Scottish Parliament, 15 March 2012

336 contributions from 75 members. The official report.

Childcare

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02338, in the name of Liam McArthur, on childcare.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As Liberal Democrat education spokesman since last May, I have had the chance to participate in debates that have covered most aspects of how our education system is performing, and its strengths and weaknesses. The debates have been useful, productive and—in the main—consensual. However, I am conscious that we have not, as yet, brought the same attention to bear in scrutinising how childcare is provided. I am pleased that Scottish Liberal Democrats are this morning helping Parliament to atone for that sin of omission.

The debate could not be more timely. It follows the recent publication by Children in Scotland and the Daycare Trust of their report “The Scottish Childcare Lottery”. That detailed comparative assessment of provision of childcare across the United Kingdom provides plenty of food for thought. It also delivers a stark message—despite the First Minister’s pledge, which he gave again at the weekend—that we are some way short of being able to claim to be matching the best anywhere in Europe. The findings underline various issues that appear to be specific to Scotland and confirm that, in a number of respects, we lag behind the rest of the UK.

That is worrying. High-quality childcare—including nursery, childminding and out-of-school care—can play a key role in supporting our children’s learning and development. Especially in the early years, as Children 1st reminds us in its briefing for today’s debate, that can be pivotal in determining a child’s life chances. Meanwhile, for parents, access to affordable high-quality childcare is often crucial to enabling them to return to, or to remain in, work.

What are some of the key findings from the report? Children in Scotland and the Daycare Trust have established that there are significant gaps in the availability of childcare in Scotland. According to their report, only one fifth of Scottish local authorities indicate that they have enough childcare for working parents. The feedback also suggests that there are specific problems in relation to provision for older children—another point that Children 1st raised—as well as for families in rural areas and those with disabled children.

Where provision is available, childcare costs to parents are among the highest in the UK. Although average nursery costs are slightly lower in Scotland, the average cost for childminders and after-school childcare is higher. In England and Wales, childcare fees in local authority nurseries have largely converged with those in the private and non-profit sectors, but that is not true in Scotland: fees in private and non-profit sector nurseries have been found to be nearly £25 per week more than in nurseries in the maintained sector. It is difficult to understand why that discrepancy exists or why it is so pronounced in Scotland.

There are also geographic variations in childcare costs across Scotland, which are far larger than the variations that are found elsewhere in the UK. For example, out-of-school clubs in the most expensive areas of Scotland charge almost twice as much as those in the lowest-cost areas, while for childminders the difference is more than 70 per cent.

In the light of those findings, I do not suppose that Children in Scotland and the Daycare Trust had to work terribly hard to come up with a title for their report—to all intents and purposes, there is a postcode lottery. The high cost of childcare in some areas, the big variations in costs between private or non-profit providers and local authority controlled ones, and the significant gaps in supply testify to failures in managing the childcare market.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Taking all that into consideration, how will the move by Mr McArthur’s party, as part of the UK Government, to withdraw tax credits from 73,300 Scottish families, help to make childcare more affordable for them?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am grateful to Mark McDonald for again coming up with the standard stump speech from Scottish National Party members about things for which they do not have responsibility, but I will return to my point, because it is about a concern that has been expressed.

For the reasons that I set out, the authors of the report conclude that the Scottish Government and many local authorities are failing to meet the objectives that are set out in the early years framework. Even the First Minister has been forced to acknowledge the problems. On 1 March, he declared that

“We should determine, unitedly, to address”

the

“wide divergence in the cost and availability of childcare in various parts of Scotland.”—[Official Report, 1 March 2012; c 6834.]

Absolutely, we should. However, the sentiment is hardly honoured by the Minister for Children and Young People’s amendment this morning, which cannot even bring itself to note “with concern” the report’s findings.

The Minister for Children and Young People (Aileen Campbell) rose—

I am not sure what message that sends to the authors of the report or to those who are struggling day and daily with the problems that the report clearly identifies. Perhaps the minister would like to suggest what the message is.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

With all this negativity, will the member not at least try to concede that we should welcome the bold and ambitious target that the First Minister has set for the wellbeing of the children of our country?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am being accused of negativity by an SNP minister. Now, there’s a thing.

If we are to answer the First Minister’s plea for this united front to be successful, surely we need to recognise where others are leading the way, be prepared to learn lessons and be willing to follow suit. I fully accept the Government’s view that there will be places across Europe where such good or better practice can be identified, but Ms Campbell must not allow nationalistic myopia to blind her to what is on our doorstep. I have lost track of the number of times when I have urged Scottish ministers to look at the benefits that are being delivered through the pupil premium, which is targeting resources at the children who most need them and is enabling schools to put in the additional tailored support that is most appropriate in each instance. Save the Children, among others, points to what a similar system in Scotland might achieve. However, the mere fact that the pupil premium is being taken forward by the coalition Government south of the border means that it is dogmatically rejected by Scottish ministers.

Even when it admits to supporting a UK initiative—for example, the youth contract—the SNP Government seems to be reluctant to advertise the fact. In the case of the youth contract, which can make a real difference by creating meaningful opportunities for young people to access the work or training that they need, such muted support from the Scottish Government is totally counterproductive, but it is part of a pattern. The nationalist narrative simply cannot tolerate the suggestion that the approach that the UK coalition Government is taking might be more generous or more effective.

In England and Wales, duties are outlined in the Childcare Act 2006 that require local authorities to secure sufficient childcare for working parents and those who are studying with the intention of returning to work. In Scotland, no such legislative requirement exists. “The Scottish Childcare Lottery” reports that, while local authorities in England are undertaking three-yearly assessments of childcare supply and demand with annual updates, the picture in Scotland is mixed. Some councils are carrying out detailed studies, but in the case of at least eight, there appears to be no collection of data on childcare supply.

The minister states in her amendment that the Government will work with the early years task force, local authorities and others to deliver improvements. That is a sensible approach, but we need to acknowledge the extent to which there are still serious blind spots in our understanding of the problems that exist. A failure to understand even basic childcare supply and demand means that local authorities are not able to intervene effectively in childcare markets in order to address gaps, which is a key component of the framework.

The Scottish Government will point to steps that it is taking, and that is fair.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I accept that there are issues for the Scottish Government to look at in the forthcoming legislation, including Liam McArthur’s suggestions about what is happening in England. However, does he accept that the biggest issue of affordability relates not just to the number of parents who are losing tax credits but to the reduction of the cap on childcare costs from 80 to 70 per cent?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am well aware of the concern that Mr Chisholm reiterates. However, the £300 million that has been invested in the childcare support element of universal credit will extend access to childcare support to a further 80,000 families. There is a mixed picture. I certainly hope that UK ministers will keep that under review.

At the weekend, perhaps in anticipation of this morning’s Liberal Democrat debate, we heard the First Minister promise

“the best package of free nursery education on offer anywhere in the UK”.

It is to be delivered through legislation that will entitle every three-year-old and four-year-old to 600 hours of pre-school nursery provision a year. Although that might be welcome, it follows a similar promise by Mr Swinney in 2007, that the SNP Government would deliver 570 hours of nursery provision to the same group by 2010. While those 570 hours are currently enjoyed by three-year-olds and four-year-olds in England, in all but two council areas in Scotland, the figure is 100 hours less than that.

Interestingly, Bronwen Cohen, the chief executive of Children in Scotland, has warned that even the new commitment from the First Minister might do little to help working parents who are trying to negotiate between childcare and pre-school providers. In The Scotsman yesterday, Ms Cohen stressed:

“In the early years, care and education are indivisible. Treating them separately has led to considerable inequality in accessing services, contributes to high costs to parents for childcare and means that some families cannot make use of their child’s entitlement to pre-school education.”

In essence, those are precisely the symptoms that are exposed in the Children in Scotland and Daycare Trust report.

The First Minister has also pledged additional support for looked-after two-year-olds and children who are in foster care. Again, Ms Cohen highlights that, although that is undoubtedly valuable,

“it is markedly less generous than what is being offered in England and Wales.”

In England, investment is being made in 260,000 childcare places for 40 per cent of two-year-olds from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. That entitlement to 15 hours a week of free early education represents a £380 million commitment by the UK Government. In Wales, the flying start programme is making similar headway. Those programmes offer examples of where lessons could be learned and of approaches that could be adopted here. Sadly, when the SNP casts its eyes south, it is invariably to condemn, as its amendment does this morning.

I recognise that concerns have been expressed by Malcolm Chisholm, in Neil Bibby’s amendment and elsewhere about the impact that changes to the childcare element of working tax credit might have on low-income families. That should be kept under review, but it is clear that the changes that are being introduced under universal credits will see 80,000 families in the UK, including many in Scotland, receiving more support with childcare. The removal of the requirement that recipients work a minimum of 16 hours per week, as well as the £300 million investment, will be welcomed.

