what was said at the round-table discussion at the Education and Culture Committee a couple of weeks ago. As Alison Todd from Children 1st pointed out, the problems arise

“because the regulations and the legal system were not set up for kinship carers.”

Robert Swift subsequently commented:

“There is a complex interface between the benefits system and moneys that are provided by the local authority—one can impact on the other. The system is complicated.”

Mike Callaghan from COSLA said:

“Kinship carers have found that, once they receive allowances, other benefits have been taken off them.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 17 January 2012; c 611, 613 and 618.]

Those three comments sum up the context for kinship carers’ financial income. It is clearly very difficult for people to access the right sums of money. Obviously, it is also difficult for the local council to find its way through the system and provide a similar payment, other than by simply deciding that, regardless of a kinship carer’s benefits situation, it will use its discretion to make payments up to the level of the foster care figure. That is what I think those councils are doing—I do not see any other mechanism. I commend that approach to councils because that is what they have to do, although it seems crazy to me that they are in that position.

We are back to where most of us started in this debate: it is down to councils to do their job, but they are working in a horrible position given to them by Government. Some control over that Government intervention would not half help. The UK Government is going to mess around—and will continue to mess around—with welfare benefits, so it will be better when we do the lot, rather than leaving it to the discretion of the local council to sort out the mess.

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

I begin by stating my appreciation for the role that kinship carers play in providing a safe and loving home for some of Scotland’s most vulnerable children.

It is important to recognise that kinship carers take on responsibility for children who are the victims of circumstance and not of their own actions. We must also make it clear that kinship carers are often unaware that they will have to take on that responsibility. From my time as a care manager within social work, I am well aware of the situations in which kinship carers find themselves. There is often a knock at the door in the evening and a plea from social work explaining that if the prospective carers do not take responsibility for the child or children, they will end up in care. Although I have great admiration for the hard work of the care sector, there is no doubt that being doorstepped and being given an ultimatum such as, “Take the kids or they go into care” fosters fear in the would-be carer. The usual result is of course that gran, granddad, aunt, uncle, friend or relative takes the children in.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

Will the member take an intervention?

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

No—I have only four minutes.

If the carer has no supply of practical resources such as clothes or bedding, an already difficult situation becomes all the more challenging. We must increase support for the kinship carers who are quite literally left holding the babies, and we must finance and resource that accordingly. Adoption parents and foster carers have a process by which they make themselves available to bring children into their lives and their homes. Foster carers build up the experience of having to take in children at short notice, as well as building up the much-needed clothes and other essentials. The difference is that they can afford to build such stocks over time because foster carers generally receive more financial support than do kinship carers.

We must also acknowledge the impact on the health of kinship carers from the stress of having extra mouths to feed and bodies to clothe. One of the most important points to be made is that problems can arise because many carers might be unaware of the process that they need to go through to claim what they are currently entitled to. So, in providing the much-needed increased funds to local authorities, we must also encourage the development of a system that is relatively easily to access. Too many kinship carers already suffer additional stresses; lengthy bureaucracy is the last thing they need, want or deserve.

I am truly humbled by the people I have met who have become kinship carers—the friends, neighbours and family members of vulnerable children. They make an invaluable difference to the lives of children across Scotland. It is only fair that the support that they deserve be made available to them. I hope that members will agree and support the motion in the name of Jackie Bailie.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No one in the chamber would argue that the current situation is perfect in any way. We accept that a lot remains to be done. I speak as a member of Aberdeen City Council, which is one of the local authorities that does not yet deliver 100 per cent equivalence with foster carers. We have expressed an aspiration to achieve that, but I readily accept that we are not yet at that stage, and I accept what Jackie Baillie has contended: performance is mixed in Scotland’s local authorities.

However, it is the case that the four poorest-performing local authorities in terms of the amount that they pay are controlled by her party. If she is going to come here and make some sort of virtue of her and the Labour Party’s concern for kinship carers, she should also speak to the leaders of South Lanarkshire Council, Glasgow City Council, Falkirk Council and East Dunbartonshire Council, which are all paying £40 or less to their kinship carers.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am not going to take Ms Marra’s intervention. I have only four minutes to get through what I want to say.

It is not an excuse or a deflection to make the point that there are degrees of accountability and responsibility on the issue. Degrees of responsibility and accountability are held at UK level, at Scottish Government level and at local government level.

It is stretching the limits of credibility—Jackie Baillie is well used to doing that—to suggest that Mike Russell’s memo somehow says, “Job done. Now forget about it.” It says no such thing. Jackie Baillie might want to put that spin on it, but that is not what the letter says in any way, shape or form.

SNP members are often told that we attach too many strings to the funding that we give local authorities and that we put too many handcuffs on local government, but we are also told in relation to issues such as kinship care and the funding that is given to COSLA that we give local authorities too much freedom to decide their priorities. A little bit of consistency on that would go a long way.

The minster has rightly argued that, although the payments issue is important—I do not seek to detract from that in any way, shape or form—it is not the only aspect of the kinship care agenda. One key thing that the Government did when it took power in 2007 was give kinship carers the recognition that they previously lacked, which opened up other support mechanisms for them. For example, the kinds of advice and support that were readily given to foster carers or unpaid carers but were not available to the same extent for kinship carers are now available through organisations such as Children 1st and the citizens advice bureaux.