Children in Scotland and the Daycare Trust have provided invaluable insight into the challenges that we face in ensuring that access to affordable high-quality childcare in this country matches the best in Europe. In addition, their report identifies a number of areas in which we lag behind the rest of the UK. That may offend nationalist sensibilities to such an extent that the Scottish Government cannot bring itself to express concern about the report’s findings, but I hope that, in working through the early years task force, SNP ministers will be prepared to learn lessons from what is happening elsewhere in the UK, and that we will start to see the more joined-up approach to education and care that parents, children and those who are involved in the sectors wish to see.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that access to affordable, high-quality childcare supports children’s learning and development and enables parents to return to, or remain in, work; notes with concern the recent report, The Scottish Childcare Lottery, which found that there are very significant gaps in the availability of childcare in Scotland, childcare costs are among the highest in Britain and that there is greater geographic variation in childcare costs in Scotland than in any other part of the UK; believes that, while some local authorities have worked hard to ensure sufficient childcare in their areas, much more work is needed from the Scottish Government and local authorities to ensure that families have access to affordable, integrated pre-school and childcare services in every community matched to an assessment of local demand, as is required by the Early Years Framework; is also concerned that Scotland is lagging behind England on entitlement to free pre-school education, and calls on the Scottish Government to respond to the concerns about availability and costs raised in The Scottish Childcare Lottery report, to ensure that the objectives of the Early Years Framework are met and to set out the steps that it will take to increase childcare support in Scotland in order to match the best elsewhere in Europe.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I am proud to open the debate for the Government, because it comes after the First Minister’s hugely important announcement on childcare at the weekend. The children’s bill that will be introduced to Parliament next year will contain a statutory guarantee on provision of more than 600 hours of funded early learning and childcare for every three and four-year-old and for every looked-after two-year-old in our land. Make no mistake—that is a highly significant step. It represents the best package of free early learning and childcare anywhere in the UK. As the Minister for Children and Young People, it is for me an honour to demonstrate this Government’s firm commitment to our nation’s future. It represents another step forward in our aim of making Scotland the best place for children and young people to grow up in.

The early years are a key priority for this Government. We know that, for parents and carers who are juggling work and parenthood, the availability of high-quality, flexible and affordable early learning and childcare is vital, and is essential to improving the life chances of Scotland’s children.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Given the commitments that were made in 2007, and to which Mr McArthur referred, why has it taken so long to get to this stage? When will the Government’s package be implemented?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

We are committed to making improvements to the life chances of children across Scotland and to introducing potential legislation next year. We will work with local government to ensure that all people across the country get the level of provision that we aspire to provide.

The fact that more than 600 hours of funded early learning and childcare will be provided is great news in itself, but the First Minister’s announcement was about more than hours and numbers. Key to our ambition of implementing a transformational change in Scotland’s delivery of early learning and childcare is flexibility. We want to ensure that provision can be accessed in ways that meet the needs of parents and families. We are heading on an ambitious and bold journey, and local government and other partners will have important parts to play as we work together to deliver our vision for high-quality, flexible and affordable childcare across the nation.

In addition to the offer of extended early learning and childcare provision, we will work with the early years task force and we will use its wisdom and expert knowledge to build a clear picture of current provision and to identify any gaps. I am happy to confirm that we will go further: in June 2012, we will convene a national business summit to explore new ways, including the promotion of childcare vouchers, of incentivising and encouraging more flexible working in the private sector to make it easier for parents with young children. We will develop a series of public-social partnerships, or PSPs, which will cover a range of specific childcare issues on which I believe more action is required. Those issues include parents who are on low incomes and/or in poverty; parents and carers who work shifts; out-of-school care, including holiday clubs; families who live in rural areas; and outdoor and nature kindergartens. PSPs represent a partnership approach to service development once an issue, such as childcare for shift workers, has been identified. PSPs will give all partners an opportunity to test new services and to evaluate them before tendering for delivery. The Scottish Government is promoting the PSP approach through the sector generally and we will, in the coming weeks, discuss with our local partners the best way to progress PSPs. I am sure that that approach will bring huge benefits to design and planning of local childcare provision in the specific areas that I have mentioned.

The Daycare Trust and Children in Scotland report “The Scottish Childcare Lottery” has made a significant contribution to the childcare debate. Although the report highlights that costs in Scotland are high, I emphasise that they are not the highest in the UK and that, in many cases, increases in costs in Scotland have been smaller than those south of the border. I also acknowledge the report’s raising of issues to do with the sufficiency of childcare and variation in costs across Scotland. I will ensure that those issues are investigated by our early years task force and local partners.

The Government will not rest on its laurels when it comes to taking action to improve the lives of Scotland’s children and families, and we are setting out the steps and actions that we need to take to improve early learning and childcare provision in Scotland in order that we match the best in Europe. High-quality early learning and childcare are vital for parents and children. For parents, they can provide a route out of worklessness and an opportunity for increased access to rewarding careers, and there is a wealth of evidence relating to babies and young children, perhaps most notably the effective provision of pre-school education—or EPPE—study to tell us about the benefits of high-quality early learning experiences. That is why the Government is committed to increasing the range of flexible and affordable high-quality early learning and childcare provision.

We have already announced an additional £4.5 million to provide early learning and childcare for all looked-after two-year-olds in Scotland, and a further £4.5 million to promote community-based solutions to family support and childcare from April this year.

I have outlined the range of work that we are undertaking to develop flexible and affordable childcare provision, but there are limits to what we can achieve to support parents with the costs of childcare while most of the levers for doing so remain reserved. We should contrast the Scottish Government’s actions and aspiration for a Scotland that is the best place to grow up in with the regressive welfare reforms by the coalition in London. I have huge concerns about the impacts that those reforms will have on our children and families.

We think that it is right that people should be supported into work, but the coalition’s welfare reform agenda is leading to a number of arbitrary budget cuts that will have damaging impacts on individuals and families in Scotland. As Malcolm Chisholm mentioned, the UK coalition Government reduced the cap for the childcare element of the working tax credit from 80 to 70 per cent in April last year. “The Scottish Childcare Lottery” report cites Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data that estimate that that represents an average cut of £531 per year for families in Scotland.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Would the minister be interested to hear that, at the Welfare Reform Committee meeting the other day, not one of the groups that represented civic Scotland had a good word to say about the Tory-Liberal Welfare Reform Act 2012?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Annabelle Ewing raises a very good point, to which Liam McArthur should pay close attention.

We have committed to increasing early learning and childcare provision by more than 125 hours per year, but the coalition Government is, in effect, cutting working tax credit provision for the most vulnerable people by 80 hours. There will also be changes to child tax credit from April this year: the income threshold will be lower for most people. The changes mean that 84,900 families with children in Scotland will no longer be eligible for child tax credit. That will affect 118,700 children across Scotland. We are taking action to benefit 120,000 children across Scotland, but the Tory Government, supported by its Lib Dem coalition partners, is introducing cuts that will impact negatively on 120,000 children across Scotland.

Ordinarily, I would welcome the fact that the Lib Dems’ motion suggests that they are concerned about childcare, but unfortunately I cannot forget their failure to stand up for children and families in Scotland. We all know that the Lib Dems are in a coalition Government at Westminster, but they must not shirk their responsibilities. They will not pull the wool over the eyes of ordinary Scottish families, whose household budgets are being plundered by the coalition.

It is plain that having control of tax and welfare systems could help us to deliver real changes to early learning and childcare provision in Scotland. I joined the SNP in order to create the country that I want my child to grow up in—a country that has social democracy at its core, and fairness and equality as its hallmark. I am glad that we are taking decisive action now to improve the life chances of children in Scotland before the referendum.

I move amendment S4M-02338.2, to leave out from “with concern” to end and insert:

“the issues raised in the recent report, The Scottish Childcare Lottery, regarding cost, sufficiency and variation of early learning and childcare in Scotland; welcomes steps by the Scottish Government to address these issues, including the commitment to legislate to increase the amount of free nursery provision from 475 hours to a minimum of 600 hours for all 3 and 4-year-olds and all looked-after 2-year-olds; further welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to work with the Early Years Task Force, local authorities, parents’ representatives and childcare providers to consider how best to deliver increased and flexible provision, identify more clearly provision across Scotland and to learn from the best provision elsewhere in Europe, and condemns the UK Government’s proposed welfare reforms that will have a detrimental effect on thousands of families across Scotland and have a negative impact on their access to childcare.”

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I thank Liam McArthur for introducing the debate, and pay tribute to childcare providers in Scotland, such as North Edinburgh Childcare, which I visited last week, and which does excellent work.

Childcare is close to the Labour Party’s heart. One of the first acts of the 1997 Labour Government was to establish a childcare strategy; that was closely followed by a Scottish childcare strategy. There were three aims: to expand early education, to improve the quality of services through regulation and inspection, and to ensure accessible and affordable childcare for parents who need it. We did that through effective legislation, co-ordinated and joint working with colleagues in local authorities and Westminster, and targeted funding.

However, it is clear that there is more to do. “The Scottish Childcare Lottery”, which has been published by the Daycare Trust and Children in Scotland, should be a wake-up call to all of us on the demands that face working parents. It is obvious that the cost of childcare is a major issue for Scotland. We have charges that are the highest in the UK: in three of the five categories of childcare costs, the Scottish average is more expensive than the cost in England and in four of the five categories, the Scottish average is more expensive than the cost in Wales.

We will work with other parties to deal with the issues but, in doing our job, we must express concerns about the lack of action from, and the actions of, the Scottish and UK Governments.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Will Neil Bibby welcome the commitment that the First Minister made at the weekend to 600 hours of free early education and childcare?

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I thank the minister for raising that issue, to which I will come shortly.

Parents in Scotland are being hit by a double whammy. They are, first, being hit by the Conservative-Lib Dem UK Government cuts to working tax credits, as we have heard. The cut in the maximum support that is available through the childcare element of the working tax credit from 80 to 70 per cent of costs means that the average claim has fallen by £10 per week, which is costing low-income working families who receive the credit more than £500 a year. That is affecting more than 1,000 children and parents in my area—Renfrewshire—and thousands more across Scotland.

Parents are also being hit by the SNP Government’s failure to live up to its promises. I welcome the announcement that the First Minister made to his party on Saturday about increasing free nursery hours for three and four-year-olds, just as my colleagues welcomed it five years ago, in 2007. The lack of progress since 2007 is simply not good enough. For the hard-pressed families of Scotland, I hope that he means it this time and that we can reach the levels of childcare and nursery provision that are available in England and Wales.

The First Minister likes to give speeches about the Scottish Government being a progressive beacon for the rest of the UK, but that is clearly not the case on early education and childcare. A number of questions need to be answered. How much will the policy cost? What resources will be given to local authorities? What rights will parents have to flexibility? Will there be consistent teacher-led input, which is currently unavailable? I hope that the Minister for Children and Young People can give us more details on those matters.

As children’s charities tell us, one rehashed or recycled policy—no matter how good—will not deal with the problems that parents face with childcare. We need a more integrated pre-school education and care system. I am pleased that our childcare providers and national organisations are learning from childcare regimes elsewhere in order to invigorate the sector in Scotland.

We need a Scottish model of childcare, for which my colleague Hugh Henry and other members called in the members’ business debate on childcare in September. We need to move that forward; we need a Scottish model that recognises that families and children have different needs and that different services are best placed to meet those needs. We need to find a way to support people in the voluntary and private sectors to meet local people’s needs, to identify gaps and to provide services. We need a system that supports mixed-economy providers but does not nurture gaps in their funding.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I remind Neil Bibby of my announcement about engaging with the third sector to identify gaps. Will he welcome that move, if not the 600 hours?

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Absolutely, I will. As I said, we need to engage with children’s charities and national organisations, so of course we welcome that.

We need a model in which every child has access to childcare, regardless of where they live or who is in power. We need adequately funded out-of-school services that provide good-quality activities for children and young people, and which are led by well qualified and committed staff. We need to ensure a Scottish model of childcare in which costs are reasonable and under which parents know that their children are well cared for, staff are reasonably rewarded for their work and high level of knowledge, and children receive high-quality care.

Most of all, we need a Scottish model that is supported by a Scottish Government that sees childcare as important and as an issue of equality and fairness, and which funds childcare adequately and delivers it promptly. We need a Scottish Government that keeps its promises.

I move amendment S4M-02338.1, to insert at end:

“, and regrets that the UK Government’s changes to Working Tax Credit will impact on low-income families’ ability to pay for childcare costs.”

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Presiding Officer.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I apologise, Presiding Officer.

I thank the Liberals for bringing the debate to Parliament. Nobody in any political party in Parliament doubts how important the subject is. The evidence is overwhelming about early intervention of whatever sort for the health and social wellbeing and the educational achievement of any child. It is important that we debate the matter and take it extremely seriously.

The Liberal motion rightly points to regional variations in supply and costs of childcare. We agree that that is a very difficult situation that needs to be addressed. Childcare costs in Scotland are not only among the highest in the United Kingdom, but are the most variable. The recent Daycare Trust and Children in Scotland report that has been referred to stresses how difficult that is, and that we are at the high end of cost and variability.

It is equally unacceptable that there is not so much flexibility in the system, so there is not enough choice available to parents in how they spend their entitlements. Why do I say that? If it is correct that only a fifth of local authorities have adequate facilities for parents who work full time, that is a serious hindrance. Instead of choice being about when and how to spend entitlements, it becomes about whether to work or have childcare. Naturally, that has serious consequences for some parents, especially lone parents.

It is too often the most disadvantaged children who do not get what they are entitled to. That can put untold pressures on the family budgets of the very poorest families in our society, which is why it is so important that we target early education support and care at those who stand most to benefit.

“Making Work Pay—The Childcare Trap” outlines the problems in the starkest detail. It says that 59 per cent of parents who are living in poverty said that they are no better off working and paying for childcare, compared with only 19 per cent of those with incomes over £30,000; that parents in poverty almost always have to go without buying some essentials to pay for their childcare; and that a quarter of parents in poverty have had to give up work, a third have had to turn down a job and a quarter have not been able to take up education or training because of the difficulties in accessing childcare.

I do not think that anyone could argue that this is not an important time to be discussing the current childcare arrangements, particularly against the backdrop of so many other changes to social and welfare policy. The traditional structure of family life has changed beyond all recognition in recent decades, not least in respect of the fact that far fewer people are working in conventional 9-to-5 jobs. As a result, it is important to ensure that those who work unconventional hours are not disadvantaged.

I am extremely conscious of the extensive criticisms of some aspects of the Westminster Government’s welfare reform, including the child benefit part of the proposals, which I am on record as having expressed reservations about in the chamber. The concerns are sufficient for the coalition to review some of the details, but the principle of universal credit—which is to ensure that people are better off in work than they are on benefits—is the right one. Nonetheless, in conjunction with that, there is a need to reform the childcare entitlement to provide additional support.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Liz Smith uses the phrase that the solution “is the right one”. Can she equate that with the report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that shows that the coalition’s changes to the welfare system will increase the number of children in the UK who are in absolute poverty by 500,000 by 2015 and by 800,000 by 2020? How can that be the right solution?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What is right is the principle that it is better to be in work than on benefits. I fully accept that the coalition needs to revise details of its policy and I think that it has admitted that there are aspects that it must revise.

That is why we are interested in the ideas that are being promoted by lain Duncan Smith south of the border about the possibility of charging for childcare services by the hour rather than by the block. That makes it much easier for childcare to be more flexible and more affordable, in the sense that parents would not have to pay for care when they do not need it. It is about flexibility as well as about the number of hours; that is the important thing that can drive forward the policy. I hope that we can engage with the Scottish Government on that principle as well as we can on the others.

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

I think that we all agree that supporting children in their earliest years gives them opportunities for learning and development that make a huge difference for the rest of their lives, and the SNP recognises that that needs to be integrated with good quality, flexible and affordable childcare in order to enable parents to work.

We are here for families: that is the SNP’s clear message to parents. The First Minister’s announcement of 600 hours per year of funded early learning should have been welcomed with a bit more enthusiasm by the Opposition parties. The increased provision will be flexible, and will help to support parents who are seeking employment, while giving children the best start in life through increased learning opportunities. It is important that it will be enshrined in legislation, which indicates—in my view—the Scottish Government’s commitment to the future of Scotland’s children and their families.

We know, however, that more needs to be done. Childcare provision is not uniform, and it is not affordable in many parts of Scotland. “The Scottish Childcare Lottery” says that, but while the Scottish Government is trying to address the issue, we have the UK Government—of which the Lib Dems are part—ploughing ahead with welfare reforms, thereby increasing pressure on families and raising the cost of childcare. I really cannot understand why the Liberal Democrats chose to lodge the motion.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does Margaret Burgess accept that the extra £300 million that we are putting in through universal credit for childcare support is a positive thing?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

What I accept is that through the Con-Dem Government people have lost out. Last year in North Ayrshire, 1,200 families lost an average of £450 a year. Incidentally, the cost of nursery provision there is 63 per cent of the average cost in England.

Child benefit has been frozen, and increases in other work-related costs—for example, for travel—have meant that many people have had to give up work. The Con Dems have not finished yet, because—as we have seen in the Save the Children report—the impact of universal credit will be that many of our poorest families will lose up to £68 a week. Again, it is mainly women who will be affected. In addition, in Save the Children’s online poll 56 per cent of mums said that the main thing that is preventing them from working is the cost of childcare.

The report that the Liberal Democrats refer to in their motion came out of the wider “Childcare Costs Survey 2012”, one of the key recommendations of which was to increase

“the proportion of costs which can be claimed under the childcare element of Working Tax Credit ... to 80 per cent, with a higher rate of 100 per cent for families on the lowest incomes and those with disabled children.”

The survey warns the UK Government that the decision to cut tax credits will mean that some families are no longer better off going to work, once they have paid for childcare. The survey’s authors state that

“it is sheer folly that any parent has to leave work because they cannot afford to pay for childcare.”

It is amazing that the Liberal Democrats have picked out some of the details, but not the bits that they do not like. They have a bit of neck asking for more affordable childcare here when their colleagues in Westminster are driving up the cost of childcare in Scotland and the rest of the UK.

When the Scottish Parliament has control of the tax and benefit systems, we will be able fully to realise our ambitious vision for children and parents. We will be able to provide the wraparound service that is needed, by integrating early years education with affordable childcare, thereby ensuring the very best for our children and supporting parents by guaranteeing that work pays.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Today’s debate is timely. We have spent a lot of time talking about the impact on families, but I believe that the debate is clearly about the economy: it is about the impact of the lack of flexible working and of childcare opportunities on families’ ability to engage economically. I think that all of us here in the Scottish Parliament aspire to see families do that.

In the past couple of weeks, we have had debates on the living wage and on in-work poverty, and in almost every contribution in those debates affordable childcare, flexible working or high-quality employment came to the fore. The debate today is one of many that we need to have about the type of work and employment opportunities that we want, so that our young people and their families are given the best possible chances.

I declare an interest as someone who has been a working parent, and I remember some of the real challenges that I faced. When my first daughter was born I was not able to drive, which is an indication of how many times I have failed my driving test rather than how young I was at that time. Finding suitable childcare when I had a very rigid working pattern was a real issue. I know that that is a challenge that a number of people face, particularly those who are in blue-collar employment who go into the workplace at a set time and are expected to perform until a set time while trying to balance all the other things that go on in their lives.