I reiterate that I do not think that any member would stand up and argue that it is mission accomplished in the kinship care agenda. That matter has been raised previously in this session. I think that Michael Matheson pointed out during the carers strategy debate that we agree that kinship care still requires a deal of work to be done.

In concluding, I simply pose two questions. First, has a lot been done? Yes, it has. Secondly, is there more to be done? Yes, there is. We all have a role to play in that, and I hope that we will play our roles constructively and consensually.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

As the debate has progressed, it has become clear that there is a degree of consensus in the chamber on this important issue. I think that we all recognise that kinship carers provide an invaluable service to this country and that, without them, our whole system would likely collapse. The objectives are shared.

As I said in my opening speech, and as Mark McDonald illustrated, progress has been made, but there is still a lot to be done. It has come out now and again in the debate that there is a risk of the blame game being played: that people will blame local authorities and that Westminster will be blamed. We know that there are issues; indeed, there have been issues with the benefits system, particularly with regard to kinship carers, for a long time and not just under the coalition Government. There have been issues with it for many Governments over many years. Labour started to look at the benefits system and at what could be done when it was in government, but the coalition Government has really taken the bull by the horns. I know that a lot of what it has proposed has been controversial, but Dennis Robertson should perhaps have a little more faith in Iain Duncan Smith and the coalition Government, which is genuinely listening. The point has been made to me quite forcefully that the coalition Government has really taken on board what Scotland has said about kinship care problems as a very good case. I accept that we must wait and see, and that we have not been given the pudding to eat yet, but we should watch this space instead of outrightly condemning what is going on in London, as the SNP has tended to do.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does Nanette Milne accept that the concerns are being expressed not only by the Government, but by a number of organisations and charities that work with care groups and individuals who receive care?

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have heard a lot of the arguments. Of course there has been a huge number of arguments, and the issue has been controversial. I am not a member of the Health and Sport Committee, which has taken evidence on the matter, but I have seen some of the papers, and it is clear that the issue has been controversial. However, we are not yet there with the legislation, and I foresee changes.

We have heard some thoughtful speeches. I say to Dennis Robertson that we should give the UK Government time to deal with the evidence that it has taken from Scotland and come up with its decisions. Richard Simpson stressed that the biggest group of looked-after children is informally cared-for children. He movingly described the experiences of his constituent June, who typifies a lot of what kinship carers tell us—that they do not get support, advice or training, that they have to give up work because they do not earn enough money to keep them going, that they have no respite, that there is no plan for them when things go wrong or when they become ill, and that they do not know where to turn for help.

Nigel Don always makes a thoughtful contribution—

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

Hear, hear. [Laughter.]

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have to say that, as he works in my region. He made some interesting points.

I see that I have already had four minutes and I have not said very much. I will have to wind up because I know that we are short of time.

It has been an interesting debate. It was not as controversial as I feared it was going to be at the outset. I hope that kinship carers will get what they deserve without a lot of political point scoring in the process.

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

I hope to continue the consensus, but I must set the record straight on a number of issues.

I begin by saying that I am dealing with a kinship care case as a constituency member, and I completely appreciate and value the contribution that kinship carers make. They save many children from the far worse circumstances that they would otherwise face. The Parliament is united in supporting kinship carers in every way we can.

In that regard, I turn to Nanette Milne, who said that the issue is about more than money. It is about support services and the range of support that is given to kinship carers, and not just about how much is received through the kinship care payment. Anyone who suggests that that is the only issue that kinship carers are interested in is well wide of the mark. We have to consider the issue in the round and look at the expansion of services and support that the Government has supported, including the national advice line and support services and a number of other measures that have been taken locally to support kinship carers.

On our approach to the UK Government, Nanette Milne said that we should give it more time. The regulations and legislation were put in place by the SNP Government, but it has taken five years for successive UK Governments to recognise that the SNP is putting an impressive case on carers.

Carers have waited long enough for welfare change that ensures that the payments that local councils make to them are not simply taken away on the other side through benefits clawback. Some progress has been made on some benefits, but there will still be difficulties because some kinship care payments that are made in some family circumstances will continue to be clawed back by the UK state. We should ask ourselves why we would let that be so. Why should we contribute to carers to help them to do what they do, only for the Tory Government to benefit from that compassionate contribution, which this Parliament supports? That is why five years is too long. We want the powers in this Parliament to deliver in full our compassionate policies. This is not about constitutional wrangling; it is about delivering for carers in an integrated and holistic way in this country.

Everyone has recognised that budgets for support to carers have not been slashed but have been increased, but demand for services for looked-after children—and for all children in need—has reached concerning levels, so we must continue to take an approach that ensures that we address the source of the problem. We can argue about the £10 million that was put into the local government settlement. It has not, at the request of local government, been for future years.

Let us talk about the £270 million on preventative spend that this Administration is delivering in partnership with local government to address the agenda of early intervention.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the minister take an intervention?

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

Jackie Baillie denied me twice. I will reciprocate on this occasion. On appreciation of kinship carers, she misquoted—

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

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

I will not, thank you. Jackie Baillie misrepresented the views that were expressed to COSLA by the minister. She also misrepresented Joan McAlpine, who said about kinship carers that the Government had achieved progress, and that further devolution of welfare powers to Scotland would also make a difference—yet more misrepresentations and misquotation from the Opposition.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the minister take an intervention?