It is not just people in blue-collar employment who face difficulties. A constituent of mine in west Fife, Alison Johnstone, sent me an e-mail in October. She is a working mum with a six-year-old son. She has a masters degree in chemical engineering and is studying part time for a masters degree in managerial leadership, and she works in the public sector. Along with her husband, she wants to put in place flexible arrangements so that they can jointly bring up their kids and spend valuable and meaningful time with them, while also keeping their careers going. That is difficult, and involves negotiation and discussion that even someone on that career path with those qualifications is finding very difficult. Childcare is a key issue that affects every part of the economy. It affects those who are trying to get into work, and it affects blue-collar workers and professionals. We must bear that in mind.

I am sure that other MSPs received yesterday a copy of a Joseph Rowntree Foundation report that clarifies some of the issues in a sophisticated way. Flexible working is an issue for employers because of the wider economic pressures that they face. The reality of flexible working for smaller businesses in Scotland—95 per cent are small or micro—can be difficult if they do not have the capacity to deal with it, so that is another challenge.

I was pleased to hear the minister say that she is intending to bring people together to talk about childcare opportunities, particularly in the private sector. I believe that there is a role for the public sector in that regard: the Scottish Government, the national health service and other public bodies must take the lead by saying, “Here’s how we’d like to do things with our employees”. It is important that the private sector follows that lead.

I reiterate that childcare is a key economic issue, and I am pleased that we are debating it today. I hope that we get a positive outcome.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

It takes a brass neck for the Lib Dems to come to the chamber to complain about the affordability of childcare while they vote in coalition with the Tories at Westminster to remove tax credits from more than 73,000 families in Scotland and, as Malcolm Chisholm rightly pointed out, to decrease the amount that can be received for childcare costs from 80 to 70 per cent. That will have a detrimental impact on working families and single-parent families in Scotland.

Liz Smith said in reply to the cabinet secretary’s intervention that it is better to be in work than on benefits. These people are in work: they receive tax credits because they are in work. The policy that is being pursued by Liz Smith’s party—the Conservative Party—and the Liberal Democrats in government at Westminster is harming working families. These are not well-off working families; there is often a misconception that only the well-off will be affected by the changes. We are talking about any lone-parent family that earns more than £26,000 per year, and any two-parent family that earns more than £32,000 per year, which would be two people earning around £16,500 each—that is well below the national average. Those are the people who will be harmed by that policy and who will find it all the more difficult to afford childcare as a result.

I class myself as a parent first and a politician second, and the issue of affordable childcare is close to my heart. I have often spoken to other parents about it when I have been picking my son up from nursery or playgroup. I am well aware of the pressures that people face in finding affordable childcare. The difficulty is often not with the childcare that councils provide but with private sector childcare, and I think that the Government recognises that that must be addressed. We have to try to work with private sector partners wherever possible to ensure that they are delivering affordable and accessible childcare.

Although no one will deny that we need to consider such issues, I think that it is excellent news that the Scottish Government is increasing funded nursery provision for three and four-year olds and looked-after two-year-olds to 600 hours per week. I am pleased that Mr Bibby welcomed the announcement in his usual charitable fashion, neglecting to mention that, in the previous session, this Government increased provision 20 per cent and in doing so benefited 100,000 children in Scotland.

That is not the only area in which we have a positive story to tell. We have not only delivered increased provision in free nursery education but invested £10 million in the early years early action fund and the child poverty strategy, which sets out how we will tackle child poverty; developed the BA course in childhood practice, which 1,000 students are taking; and supported local implementation of the early years framework. In my home city of Aberdeen, through the 3Rs—or reorganise, renovate, rebuild—schools project, we have developed state-of-the-art facilities, including the fantastic developmental nursery at Seaton, which is delivering for some of the most vulnerable youngsters in our city. That is a positive story that we can tell.

Mr McArthur should not stand up and say, “All you get from the SNP is negative, negative, negative.” We have an extremely positive story to tell and we will continue to tell it to the people of Scotland, who have recognised as much. After all, we have 68 MSPs and the Liberal Democrats five—or should I say four? Clearly, having to stay for the entire debate and hear exactly what his party is delivering was just a little bit too much for Mr Scott.

We have a positive story to tell, which we will continue to tell, and the people of Scotland will respect that.

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

All I can say is that the SNP has had a long time to tell that story. We are still waiting and, given what its partners in England are doing, we will still be behind.

As a working mother with three children, I sincerely welcome the debate. I know all too well how difficult it is to find high-quality, affordable childcare and certainly realise how important it is not just for the kids but for their parents. Our children benefit from the early socialisation and learning that often come from being in childcare, as they can start to form relationships and have new experiences there. Parents, too, benefit from being able to allocate time for work or education.

I am pleased that Liam McArthur’s motion calls on both the Scottish Government and local authorities to work to provide more access to affordable childcare. In Glasgow, where the Labour council was the first in Scotland to provide funded childcare for three-year-olds, work on that can already be seen. At the moment, children get 15 hours of such childcare a week, starting at the beginning of the term after their third birthday, and the city’s Labour council has pledged that, if—I mean, when—re-elected in May, it will expand provision to ensure a funded childcare place for every child at the start of the term in which they turn three. That move will benefit an additional 7,000 children.

Such positive and progressive policies are needed more than ever, given that the cuts that are being pushed through by the coalition Government at Westminster will take thousands of pounds from working families. We are moving closer to the changes in working tax credits, and I am sure that we will all have heard the concerns that were expressed this week by Save the Children about the effect of the changes on working parents. There is no doubt that, for those families, the already difficult task of securing quality childcare will be all the more challenging. I was concerned by the comment of one Glasgow parent, who said that, as a result of the changes,

“It’s a case of either heating or food—one or the other”.

I find that worrying, because it shows that some families are being squeezed so much that childcare does not even feature among their priorities. Worse still, it is not only one Glasgow parent who should be concerned about these changes; in that city alone, they will directly impact on almost 4,500 children. The changes might leave working families with only two options—work more or incur debt—and I fail to see how either will help them to deal with the childcare situation.

I am glad that Liam McArthur’s motion recognises a number of the issues that working families in Scotland face when it comes to childcare acquisition. Those issues need to be addressed now. However, we also need to realise the impact that benefit changes will have on our hard-working families, so I ask members to support the amendment in the name of Neil Bibby.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

In welcoming today’s debate, I declare an interest, in that I am a father of a pre-school-age daughter.

I thank the Liberal Democrats for bringing the debate to the chamber. I can tell them that ensuring more affordable childcare is an issue of cross-party concern. I secured a members’ business debate on the subject last year, to which Neil Bibby referred earlier. It would be churlish of me to begin my speech by pointing out that no Liberal Democrat members took the time to take part in that debate. People might conclude from that that their interest is not as sincere as they claim. However, in the interests of consensus, I will not make that point.

Mark McDonald made a point that I want to reiterate. The record of the SNP Administration is a good one. We heard the announcement at the weekend about the increase in nursery provision for three and four-year-olds and looked-after two-year-olds. That builds on the increases that there have been in free nursery provision over the past few years. We have an Administration that is determined to focus on the very early years. Through the early years change fund, which is overseen by the early years task force, the Scottish Government will contribute £50 million to a total fund of £270 million over the next four years, which will strengthen support for children and their families. The record of the SNP in government is a good one.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Will Jamie Hepburn acknowledge that I have welcomed the announcement that the First Minister made at the weekend? Will he also acknowledge that there is concern in the chamber that a similar announcement and pledge was made by John Swinney in 2007—it concerned a rise to 570 hours of nursery provision—but there has been no progress on that over the past four years?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

That is not the case. There has been an increase in nursery provision over the past four years of this SNP Government. Free nursery provision has risen by 20 per cent, benefiting 100,000 children. Perhaps Mr McArthur would like to get his facts correct.

I welcome the publication of “The Scottish Childcare Lottery”, to which the motion refers. It is always useful to have that type of inquiry casting more light on to the circumstances around childcare. I know that some concern has been expressed about the higher cost of childcare in Scotland, and I accept that there is legitimate concern. I know the difficulties that many families face when trying to bear the burden of childcare—I can speak to that from my own experience, and I can only imagine the difficulty that some other families have. However, saying that childcare costs are higher in Scotland than they are elsewhere in the UK is not telling the whole story. I am sure that Liam McArthur has read “The Scottish Childcare Lottery” carefully and has noticed that table 1 says that nursery costs are lower in Scotland than they are in England. Table 2 shows that, in the past year, the average cost of nursery provision for under-twos in England went up by 6.7 per cent while, in Scotland, it went up by only 1.9 per cent and that the average cost for nursery care for over-twos went down in Scotland while it rose 5.1 per cent in England. It is important to put that on the record, as that tells more of the story about childcare costs.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Do I have time to give way, Presiding Officer?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

You do not.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I would have gladly done so otherwise.

It is a bit rich of the Liberal Democrats to bring this debate to the chamber. I am glad that they have done so, as it enables us to put some facts on the record. However, in my constituency, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, which is in North Lanarkshire, HM Revenue and Customs has sent out notices informing 6,000 families that they are losing child tax credits. How will that make childcare more affordable?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This has been a helpful—if rather short—debate because it is perhaps more focused than our debate on early years last September, not least because each party is beginning to put more beef on the bones of its policies and, no doubt, because the debate down south about the discrepancies between north and south of the border, whether or not that is controversial, has sharpened our awareness of exactly what needs to be done in other policy areas as well as in this one.

Liam McArthur was right to refer to the interesting contribution by Bronwen Cohen, the chief executive of Children in Scotland, in The Scotsman yesterday, in which she argued for a more articulated approach to be taken to care services and education, as keeping them separate, she believed, has been one reason for inequalities developing in access to care. In turn, she argued, that has led to increased costs and to more parents opting out.

Bronwen Cohen had the interesting and perhaps challenging message for the Scottish Government that its current policy is not sufficiently ambitious when it comes to the overall perspective. I am sure that the minister would be interested in pursuing further discussions on that.

Most important, Bronwen Cohen argued that the promise of 600 hours a year—which, obviously, is more than the 570 hours in England—is all well and good but does not do as much as it should to provide greater choice for parents. That is why we, the Conservatives, are arguing strongly that the choice factor is just as important as the number of hours.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

On that point, I made it clear in my opening remarks that we recognise that this is not just about numbers and hours but is about transforming the provision of childcare services and offering flexibility to parents. That is why we want to think carefully about how we approach the delivery of 600 hours.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is good to hear. However, I return to what Bronwen Cohen and others are saying. It is not so much about the quantity of care as it is about its quality and flexibility.

Like all the other parties, Conservatives believe that investing in a child’s early years is pivotal. It is beneficial for their future emotional, intellectual and social development. We look forward to hearing many more details from the Scottish Government about the timing and content of the legislative process and about how it will engage with local authorities, private providers and the stakeholders who use childcare services. It is good to hear that the minister will soon convene a conference with business about some of that provision.

I am more than happy to welcome the 600 hours, even if it is a recycled manifesto commitment. Some would say that it did not succeed the first time because of costs within local authorities. Some uncharitable commentators would even say that it was because of the cost of class size policy. Notwithstanding that, I welcome it. Again, though, I come back to the fact that it is about not just the quantity but the quality. Such is the overwhelming evidence of the benefits of a good start in life that we probably all agree about the priority that should be afforded to this policy area. Again, that is why we welcome the Liberals’ decision to use their business time to debate the issue.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

As I said in my opening remarks, Labour is committed to high-quality childcare and early education. That was evident in our expansion and development of nursery education and childcare, in our introduction of a robust regulation and inspection regime, in our support for workforce development, in our introduction of a graduate level profession and in our initiatives of the working families tax credit and the minimum wage.

Scottish Labour saw and continues to see childcare as a major priority policy area because we believe that it is a major issue of equality and fairness—equality and fairness for hard-pressed families and for women who want to or need to work but who rely on the support of good-quality childcare to do so. John Park made a number of good points about that.

For parents who need assistance in caring for children, some with additional needs, and for children themselves, it is important to provide a safe place and a stimulating environment in which children can grow and learn and experience opportunities and events that they otherwise might not have.

As Anne McTaggart said, Labour-led Glasgow City Council is already showing the way on this by offering 15 hours a week of nursery provision and pledging to expand its provision to children before they turn three. That will benefit thousands of young children in Glasgow. Glasgow City Council is showing what can be done and should be commended for doing so.

We recognise—as many members have done this morning—that early education and care are inseparable. That is why we moved to give pre-school education grants to childcare services providing early education and care as part of our commitment to children and families. It is not just in the early years that childcare has expanded; out-of-school care for older children is essential for working parents. That, too, grew under Labour but, as the Daycare Trust and Children in Scotland highlight in their recent report, we need to do more to increase the availability of that care, particularly for children with additional needs.

We need action that will support children and their families, not make it harder for them. I therefore hope that the Conservative-Lib Dem UK Government will reverse its cuts to working tax credits, which are wrong and shameful, as they will have a devastating effect on thousands of low-income families. I also hope that the SNP will meet its pledge to increase nursery provision to 600 hours.

The SNP stated:

“We will increase the provision of free nursery education for 3 and 4 year olds by 50 per cent. That means increasing the entitlement from 400 hours a year to 600 hours a year.”

That is on page 51 of the 2007 SNP manifesto. Despite Mark McDonald’s suggestion that a 20 per cent increase is a great achievement, what the SNP promised was a 50 per cent increase. I hope that we have a 100 per cent implementation of the SNP’s latest announcement and do not deem a 20 per cent increase to be acceptable. I also hope that we receive more details from the minister about how the SNP will deliver on its pledge, how much resource will be given to local authorities and whether there will be consistent, teacher-led input across the country.

I hope that the Government will look again at childcare and nursery provision for babies and children under the age of three. Under Labour, the surestart scheme provided nursery places for vulnerable two-year-olds, but the SNP scrapped that in 2007 and has taken five years to announce a new initiative. We welcome the support for places for looked-after two-year-olds, but we also need support for other vulnerable two-year-olds who are not looked after and support for vulnerable children under the age of two.

As I said earlier, I welcome children’s charities and childcare providers looking to innovations in childcare regimes elsewhere to see how we can further improve childcare provision in Scotland. We need a Scottish model of childcare that supports the different needs of children and families and which ensures that every child has access to care, no matter where they live. We need a Scottish model in which parents will know that their child is receiving care of a high quality. We also need a Scottish model that celebrates and learns from the excellent work that is done in our childcare centres and which learns from other countries but does not follow slavishly practice in countries and contexts that are far removed from the reality in Scotland.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

We need a Scottish model of continued regulation of services and staff. Urgent action is needed to help families by providing childcare across Scotland for children of all ages.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I welcome the overall tenor of the debate, even if parts of it have been disappointing. I got a slight shock when I turned round in my seat and saw the four Liberal Democrats present. I was reminded of the remark by Donnie Stewart about the Tories in Scotland. He compared them to the buffalo—gone are the days when they roamed the landscape in great herds, but there will always be one or two dotted about. There the Liberal Democrats were—four of them together. Tavish Scott could not stay, however. He had to go away and tweet about the debate from outside the chamber, which seems a strange way of contributing to the Liberal Democrats’ business, but there we are. I am sorry that we are down to a single Tory. The buffalo analogy applies again, although I would never be so ungallant as to refer to Liz Smith in that way.

I will inject a sense of reality into the debate and ask one or two questions that need to be answered. When the SNP came to office in 2007, only 400 hours of childcare a year per child was being delivered in Scotland. Who had been in government at that time? It had been the Lib Dems and Labour. Who then increased the number of hours from 402.5 to 475 almost immediately? It was the incoming Government, the SNP. Who has been faced with unprecedented cuts from Westminster, first from Labour and then from the Tories and Liberals? It is again the SNP Government. But who still has the ambition to go further? Who, despite those difficulties, is planning ahead and is going to put it in legislation? It is the SNP Government.

No one could doubt that we need to do more; no member has disputed that. However, I have listened to the debate for the past hour and a half and have heard only one set of proposals or costed plan, and that has come from the SNP. Therefore, I hope that, when people listen to this debate, they realise that the people who have the commitment, the intention and the purpose, and who are in government, are the people who are serious about the issue.

Other members are concerned, and I respect that. Liz Smith’s contribution was important; we should absolutely deliver the flexibility that she asked for. John Park also made a good contribution. It is not just about flexibility in terms of the delivery of a number of hours in blocks; it is about responding in a transformational way to changes in the world of work and to the differences in the ways that families live their lives, and ensuring that we underpin that. We will certainly do so. I say to John Park that Aileen Campbell’s announcement about PSP trialling is an important one. It will look at, for example, rurality and shift work and develop a pattern of activity that will suit Scotland.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome that approach, which is the right one to take. The experts on the ground should give us ideas on how to proceed. Will the trial results be published? Will there be an opportunity to debate them in the Scottish Parliament?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Absolutely. Mr Park knows that I am a great fan of transparency. There is a need to publish the trial and to involve others. I say, quite genuinely, that we need to engage others who have an interest in the subject. Mr Chisholm is serving on the early years task force, and I thank him for that. I would genuinely welcome the constructive input of others.

I do not welcome the type of contribution that we had at the beginning of the debate from Liam McArthur. He started off by making some assumptions about what everyone was going to say and then said that all the problems were due to the evil SNP. We will not get progress that way. We will make progress if we accept that, at a time of extraordinary financial difficulty, which has been made considerably worse by the Westminster Government’s actions, we can still have aspirations, intentions and plans to deliver.

I will finish by talking about the brass-neck award. It has already been given but I want to endorse my colleagues’ view that it should go to the Liberal Democrats, particularly to Liam McArthur. On 22 December 2011, Liam McArthur said of welfare reform:

“the notion that we can simplify without creating winners and losers is ridiculous.”—[Official Report, 22 December 2011; c 4955.]

He comes here today and argues that we should simply carry on as if nothing that the coalition has done has happened. I will tell him the truth. The proposed changes to child tax credits mean that 84,900 families with children in Scotland will no longer be eligible for child tax credit as of 6 April 2012. That is happening because the Liberal Democrats are supporting the Tories at Westminster. Those are the families who are claiming at or below the family element of the child tax credit, which is worth £545 per family. That will affect 118,700 children across Scotland.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I ask—and I will be happy if he answers in a single word—whether Mr McArthur is happy that 118,700 children will be among the losers.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention. It might well be that I can make a further nomination for the brass-neck award. We have heard that all SNP ministers are in favour of reform, but they have never set out the detail of the reforms that they wish to see. Perhaps, in his closing minute, the cabinet secretary could articulate that.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Answer came there none, so let me give the answer. Mr McArthur is happy that 118,700 children will be among the losers. It takes a brass neck to come to the chamber and lecture another party that is delivering on childcare and then fail to recognise the damage that he and his party are doing. That is a brass neck; everyone heard it here today.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That was a bit of exercise for Mike Russell.

The debate has been a bit disappointing. We tried to focus on a serious report that the Daycare Trust and Children in Scotland have produced. The report is very authoritative and it looked at the contrasts between parts of the UK as well as within Scotland. I was disappointed that the debate turned into a bit of a partisan rammy.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Will the member give way?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I have only just started.