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

No, I will not.

The Opposition either believes in local democracy—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It would be useful to reflect that the quotation was taken from the Official Report.

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

I am happier to accept Joan McAlpine’s version of what she said than Jackie Baillie’s.

Jackie Baillie said that the Labour Party is a party of its word and that it will do what it says. I checked the Labour Party manifesto for last year’s Scottish Parliament election for what it said about kinship carers. It said nothing of substance on the issue of kinship care and what the Labour Party would do. Jackie Baillie is probably right, therefore: Labour would be true to its word.

Shadow minister Neil Bibby will sum up the debate. Will he remind Parliament that when he was in Renfrewshire Council he voted against the introduction of kinship care payments when it was proposed by the SNP, and continued to do so?

Yesterday, in the budget debate, what did we hear from the Labour Party on such a serious issue? Not a word—not a penny towards kinship carers from the Labour Party and no amendments forthcoming to ensure that if payments were to be increased Labour would deliver. Labour either believes in local democracy or it does not. Mark McDonald is right. If Labour believes in local democracy and the importance of kinship care payments it would have to explain why the four worst authorities for kinship care payments are led by Labour.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the minister accept that those Labour councils are in the most deprived areas of the country, which is why payments are squeezed? Those councils are funding the SNP’s council tax freeze.

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

Oh. I see. That would be the council tax freeze that the Labour Party said it would continue for two years if it won the Scottish Parliament election.

Of course, local government has a greater share of Scottish Government funding than the share that was inherited from the Labour Party when we came into office. The Labour Party wants to face both ways on the issue. Where it is in control, it will not deliver. That has been the pattern. Elected members in the Labour group who are also councillors will say, quite happily, when they are back at their councils, “The Government shouldn’t tie the hands of local authorities in the financial settlement.” When Neil Bibby is in Renfrewshire Council, he says, “Don’t tie our hands. Don’t ring fence funds”, and when he is in Parliament he says, “Do tie councils’ hands. Do ring fence funds.” Such is the hypocrisy of the Labour Party’s contribution.

This is a serious issue. We will continue to listen on carers’ interests—on their financial and social position and their position with regard to their welfare benefits—and we will continue to invest in front-line social work services to ensure that the children of Scotland are cared for. Labour indulges in petty party politicking; we are delivering, and we have made far more progress on kinship care payments than the Labour Party could have dreamed of delivering, which is why I have been happy to set the record straight today.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Like other members, I start by paying tribute to the family members—mostly grandparents—who care for thousands of children in Scotland. When parents have difficulty caring for children, for whatever reason, family members often step in to provide a stable and loving home for children. As a nation, we owe those carers a debt of gratitude.

This has been a wide-ranging and robust debate, and members have rightly raised concerns about the lack of support for children in kinship care. Although some progress has been made, Scottish Labour secured the debate because of those concerns and because the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government owe children who are looked after by family members the same financial support as children in foster care.

In the debate on looked-after children, there was consensus in the chamber and we had a constructive and positive debate on how we must help some of society’s vulnerable children. However, in the space of two weeks, we have gone from unity on looking after those children to debating why we are not doing enough for children in kinship care. Ministers and SNP back-benchers have continually tried to bring this debate back to the question of what the UK Government has or has not done, but Labour’s motion is about a specific commitment and promise that the SNP made but has not delivered. It is simply not good enough for the SNP to pass the buck and blame Westminster and local authorities—especially when the power to help kinship carers lies with the Scottish Parliament, and particularly given that carers were sold out in 2009

“In return”—

as a letter from SNP councillor Isabel Hutton reiterates—

“for Councils agreement to a specific and enhanced commitment to reduce class sizes”.

As for ministers passing the buck and playing the blame game, the Minister for Children and Young People said that she will attend a kinship care conference on Monday. She should try to pass the buck and play the blame game there and see what response she gets from the kinship carers that this Government has simply let down.

We are raising these concerns because many of the children will be cared for by grandparents and will have experienced many difficulties in their short lives. According to the charity Who Cares? 24 per cent will have lived with abuse, neglect and violence; some will have been deserted by their parents, often because of drug or alcohol abuse; and 10 per cent go to grandparents after the death of a parent, which is often—again—because of substance abuse. ADSW suggests that the number of children who require care has increased in every year since 2001 because of parental substance abuse. Who is providing the solution? It is the forgotten army of grandparents and other family members who step in to look after and help the most vulnerable members of their families.

As members have pointed out, kinship care has a number of advantages. For example, children are able to live in a stable environment with people whom they know, love and trust and might even, where appropriate, be able to stay in touch with their parents. They can also stay at the same school and feel less stigmatised.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Does Neil Bibby agree that, regardless of any allowances that they receive, kinship carers ought to be entitled to child benefit and child tax credit?

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

We on this side of the chamber are concerned by the Conservative-led Westminster Government’s welfare reforms, but the motion that we are debating is about the specific promise that the SNP made in 2007 and which has not been kept.

We know the benefits of kinship care and the important factors for a child’s emotional and physical wellbeing, which include building their resilience, aiding their educational achievement and helping them to contribute to society. The thousands of children in Scotland who are being cared for by family members do not have to be found suitable homes by local authorities and, as a number of members have pointed out, their life chances are likely to be better than if they were cared for by the state. For those thousands of children, family members have changed their own lives and plans to ensure that their grandchild, nephew, niece or other relation has a better life.