John Park made a good speech. He said that this is an economic issue and talked about it from a personal perspective by considering the costs and the rigid work schedules that he has had to endure while trying to meet the childcare needs of his family. I have a similar personal experience, because I, too, have had difficulties finding flexible, integrated childcare through the hours provided by the state, supplemented by those available elsewhere. John Park’s contribution was significant.

By contrast, others sought to focus on Westminster. I understand that there are anxieties about the tax credit system. Liam McArthur and Liz Smith alerted us to that and said that we need to review the reduction in the UK’s contribution to childcare costs from 80 to 70 per cent. I am not sure what else we can say—we are prepared to consider the issue.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry, but I must make progress.

The SNP is encouraging us to look at some of the good things that it is doing, but it would serve SNP members well if they also considered some of the good things that the UK Government is doing. It is disappointing that not one SNP member mentioned the extra £300 million for childcare support under universal credit. The UK Government is also delivering 15 hours of care a week for three and four-year-olds down south, compared with the 12.5 hours delivered in Scotland. It is also providing for 40 per cent of the most disadvantaged two-year-olds, rather than just looked-after children, as is the case here. We are doing good things, such as developing shared parental leave throughout the UK. Moreover, the duty of sufficiency down south means that local authorities have a better understanding of the childcare needs in their areas, but that is not happening in Scotland. Those are good things, but not one SNP member mentioned them. They would be well advised to follow the John Park route and consider the issues in detail and how they affect people on the ground, rather than fire bullets at people.

On the 2007 and 2012 commitments, I welcome the commitment that the First Minister gave over the weekend for 2014. It would be good to provide more than 600 hours, which would be even better than the position in the rest of the UK. That would be progress and we should all welcome that. However, he also said that the SNP would not rest on its laurels, but there are no laurels to rest on. There has not been great progress. The promise was 570 hours, but Scotland has 100 hours fewer than that at present.

The SNP has power but, too often, it seems ready to criticise Westminster rather than scrutinise its own Government. Its back benchers have a responsibility to scrutinise their ministers on their delivery, but they rarely do that. They blame everybody else and look at faults in other parts of the UK. They would be well served to do their duty and scrutinise their ministers.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Will the member give way?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Talking of scrutinising ministers, let us hear what the minister has to say.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Does Willie Rennie propose to do more than just suggest a review of the UK Government’s proposals for welfare reform? He should do more than just sit back and accept blindly that 118,000 children will be losers as a result of his Government’s reforms.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I gave the minister the opportunity to set out what she would like to do, but all she has done is follow the example of her back benchers and criticise Westminster.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I am trying to answer the minister’s question. Our ministers down south are making the case and we constantly challenge them, unlike the minister’s back benchers, who are just toadies for her Government. That is the problem. [Interruption.]

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

One of the serious issues that we need to consider relates to the integration and flexibility to which Liz Smith referred. How can working parents get fully comprehensive care? We should not think of childcare as just looking after kids; it is about education as well. How can we integrate those two aspects so that we have a comprehensive system that meets not only the needs of the kids but, as John Park has said, those of the parents.

Those are the things that we need to look at. There is also the issue of our knowledge of the provision of care in local authorities, because there are huge variations. I am not saying that all local authorities should provide the same type of care, but we need to find out what is happening and the local authorities themselves need a greater understanding of what is happening in their areas. That is why a duty of sufficiency would be helpful. Local authorities in England have a much better understanding of their needs and their provision, which is what we should look to have here.

It is disappointing that the Government was not able even to note “with concern” the report from the Daycare Trust and Children in Scotland. That smacks of complacency, which is something that the Government should be aware of.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. On behalf of SNP back benchers, will you reflect on parliamentary language and the use of the word “toady”? I think that that has been commented on before in the chamber and I am sure that, on reflection, Mr Rennie would not like that word to go down on the record.

Offenders (Rehabilitation)

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02337, in the name of Alison McInnes, on prisons.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

It is a pleasure to be able to move my motion. It is not often that we talk about reducing crime in the context of the services that are available for those who have committed a crime. I think that that is unfortunate. Scotland’s prisons are overcrowded. Our prison population has increased by 25 per cent over the past 10 years. That is a worrying statistic in itself, but if we delve a little deeper we get to truly startling figures: 62 per cent of Scottish prisoners reoffend within two years of being released and more than one in 10 offenders who went to prison in 2010 had served 10 or more previous prison sentences.

Audit Scotland’s recent report on the criminal justice system identified that the cost per prisoner place is £34,279 per year, which does not include the cost of processing the case through the courts. It is clear that it is time for us to take a new look at the rehabilitation services and programmes that we provide in prisons. That is what our motion is about: the opportunities that we provide for those who find themselves behind bars.

I use the word “opportunities” quite deliberately; of course we do not seek to reward people for committing a crime, but it is only right that we give them the chance to better themselves. It is our responsibility to give offenders the chance to address the issues that led them to prison in the first place and the chance to move past their crime and contribute positively to society. Frankly, if we are not giving offenders that chance, we are failing them and—just as bad—we are failing the society that they are being released back into. Indeed, it is only in giving offenders the chance to better themselves that prison can be said to be working.

At present, our prisons simply do not have the capacity or the facilities that are needed to support properly the rehabilitation of offenders, so what we get instead is a vicious cycle. Existing rehabilitation programmes cannot succeed, at least partly because prisoners have limited access to them in overcrowded prisons. That means that fewer offenders can successfully participate in the programmes, more offenders reoffend, the prison population grows still further and the rehabilitation programmes become still less able to cope.

I am happy to recognise that good progress is being made on the prison estate itself. HMP Low Moss opened its doors just this week, plans for the new HMP Grampian at Peterhead are moving forward and the Government’s recent budget included £20 million to be spent on much-needed improvements to the women’s prison estate. Those are all positive steps. However, when all is said and done, there is only so much that can be achieved by modernising the prison estate. We must also address the rehabilitation programmes themselves. Audit Scotland concluded:

“Funding arrangements are complex and do not always provide a financial incentive to reduce reoffending.”

As I said, the reconviction rate in Scotland is too high but, more worryingly, it is consistent. The reconviction rate today is more or less the same as it was 13 years ago when the Parliament first opened. In that time, the rate has never varied by more than a few percentage points either way, despite the Government having a national indicator to reduce offending.

How can we revolutionise prisoner rehabilitation and finally start to bring down the reconviction rate? We believe that we need help from specialists. The simple fact is that, when ex-offenders get a job after leaving prison, the likelihood of their reoffending is cut dramatically—by as much as 50 per cent. However, figures show that offenders are 13 times more likely to be unemployed than those in the rest of society. The Scottish Prison Service’s latest survey reveals stark numbers on the problems that many offenders face. Forty per cent of prisoners reported that drug use was a problem for them on the outside; a quarter of prisoners reported that alcohol use had affected their ability to hold down a job; and one in five prisoners reported problems with literacy and numeracy.

Social enterprise is well placed to tackle holistically the range of needs of repeat offenders. In Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom, we are blessed with a wealth of voluntary organisations, social enterprises and charities that specialise in providing precisely the sort of support that those offenders need to push them back towards playing a positive role in society. Therefore, why not look to those bodies to do just that?

There are plenty of examples of innovative approaches to tackling reoffending, such as the Foundation Training Company, which is a not-for-profit organisation that provides a through-the-gate mentoring and resettlement service for prisoners. The organisation leads programmes and workshops in prisons that are aimed at equipping offenders with computer skills and which provide literacy and job application training. To date, the Foundation Training Company has helped more than 11,000 prisoners, 95 per cent of whom have achieved at least one nationally recognised award. Research from the Home Office has shown that the likelihood of reoffending is reduced by 7 per cent among those who have completed one of the Foundation Training Company’s courses.

Those are the sort of positive and innovative interventions that we should do everything possible to encourage. The Liberal Democrats believe that using the social impact bond model is the perfect way to do just that.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The member refers to social impact bonds. The RAND Europe report on planning and implementation of the social impact bond at Peterborough prison highlighted the need to understand better the risks of financial transfer, the need for new money, the scalability and the monetised benefit. Although I accept that SIBs might have a place in successful rehabilitation programmes, does the member accept that it might be better to await the further report on the Peterborough project before we proceed to a pilot of our own?

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

No, I do not accept that. There is good reason to proceed with further pilots to assess the model. The Finance Committee has considered the issue and Audit Scotland has recommended that we have a look at the model. Therefore, we should push forward with it.

I will outline how social impact bonds work and explain why I think that they are a good idea. They are contracts with Government or local authorities, with a commitment to pay for agreed social outcomes. In the case of offenders, that would be lower rates of reoffending. On that basis, investment is raised and used to fund interventions, such as rehabilitation or work programmes. If the interventions succeed, the investors’ initial outlay is repaid by the Government, along with a financial return that is scaled in relation to the degree of success, which in the case of offenders would be exactly how much reoffending has reduced. That contrasts with Audit Scotland’s conclusion that

“The way criminal justice social work services are currently funded does not provide a financial incentive to change offenders’ behaviour”.

That is a reason why social impact bonds are a good way forward.

The payment-by-results approach has a couple of other benefits. First, there is no cost to the public purse unless reoffending is reduced. The Government pays only for the finished painting, rather than simply buying a canvas and a brush and hoping for the best. By bringing new money into the criminal justice system on the basis of repayment that is based on results, the Government can introduce a solid preventative spending initiative even at a time when the budget is stretched.

That leads directly to the second and more important reason why we believe that social impact bonds should be piloted in Scotland. Because the investment risk is kept squarely on private sector investors, there is a motivation for operators of the schemes to ensure that they succeed. That means that high standards are maintained and innovation is encouraged. In turn, that provides us with a further opportunity. As innovative new ideas are developed, spurred on by the payment-by-results model, the Government can monitor progress and, ultimately, adopt the most successful initiatives as examples of future best practice.

The use of social impact bonds can also help to shift the focus for the expert organisations. Rather than jump through bureaucratic red tape to secure grant funding, they can work co-operatively and move the focus of their efforts much more on to the social impact of their work.

Members might be aware of the pilot that is under way at Peterborough prison in which a number of organisations, including the YMCA and Supporting Others through Volunteer Action—SOVA—are using their expertise to provide support to short-term prisoners. The scheme still has a while left to run, as Chic Brodie said, before we see quantifiable evidence on its success, but the initial reports are largely positive. The report “Social Impact Bonds. The One Service. One year on”, which reflects on the first 12 months of the scheme, is a fascinating read and it highlights another benefit of the social impact bond model—the ability for service providers to identify and target individual needs in a far greater way than the existing programmes. The initial figures in the report suggest that 88 per cent of prisoners who were part of the programme in the first year underwent a successful assignment.

Given the current financial climate, which means that we must carefully evaluate our spending commitments, and the continuing high levels of reoffending in Scotland, this is surely an ideal time to move ahead with our own pilot schemes. Truth be told, I hoped that our motion would receive support from the Government benches, but Kenny MacAskill’s amendment suggests that that will not be the case. That is disappointing, not least because, as recently as last May, we seemed to be in agreement on the issue. Indeed, the following line was in the Scottish National Party’s manifesto:

“We will identify and commence three projects through which we can pilot Social Impact Bonds.”

That commitment is echoed in our motion, yet by lodging his amendment, the cabinet secretary seems to be pulling back from that position. When will he introduce a pilot scheme, and why will he not commit to the use of social impact bonds in prisons?

The use of social impact bonds would encourage greater innovation in our offender rehabilitation programmes. We should not miss this important opportunity finally to make some real progress on reducing reoffending. I hope that the Parliament will support our motion.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that successful rehabilitation is vital in order to reduce reoffending rates and support ex-offenders to turn their lives around; further recognises the role that voluntary organisations and social enterprises can play in delivering innovative and high quality programmes to address offending behaviour; believes that Social Impact Bonds have the potential to deliver a new approach to investment in rehabilitation, which incentivises innovation and rewards positive outcomes, and calls on the Scottish Government to pilot the Social Impact Bond model as a new approach to prison rehabilitation and reducing reoffending.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I thank Alison McInnes and my other Liberal Democrat colleagues for highlighting reoffending. I welcome their shared commitment to tackling this difficult issue. As Alison McInnes eloquently narrated, reoffending creates victims, damages communities and wastes the potential of offenders themselves. It comes at a significant cost, it is a waste of talent and it damages our communities. It is something that we must tackle if we are to have the safer and stronger communities that we all want to have.

I will try to say more on this if I have time, but the purpose of our amendment is not to detract in any way from the ethos of what Alison McInnes is proposing. Indeed, we are happy to look at matters, and I give her that undertaking.

Prison will always be the right place for some offenders. Those who have committed the most serious crimes and who present the greatest threat to the public must always go to jail. However, it is the wrong place for many of those who are in our jails today—the low-level, repeat offenders. They are a nuisance in our communities and they are frequently destructive, but they are not necessarily a danger. They need alcohol and drug services and, as Alison McInnes pointed out, they need mentors to show them a better way of life and services that actively address their offending behaviour. Such services need to be available both within prisons, for those who are serving a custodial sentence, and in the community, for those who have been released and those who have been given a community sentence as a direct alternative.

Since we came into government in 2007, we have been working to tackle reoffending, which is probably the single biggest challenge that we face. We introduced the presumption against prison sentences of less than three months and we were grateful for the support that the Liberal Democrats gave at that time. We introduced the presumption for the reason that Alison McInnes articulated in her speech—because such sentences simply do not work. Three quarters of those who are given a custodial sentence of six months or less reoffend within two years, whereas two thirds of those who are given a tough community sentence do not. Given the cost of such custodial sentences, they are simply not economic, and moreover they do not work. They simply produce the churn and cycle of reoffending that harms so many communities.

On that basis, we created the community payback order, which is an effective alternative to short-term prison sentences. We are rolling out nationwide the award-winning whole system approach for young people who offend, and we have improved the information that those who sentence offenders require in order to impose the most appropriate sentence for the individual and the community in which they reside.

Alongside those measures, we have invested in the prison service and, of course, in work to reduce reoffending. Since 2007, we have invested £368 million in the prison infrastructure. As Alison McInnes pointed out, this week sees the first prisoners move into the new, state-of-the-art Low Moss prison, which has been delivered on time and on budget. It is run by the Scottish Prison Service and its staff.

Offenders in the prison will be expected to work or to be involved in other purposeful activity for 35 hours a week. When offenders are expected to be working or to be engaged in another useful activity, power in their cells will be switched off. Prison staff will work with those who are in custody for the first time and those who are persistent offenders to help them to stop offending.

In the spending review, we announced a reducing reoffending change fund of £7.5 million. We intend to use the fund to bring about changes so that services that are effective in reducing reoffending are supported sustainably, are expanded and are embedded in mainstream provision. I do not know the precise detail of the matter that Alison McInnes referred to, but I am happy to look at it. We recognise that much of the work in this area is provided by the third sector, whether by Routes Out of Prostitution, the agency that she referred to, Sacro or others. They provide an outstanding service.

As I said, I welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrats have a shared commitment to tackling reoffending. I agree that we need to be open to looking at all fresh approaches to funding in this area, whether social impact bonds, public-social partnerships or other options. We are working actively with partners, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, voluntary organisations and others with relevant expertise, to develop options for a new system of community justice funding. As the First Minister has said, we do not claim to be the fount of all wisdom. We recognise that not everything can be delivered by community justice authorities, local authorities, social work departments or even the SPS. The involvement of other agencies is required. I put on record our gratitude to faith groups, which contribute greatly on a voluntary basis.

The result of all that work is that reoffending has been falling—one-year reconviction rates are at their lowest in 11 years. That is a tribute to the hard work of the people who work with offenders every day and the measures that we have taken. We are looking to build on those achievements, which is why we have set up the commission on women offenders, which is chaired by Dame Elish Angiolini. The commission is due to report in the next few weeks. I look forward to receiving its recommendations and am hopeful that we can achieve cross-party support in implementing them.

In addition, we are entering a new phase of our programme to reduce reoffending. It will build on the work in phase 1, to ensure that good practice is embedded everywhere and that services that work to reduce reoffending are available across Scotland.

At the start of this Government’s first term in office, Henry McLeish’s Scottish Prisons Commission starkly set out the choice that the Government had to make. With the support of the Liberal Democrats, we chose to build a system of effective community justice. Reoffending has fallen, but we believe that it can fall further.

Let me be clear that the Government is as committed in our second term as we were in our first to reducing reoffending. I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ motion. I am happy to give an undertaking to look at the matters that Alison McInnes raised and to get back to her. I believe that, together, we can continue to make progress, and I look forward to continuing to receive cross-party support when we receive the Angiolini report.

I move amendment S4M-02337.1, to leave out from “; believes” to end and insert:

“, and welcomes that the Scottish Government will explore the potential of innovative approaches to funding, including the piloting of Social Impact Bonds and public social partnerships, to support preventative spend measures.”

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

As has been said, an effective justice system must protect communities, support victims and seek to rehabilitate offenders. That means that those who have been imprisoned should be supported to change their behaviour, when they are willing to do so, so that when they come out of prison they can lead better lives and no longer pose a threat to the communities in which they live. That is the focus of the debate, which we welcome. The question is whether new models of support can help to deliver real change in levels of reoffending and how their success in changing behaviours can be measured.

There is cross-party support for exploring the potential of social impact bonds, for example—there was a commitment on that in our manifesto and in other manifestos for last year’s elections—even if it is too early to come to firm conclusions about the longer-term impact of that approach. However, it is important to put new models into the context of what we already know about what makes for the effective rehabilitation of offenders. We know, for example, that prisoners’ ability to access their families can help to reduce reoffending by giving purpose and focus to prisoners’ lives. That is why we believe that local prisons are important and why, for example, we opposed the Scottish Government’s plans to close Aberdeen prison and replace it with HMP Grampian, an hour’s bus journey away in Peterhead.

If families can help with the rehabilitation of offenders, those families will need support as they deal with a wide range of emotional and practical pressures, quite apart from the challenge of keeping in touch with the imprisoned person. That is why organisations that work with prisoners’ families, such as Families Outside, have an important role to play. Whatever new models are developed must recognise and support the good work that is already being done that indirectly supports the rehabilitation of offenders as well as the work that is directly engaged in that task.

We have prison education services in place that can and should make a difference to prisoners’ lives. The basis on which those services are provided in a number of prisons in the east of Scotland has changed recently, and concerns have been raised about the range and quality of education that will be available to prisoners in future. I would welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments on how the standards of prison education services are to be assessed and maintained both under the current arrangements and under any new models for providing rehabilitation.