The love and attention that families give cannot be costed, but Demos has reported that children in stable care situations cost society an average of £32,000 less per year than children who are in less stable placements or who shuttle between parental and foster care. There can be few better examples of preventative spend than spending on support for such families.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Will Mr Bibby elaborate on my colleague Derek Mackay’s comment that, as a Renfrewshire councillor, he voted against kinship care payments? Why are the kinship carers in Renfrewshire not worthy of that additional support?

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I cannot say that I supported every one of Derek Mackay’s budgets, which cut around £400 million from services in Renfrewshire. There were budget lines in other areas that I could not support; I will not go into them today, but I will be happy to do so on another occasion.

Many members have rightly raised concerns about the variations among local authorities. That is undeniable—many members have said it, the ADSW has said it, children’s charities have said it and it was backed up by evidence that the Education and Culture Committee heard last week. The poverty truth commission, which is supported by the Church of Scotland, has considered kinship care. It has called for an end to

“discrimination based on the legal status or postcode of the kinship carer”

and asked for all policies to be

“centred on the needs of the child and not the carer”.

The commission makes a number of important recommendations that we must consider in more detail, including a call for payments for kinship carers to equal those for foster care.

Labour members have asked the Scottish Government what it is doing for children who are in kinship care. On 27 September 2007, the First Minister committed to providing £10 million to fund financial support that is equivalent to that which is paid to foster parents. Successive SNP ministers have made further commitments that the promise would be met, via the concordat with local government, by 2011 at the latest. However, that is still not happening.

The Minister for Children and Young People said a lot of words about supporting children, but from what she said I am not sure whether she has dropped that commitment and is now not promising to deliver what her predecessors promised would be delivered. I would welcome an intervention on that. None is coming, so it is clear that the policy has been dropped.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

We are working with local government to ensure that kinship carers are given the support that they need. Kinship carers want additional support. They want guidance and they need help and signposting to the benefits that are available to them. We will make a robust case to the UK Government to ensure that the welfare system properly helps kinship carers in Scotland.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

We have still not got a commitment from the SNP Government. We have heard that we need more time, but the SNP Government has had five years to deliver on the commitment. Derek Mackay said that, in a couple of years, we will have an independence referendum, so we just have to wait another three years. In fact, the issue could be sorted out in three months if the Government put the money in its budget.

In correspondence with us this week, the Church of Scotland suggested that budget decisions are moral decisions. In 2007, the Government promised aid to kinship carers, who are often elderly people who make sacrifices to help children. They are not looking for massive sums, but simply for equality of treatment. What does it say about the SNP Scottish Government that it has not delivered on that promise? In London this week, the First Minister stated that Scotland is “a progressive beacon” for the rest of the UK, but that is clearly not the case on kinship care. Kinship carers, who are often grandparents and who look after our most vulnerable children with love and devotion, had their hopes raised by the SNP Government, but it has not delivered on its promises.

I recently heard a statement that I want to share with members, because we should listen to it:

“discrimination should have no place in Scotland in 2012. There is a responsibility on politicians to tackle the issue, to recognise the injustices and, I hope, to start to sort them out. I am by no means suggesting that you have a magic wand. Nevertheless, the starting point is December 2007, when the Parliament agreed an approach and the local authorities signed up to it. Does that mean anything? It certainly never materialised. In fact, the discrimination and the postcode lottery are more entrenched. I hope that you can recognise that and give justice to these kids.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 17 January 2012; c 633.]

Those are not my words, but the words of Tommy McFall—a grandfather who gave evidence on kinship care to the Education and Culture Committee just last week.

Children need kinship carers, as does society. Carers must be properly supported and treated with respect, equality and justice. That is why Labour calls on the Scottish Government to do the right thing and to heed what kinship carers, the poverty truth commission and the churches are calling for by providing equal support for care of equal value. Ministers can and should act to end an injustice. If members want to support kinship carers and the thousands of children whom they look after, they should support the motion in Jackie Baillie’s name.

Unemployment (Glasgow Provan)

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Provan)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive what action it has taken recently to tackle unemployment in Glasgow Provan. (S4O-00599)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Glasgow Provan is benefiting significantly from a range of measures in the Government’s economic strategy, including the introduction of 25,000 modern apprenticeships and the Government’s opportunities for all programme. In addition, Glasgow Provan is benefiting significantly from the £8.2 million of European funding that has been awarded to the Glasgow community planning partnership between June 2011 and 2013 to support local employability activity. Glasgow has also benefited from a range of other funds to support work on school-leaver destinations and other Scotland-wide initiatives.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Provan)

I refer the minister to the opportunities for all scheme, to which he referred in his answer. It offers a learning or training place to all 16 to 19-year-olds who are not already in work. I recently met a young constituent who is 17 years old, is not in employment and has been unable to access a learning or training place. What advice would the minister give to that young constituent and what action should he take?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government has made a commitment to deliver that support to all young people who are affected by lack of employment. We have said that every individual will have access to a training or education opportunity.

If there are particular issues with the access that Paul Martin’s constituent has had to any of the advisory services that are available through Skills Development Scotland, the Minister for Youth Employment or I would be delighted to receive details from Mr Martin and will address the issues to ensure that the young person in question is given the proper and full advice to realise the opportunities.

National Health Service Boards (2011-12 Financial Outturn)

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it expects the 2011-12 financial outturn of NHS boards to demonstrate that they have operated within their budget allocation. (S4O-00600)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

All NHS Scotland boards are forecasting that they will achieve all their financial targets in 2011-12. Those include operating within their revenue and capital resource limits and meeting their cash requirement.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

I am sure that the cabinet secretary is aware of the concerns that were raised about the ability of NHS boards to achieve that. I am also sure that the boards will raise with her on a number of occasions the increasing cost of drugs, which will be a significant budgetary pressure for them. Will she advise me what discussions she has had with her colleagues in the Department of Health in her Majesty’s Government on drugs procurement? Is she satisfied that the national health service, north and south of the border, is getting out of the pharmaceutical companies the best deal that it can get on drugs supply?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I assure David McLetchie that we have regular discussions with officials in the Department of Health about exactly those issues.

One of the good examples of how this Government continues to co-operate with United Kingdom colleagues—notwithstanding the fact that we are, in effect, independent when it comes to running the national health service—is procurement of drugs. For example, the vaccine for the recent swine flu outbreak was procured on a UK basis, because we recognise that we tend to get better deals by doing that.

There are continuing discussions about how we get value for money from the pharmaceutical industry while ensuring that patients get access to the best drugs and to new and innovative drugs. Those discussions take place regularly.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the Scottish Ambulance Service be provided with additional money in this financial year to implement the recently agreed deal on rest breaks, or will it have to operate within existing budgets?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I covered that point pretty squarely in my statement last week. I said that, this financial year, additional funds would be allocated to the Scottish Ambulance Service to assist it with, for example, the procurement of software that it needs to re-roster shift patterns to accommodate the arrangements that we put in place.

I also drew attention to the longer-term arrangements which—as I said last week—will lead to the employment of around 150 additional ambulance staff. That represents a continuing financial commitment of £5 million a year over and above the allocation that the Scottish Ambulance Service has had.

We will work with the Scottish Ambulance Service to ensure that it makes the changes as efficiently as possible, but I made it clear last week that implementing the arrangements will require additional support from the Scottish Government.

Insulin Pumps

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive when the Minister for Public Health will next meet the insulin pump awareness group Scotland to discuss the provision of insulin pumps. (S4O-00601)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I expect to meet representatives from the insulin pump awareness group Scotland and my colleague Humza Yousaf on 2 February.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

I am sure that the group looks forward to that.

Nicola Sturgeon recently announced a target of 2,000 people in Scotland using insulin pumps by 2014. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure equality of pump provision across Scotland, given that pump provision by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde falls way below the recommendation in guidelines?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

We recognise the clinical benefits that patients can receive from the provision of insulin pumps. In the past four years, progress has been made to increase the number of insulin pumps that are available. However, I acknowledge the concern that Hugh Henry raises about the inequity of distribution across health boards.

I will correct Hugh Henry: the cabinet secretary announced that by 2013—not 2014—we want to increase to 25 per cent the proportion of young sufferers who have access to insulin pumps, alongside an overall increase in insulin pump provision for people in other age groups. We are working on how we can ensure that boards make good progress in taking forward pump provision. In the next couple of weeks, I hope to announce how that will be progressed locally in health board areas.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister knows of my interest in the subject as a co-convener of the cross-party group on diabetes. Further to Hugh Henry’s point, I am concerned about provision of insulin pumps for young people; the minister will know that the level is at zero in some health board areas. What will he do to ensure that young people have equality?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

As I said in response to Hugh Henry, we are taking forward a range of work to put in place measures to allow the more equitable provision of insulin pumps across health boards. One aspect of the work that we intend to pursue will be to look at where boards are and at what further progress needs to be made in the next two years to achieve the target that the cabinet secretary has set. In the next couple of weeks, I hope to provide members with further details on how we expect health boards to take forward provision.

National Housing Trust

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive how many homes will be constructed under phase 1 of the national housing trust initiative. (S4O-00602)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Contracts for 614 homes have been signed under phase 1 of the national housing trust initiative and a further deal is being pursued. The first 16 homes are already complete in Stirling and have been let to tenants.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Under phase 1, only 12 local authorities moved forward. Five dropped out, which left only seven in place. The minister originally projected the construction of 1,025 homes, which appears to have been ambitious. Given that the figures show clearly that phase 1 was unattractive to the vast majority of councils and private developers, what evidence can he offer to suggest that phase 2 will not be a similar embarrassment?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The first piece of evidence is that more than half of Scottish councils have expressed an interest in going forward to phase 2. There is also the fact that the 600-plus houses that are being built under phase 1 are supporting about 1,000 jobs. As John Swinney said yesterday, for an investment of about £2 million by the Scottish Government, more than £100 million has been spent in the construction industry. That seems to be a productive use of Scottish Government resources. Given councils’ interest in phase 2, the initiative is likely to grow in the future.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Is the minister aware that in North Lanarkshire in March 2011, more than 17,000 households were on the waiting list for a council house and that 472 households were living in temporary accommodation? Given the scale of the housing shortage, how does the Scottish Government intend to help local authorities to meet the Government’s 2012 commitment on homelessness?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We are making a great deal of progress on homelessness. I think that seven authorities have reached the 2012 target and that many others are close behind. We intend to push forward with that.

There is no doubt that there are affordable housing supply issues. Of course, the Labour Party’s track record locally and nationally on building council houses shows why we face some of the problems that we face.

We have committed to building 5,000 new council houses in the next five years. That is starting to help to alleviate some of the problems and we will continue to build those houses. We will also continue to build affordable housing and affordable social housing, which will total about 30,000 homes over the next five years. That will certainly help to deal with the situation that Elaine Smith describes.

Colin Keir (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Western)

As a large proportion of the phase 1 homes will be built in Edinburgh, how many construction jobs will the phase 1 initiative support in that city and across Scotland?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As I have given the figures for the entire project—around 1,000 jobs will be supported—I will be happy to provide Colin Keir with the detailed figures for Edinburgh. I will also provide any other members who are interested with figures for the councils that are involved in the scheme in their areas. Against the background of a £1.3 billion cut in our budget, we must find other ways of ensuring that we provide those houses. The scheme offers an innovative way of doing that, and it is providing real houses for people who are now starting to use them, which must be a good thing.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Although I accept that some people in my constituency will benefit from mid-market rents under the national housing trust scheme, will the minister accept that the drive towards mid-market rents through the trust, which is caused by declining subsidies to housing associations, cannot be a substitute for social rented housing if councils are to have any chance of meeting their homelessness obligations at the end of this year?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

It is worth pointing out that many of the houses that are built under the national housing trust initiative will have rents that will be set well below housing benefit levels, which will be available to people on lower incomes. However, it is true that we must do more on social rented housing.

I have mentioned some of the constraints that we face, such as a £1.3 billion cut this year, and a 32 per cent cut over the next three years. As was mentioned in the debates earlier this morning, it is useful to keep that context in mind in considering what the Government is able to do. Against that background, I think that 30,000 affordable houses over a five-year period, including 5,000 council houses, is a pretty good start.

Scottish Agricultural Wages Board

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

5. I declare my membership of the trade union Unite.

To ask the Scottish Executive when the next review of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board will take place. (S4O-00603)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I plan to review the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board again in 2013.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As the cabinet secretary is aware, the Agricultural Wages Board in Scotland has historically benefited those in the agricultural sector and related industries by ensuring not only that wages and conditions keep pace with the national minimum wage, but that they have consistently been better, particularly for those under the age of 22. I seek an assurance from the cabinet secretary that the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board will be retained and that there will be developments that bring wages for agricultural workers in line with those proposed by the Scottish living wage campaign.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Clearly, I cannot pre-empt the 2013 review, but I recognise that John Wilson has a good track record on speaking up for the role of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board, which provides safeguards relating to the particular circumstances of agricultural workers in Scotland. The board also provides a useful forum for negotiations in an industry that is particularly fragmented. I have no doubt that John Wilson will make his views known at the time of the review.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

I note what the cabinet secretary says about not pre-empting the review, but will he confirm that there is nothing to prevent him from saying now in response to John Wilson’s question that the board will continue?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Nothing, apart from our manifesto commitment to review the future of the board in 2013, which I will stick to. We will listen to views from all parties in the chamber when we come to the next review of the board in 2013.

Khalil Rasjed Dale

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive what representations it has made to the relevant authorities regarding the kidnap of former Dumfries resident Khalil Rasjed Dale in Pakistan on 5 January 2012. (S4O-00604)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

We have spoken several times with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London regarding Mr Dale. Our thoughts are with Mr Dale’s family, and we urge those involved to release Mr Dale and return him to his family as soon as possible.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

I thank the cabinet secretary very much for his answer, because there was a flurry of media activity after Mr Dale was captured three weeks ago, but no information has been publicly available since then. His friends in Dumfries and Galloway are understandably extremely concerned.

I have been told that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not believe that it is in Mr Dale’s interest to release information at the moment. I can only ask whether the cabinet secretary can reassure Mr Dale’s friends that he will continue to do what it is in his power to do to ensure that Mr Dale is not forgotten and—I hope—to secure his release.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I can give Elaine Murray and her constituents—Mr Dale’s family and friends—that assurance. My colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs spoke to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office last week. These are deeply sensitive matters, and the FCO, those on the ground in Pakistan and the International Committee of the Red Cross are involved. I can assure Elaine Murray that all those involved have experience and a track record, and that those on site are doing what they can, but I appreciate the strain on the family.

Court Closures (Consultation)

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

7. To ask the Scottish Executive what recent discussions it has had with the Scottish Court Service in relation to plans to consult on the closure of courts. (S4O-00605)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Any proposals for the closure of court locations would be for the Scottish Court Service in the first instance and would be subject to public consultation and, ultimately, parliamentary approval. No decisions have been made at this stage.

Through the making justice work programme, the Scottish Government has had recent discussions with the Scottish Court Service regarding future court structures. I met Eric McQueen, the executive director for field services, on 15 December, to be briefed on the court service’s initial review of the options for future court structures. In addition, Scottish Government officials sit on the future court structures project board, which met most recently on 14 December.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the cabinet secretary share the concern of my constituents in Fife that although the Scottish Court Service says that it currently has no plans for court closures it is pursuing options to reduce the number of courts, and Cupar sheriff court and Kirkcaldy justice of the peace court have been identified for potential closure?

Does the cabinet secretary accept that budget cuts of 20 per cent and a significant cut in capital budget for the court service are driving such decisions? Will he rule out the widespread closure, as a consequence of the Scottish Government’s cuts, of a local network of courts throughout Scotland, which not only play a vital role in delivering justice in the communities that they serve, but provide crucial support for witnesses to and victims of crime?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The Lord President confirmed in his evidence to the Justice Committee on 1 November that consideration of the issue is at “the very early stages”. He went on to say:

“Implementation is some distance down the line.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 1 November 2011; c 391.]

No final decisions on closures of sheriff and justice of the peace courts could be taken without local consultation and, ultimately, the Parliament’s approval. We should take the Lord President, who is our most senior judge, at his word. We should accept that all matters are being looked at, given the financial difficulties in the service and indeed in every organisation north of the border because of the cuts from south of the border. Some people down south might see fit to ignore the advice of the Lord President, but elected representatives here should take our most senior judge’s word—if not necessarily as gospel—as having been given honestly and truthfully.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Before we come to question 8, I note that Mr Harvie has only just come into the chamber. It is a matter of courtesy to the Parliament and its members that members asking questions be here from the beginning of question time.

Money Laundering (Land and Property Transactions)

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

8. Presiding Officer, I apologise for coming into the chamber late.

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to prevent land and property transactions being used for the purpose of laundering money and other criminal activities. (S4O-00606)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The Scottish Police Service will bring charges against any individual, company or organisation that is involved in laundering money and will actively target the assets of criminals and criminal organisations who engage in serious and organised crime in Scotland.

The Scottish money laundering unit, which is based in the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, is responsible for conducting money laundering investigations. The SMLU is the single point of contact for the Scottish Police Service in the administration of suspicious activity reports, which are disclosed by financial institutions, accountants, lawyers and other members of the regulated sector.

Mr Harvie will be aware that we have brought forward proposals to strengthen the law in relation to land and property fraud through the Land Registration etc (Scotland) Bill, which will create an offence of intentionally or recklessly making a false or misleading statement to the keeper of the Registers of Scotland or intentionally or recklessly failing to supply material information.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that current rules on land registration do not require the registration of the true or beneficial ownership of land. Will he have a discussion with the minister with responsibility for the Land Registration etc (Scotland) Bill, to ascertain what changes can be made to the bill before stage 3 to ensure that we close loopholes that currently exist, in relation to criminal activity and the use of off-shore tax havens?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I am more than happy to have such a discussion. Work is going on in the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism’s department with regard to the remit of the bill. In my department, the serious organised crime taskforce and others are looking at the issue. The matter causes us concern and I agree with the member that action must be taken. I give an assurance that the Administration will, with the forces of law enforcement and Registers of Scotland, ensure that wherever possible we minimise the possibility of people being involved in criminality or fraud.

Engagements

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00430)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Later today I will write to all the party leaders in the Parliament and Margo MacDonald inviting them to round-table discussions as we take forward Scotland’s referendum consultation.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

We always welcome a sinner who repents and someone who pays attention to others within the chamber. I am absolutely delighted with that news. I believe that it is in the interests of the people of Scotland that we undertake that task together.

This week, of course, the First Minister unveiled the question that he wishes to ask the Scottish people in the forthcoming referendum:

“Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”—[Official Report, 25 January 2012; c 5603.]

Members: Yes.

Well, we know what you think. Can the First Minister tell members what he means by “an independent country”?

Members: Oh!

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I mean a country that is free to make its own decisions, which stands on its own two feet financially, which operates in co-operation with other countries in the world and which is not, on major policy issues, subjected to a policy direction such as the current attack on people with disabilities; that policy is not supported by the Scottish population.

I suppose that by independence I mean the normal status of some 200 nations across the planet.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The attacks on the disabled are coming from the Tories; they are not doing that because they are English. The First Minister must understand that the choice in this country is not between the Tories and separation; there is another approach.

The First Minister conceded this week, significantly, that in his version of independence the Bank of England would be the lender of last resort. Does that mean that John Swinney will bring his budget to not only this chamber, but the Bank of England to ask how much he has permission to borrow, what his fiscal policies should be and how much he can spend? The First Minister told us this week that he is an avowed Anglophile. Is he not taking that a bit too far?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will take those points in turn. First, Johann Lamont’s idea that we can somehow separate out the fact that, under the current constitution, Scotland not just sometimes but much of the time gets Governments that we do not vote for, is a great mistake. One of the great advantages of the right of self-determination and independence is that people get the Government that they vote for, not the Government that somebody else votes for.

I am not quite certain that monetary policy is Johann Lamont’s best subject, but I heard her deputy leader say on the radio this morning that if Scotland had a monetary union and the Bank of England was the lender of last resort, Scotland would lose the ability to set interest rates. I have news for the Labour Party: politicians lost the ability to set interest rates on 6 May 1997, when Gordon Brown declared the Bank of England independent. It is that separation between monetary policy controlled by the monetary policy committee and the Bank of England, and fiscal policy controlled by the chancellor that perhaps Johann Lamont wants to catch up on.

Independence would mean that the Scottish finance secretary would be able to set our taxes and to govern our spending. For example, at the present moment he would be able to provide capital investment to revive the Scottish economy.

I am delighted with these questions because they are exactly the nub of the debate that will persuade people to vote for independence in the referendum.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I bow to the expertise of the ex-Royal Bank of Scotland economist, who of course was so wise and sensible that he wrote to Fred Goodwin to urge him to buy the bank that nearly broke the Royal Bank Of Scotland. Perhaps some humility about our ability on the economy might be in order. The First Minister is telling us that he is content that the key decisions that will impact on people’s mortgages, savings and pensions will be made by a foreign bank with no remit to look at Scotland’s conditions and circumstances. Does he agree with his own chief economic adviser, Crawford Beveridge, that that is “not ideal”?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am not sure that Fred Goodwin is the strongest suit of the Labour Party. After all, I did not make him Sir Fred Goodwin—that was Jack McConnell—nor did I have him as one of my economic advisers—that was Gordon Brown.

When Johann Lamont has had the chance to look at my answer to her second question, I think that she will see the answer to her third question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not set interest rates any more—that has not happened since 1997, when the Bank of England was declared independent. It is quite interesting that the Labour Party was keener on independence for the Bank of England than it was on independence for its country of Scotland, but we will leave that to one side.

Such an arrangement is not uncommon in the world. There are some 67 countries that are in formal or informal monetary unions. That does not mean that they are not independent countries; it just means that they are in monetary unions. It has been suggested by some ex-Labour ministers such as Lord Myners that people in England might not wish to have that currency arrangement. Let us get it right. It is not possible to stop people using a tradeable currency—that was just a myth that was spread by the chancellor’s advisers.

I will give a couple of good reasons why I think that any chancellor would accept the idea of a currency union between Scotland and England. The first is to do with oil and gas. Scotland would get the revenues from our geographical share of oil and gas but, in addition, oil and gas provide £30,000 million of support for the balance of payments and therefore to the sterling area. Secondly, Scotland has international exports worth £24 billion, including £4 billion of whisky exports. Given the huge support that Scotland gives the sterling area, I believe that any chancellor would be biting off our hands to come to such a sensible arrangement.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

That comes to the nub of it—the First Minister hopes and believes that that will be the case, but it will not necessarily be so. The reality is that the people of this country want to have confidence in their pensions, their mortgages and their future.

We know that Alex Salmond thinks that he has the prescription for Scotland’s ills—it is the same one that he has had for the past 40 years. In that time, the world has changed and we have changed. We have the euro, the rise of China, the devolution of Scotland and technological revolution, but in good times or bad, feast or famine, high days and holidays, he always has the same answer—separation.

Is the truth not that the Scottish National Party’s push for separation, rather than being about people’s savings, their mortgages or their pensions, is about the First Minister’s blind faith that things will be better because he says so? Why is he prepared to take unnecessary risks with people’s mortgages, their savings and their pensions in the midst of the worst global economic crisis since the 1930s? There is no good reason, because political separation will mean that we will have less economic control to serve the people of this country.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am glad that Labour is living up to the boast that it will argue a positive case for the union.

When it comes to who is aware of developments in the modern world, the nub of the issue is that, over the past few decades, the number of independent countries in the United Nations has grown from 50 to 200. If we are talking about the tide of history, I would have thought that the tide of history was moving towards the status of independence. Since the second world war, 50 of those countries have become independent from London and, you know what, not a single one of them has applied to get back under London control.

Scotland would emerge as an independent country with the sixth highest wealth per head of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. That, in itself, is not the argument for independence—the argument for independence is self-determination—but given that we would be the sixth most prosperous country in the developed world, most people in Scotland will have some degree of confidence in our ability not just to survive, but to prosper as a socially just, economically progressive society.

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00417)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I wish the secretary of state a speedy recovery from his current ailment, and I hope to meet him next week to discuss the details of the Scottish Government’s consultation, “Your Scotland, Your Referendum”.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

Yesterday, the First Minister finally brought a little bit of clarity to some parts of the process of the referendum. Today, I hope that we can agree that we need slightly more clarity than we have just had on a number of substantive principles upon which the people of Scotland will vote.

The First Minister repeatedly asserts that he wants independence so that the Scottish Government can have all the economic levers at its disposal, yet he has just obfuscated when answering questions on that issue. He now maintains that he wants to keep the pound—that he wants to leave the United Kingdom but remain part of the United Kingdom currency union, which means that an independent Scotland will have its interest rates set by the Bank of England. Does he accept that when the bank sets interest rates it considers the whole of the United Kingdom, but that it would be unlikely to give Scotland a second thought after independence, which would leave Scotland with less control?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

If the Bank of England is so concerned for Scottish economic conditions, perhaps the Conservatives will turn their attention to the fact that, as far as I know, there is not one Scot on the monetary policy committee and only two employees in the whole of Scotland. The basis on which a monetary union is constructed is that we would have influence in the same way as is allowed by other monetary unions. We have no influence whatsoever at the present moment.

I bring Ruth Davidson back to the nub of the point. When the Labour Party, in Government, decided on a policy of an independent monetary authority—a policy that was subsequently agreed to by the Conservatives—it gave away any ability of politicians to control interest rates. It has to be said that that has been a continuing trend across the developed world since that period. The idea that politicians in London control interest rates is now totally fallacious. There are many advantages for both Scotland and England in having a currency union. I point out that this is not a new idea. It has been in Scottish National Party documents for a considerable time.