Working and learning should not be incidental to periods of imprisonment; they should define everyday life in Scotland’s prisons. It is in the classroom and the workroom that prisoners can learn the skills that they need to make real and meaningful changes to their lives. That is why it is disappointing that, even in our most modern and well-resourced jails, too many prisoners are not able to engage regularly in constructive activities. Repeat offenders on shorter sentences—the very people who should be given the chance to change their ways before they go back into our communities—often have no access to work programmes. It is worth saying that people are sent to jail by sheriffs rather than put on community service orders for a reason, and the challenge of rehabilitation applies whatever the length of the sentence.

Too many people come out of our jails with a drugs habit that they did not have when they went in. That is also a challenge for the system.

In that context, it is all the more important that ministers should think again about their proposals to scrap prison visiting committees. Plenty of ex-offenders will confirm that prison visitors were the mentors—the cabinet secretary referred to mentors—who helped to set them on the path to a life without crime.

We need more, not less, independent scrutiny in our prison system, particularly if new models of support for rehabilitation are to deliver better outcomes for local communities rather than simply lower costs for the Government. The evidence on new models is limited to date, but it is generally positive. The pilot project that uses social impact bonds to fund rehabilitation at HMP Peterborough was originally authorised by Labour ministers, and it has been running since September 2010. By definition, it is too early to measure the effectiveness of that approach in terms of the frequency or rates of reoffending. The model has succeeded in drawing in non-Government finance to support rehabilitation, but there are still issues to be resolved around the measurement of outcomes and avoiding very complex contractual arrangements. Those issues can be resolved, and we support further work on how to deliver new models of support for the rehabilitation of offenders.

It is critical that the whole range of Government policies on prisons supports rehabilitation, and we will continue to press ministers to ensure that they pursue the right range of policies for the benefit of those in prison and in the interests of the wider community.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank Alison McInnes for bringing the subject to the chamber and for highlighting an imaginative approach to rehabilitation that is being piloted by the Government down south.

In his last annual report, our chief inspector of prisons noted that, apart from

“punishment ... and the need to secure offenders during their sentence ... the most important reason for sending offenders to prison is to prepare them for release back in to the community; the foremost aim must be to reform and rehabilitate and so reduce the risks of re-offending.”

That view is admirable and was central to the great penal reform debates of the 19th century. We must believe that people are capable of redemption and of turning their lives around, and we must do what we can to assist that process, even if we are often disappointed and frustrated when good intentions come to naught.

As members know, the prisons inspectorate reviewed Cornton Vale prison and young offenders institution this year and concluded that there was not

“sufficient purposeful activity and rehabilitative work available”

for prisoners. I acknowledge that the Scottish Government and the Justice Committee have followed up that comment, but it is right to take the opportunity to examine the challenges and opportunities—we see them from that observation—that modernising the delivery of rehabilitation services presents in the prison estate and in the community.

As others have said, the prison population in Scotland has increased steadily. I whole-heartedly welcome that as a factor in the fall in the crime rate to a 30-year low, even if the Scottish Government refuses to acknowledge that connection. However, I would be the first to say that the debate is not about sentencing policy and that sentencing people to prison cannot be just about locking them up and public safety.

Rehabilitation and work programmes are essential, as is an integrated approach, so that no artificial barrier is placed between rehabilitation programmes in prison, rehabilitation’s role in community sentencing and its continuing function of dealing with offenders on completion of their sentences. We must also bear it in mind that an essential part of rehabilitation is assisting prisoners and those who are on community sentences to tackle their problems with addictions and their educational shortfalls in literacy and numeracy, as part of the road to redemption and rehabilitation.

Community payback schemes need to operate not just as an alternative to imprisonment in which the public can have confidence, but as a component that can be bolted on to an on-going programme of support and rehabilitation when a sentence has been completed. A significant number of charities and voluntary and private sector organisations already work on the rehabilitation of offenders, such as Apex Scotland and Sacro. Their contribution needs to be encouraged and supported when positive results are being achieved.

Effective rehabilitation not only benefits the offender and his family but is a sensible investment for society. We have often heard of the £40,000 per annum that providing bed and board for a prisoner costs the taxpayer, but equally disturbing is the cost of an unproductive lifetime that is spent on benefits if we do not help people to turn around their lives and engage meaningfully in our society.

The irony is that, although solid financial savings to society and us as taxpayers can be quantified from the rehabilitation of offenders, funding to achieve the objective is in short supply. That is why investment in social impact bonds is particularly important in financing the role that voluntary organisations and social enterprises can play in such work.

The bonds are flexible on delivery—they can be adjusted for a range of providers to co-operate to try to achieve outcomes and can encourage innovation in service delivery, so long as positive outcomes are met. That is more than just a modern interpretation of philanthropy; it is a vehicle to recognise the genuine benefits that can accrue from money that is injected into and invested in this important area. I will say more about that in my summation.

I support the motion in Alison McInnes’s name. I do not share her pessimistic view of the amendment that the cabinet secretary lodged; I am prepared to accept in good faith his assurances and to support his amendment, too.

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

I, too, very much welcome the debate and the consensus across the chamber about reoffending. I will not reprise the figures and percentages, which have been cited. The costs of a prisoner are in the tens of thousands per annum, yet most of that is wasted funding. The prison population has been rising and, if it goes on as it has done, it is predicted to rise to 9,500 by 2019-20. The population has been rising over my entire 12 years—almost 13—in the Parliament. We must look to reduce the waste of public funding and human potential yet retain the element of punishment and, most certainly, public protection. There remains the conundrum of how to deliver those elements along with effective rehabilitation, effective early interventions, diversions from prosecution and alternatives to custody.

We have trod this path before. I take members back to February 2003, when the Justice 1 Committee—I think that Richard Simpson was there, I was a member of the committee and Jim Wallace was the Minister for Justice—held an inquiry into alternatives to custody. It is regrettable that everything that we said then is still valid now.

I even recall a proposal that local alternatives to custody should be available at the touch of the sheriff clerk’s fingertips on a computer, so that the sheriff would have up-to-date information at his or her disposal should he or she be considering options other than custody. I do not know whether that is now the case. I hope to be enlightened later in the debate.

We have talked about the social impact bond that is being piloted in Peterborough. I note that the cabinet secretary is not setting social impact bonds to the side and is prepared to consider them. I think that the Liberal Democrats should therefore be able to accept his amendment.

Programmes are, of course, already funded by a mix of central Government, local government, charitable and corporate funding. For instance, Turning Point is funded by Lloyds TSB, the Robertson Trust, the KPMG Foundation, the Tudor Trust and the lottery. That brings me to a Turning Point programme that I believe is exceptional: the 218 service in Glasgow. Some members of the Health and Sport Committee visited the service earlier this year as part of a preliminary fact-finding task on women in prison. Others went to Cornton Vale and HMP Saughton, where some of the women are held.

Many of the women are, like many prisoners, damaged. I think that it was a senior procurator fiscal who said many years ago—I paraphrase—that in prison there are the bad, the mad and the sad. Indeed, a high proportion of those who are incarcerated have mental health issues. Many have been victims themselves, which may be part of the genesis of their criminality. However, to take that on board does not mean that we are going soft on crime: we are looking to break the cycle.

The 218 service has 12 beds. The women must have a commitment to turn around their lives. Some had been in before, had failed and had come back. We had time to speak to the residents and the discussions were very enlightening. Many of the residents had been in care and, sadly, because of their offending, their children are now in care. That is another cycle that requires to be broken. I observe that that might be one of the factors that contributed—I am not saying that it is, but it might have been—to their criminality. Another contributing factor that surprised me was not drugs but alcohol. Many of the women were in there as a result of excessive abuse of alcohol. That issue was touched on in yesterday’s debate; as I said, that debate could well have been a justice debate rather than a health debate.

Across the chamber, the task is to reassure the public that diversions from prosecution, alternatives to custody and putting money into rehabilitation are not soft options. Those options must be tough and we know that if they are tough, they work. That does not always require public funding and it does not always take funding from the justice portfolio; it must take funding from education, health, housing and employment, which all have a part to play in breaking the cycle.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

I thank the Liberal Democrats for bringing the issue to the chamber so that we can have a serious debate on how we address reoffending in Scotland. Reducing reoffending is a major issue in all countries throughout the world and there have many been many attempts to tackle it.

I will touch on the innocent victims of imprisonment: children. Children of prisoners are a very vulnerable group in society and the facts show that more children in Scotland experience a parent’s imprisonment than a parent’s divorce.

Ensuring that children have the rights that they are entitled to while a parent is in prison can be an effective tool in tackling reoffending among the parents. Brigadier Hugh Monro said that if good contact is maintained between prisoners and families, the risk of reoffending is dramatically lowered. Maintaining good contact between a child and their parent can be good for the child’s development as well as the level of recidivism among parents.

There are no definitive statistics on the number of children who have a parent in prison. However, in the UK alone, there are 17,000 children with mothers sent to prison each year; the total of incarcerated parents is estimated to be two and a half times the number of children in care and six times the number on the child protection register.

The time from the principal arrest of a parent to the court case and subsequent imprisonment can be traumatic for a child, who often does not understand what is happening in the judicial system. The effects are often many and varied, and each child is uniquely affected. Children can suffer a range of emotional, behavioural, educational and financial problems, many of which the average adult would be unable to cope with, and which lead to developmental problems and antisocial behaviour later in life. If such children are not supported, they are left standing outside the revolving door of reoffending, just as many parents are.

Prison visits by children are limited, for a number of reasons, and we need to encourage the use of family visits, but there are also opportunities for video and telephone calls. Those things do not, however, replace the relationship that a parent can have with her children or the relationship that children need if they are to grow and develop.

Before Christmas I had the pleasure of visiting HMP Perth, and was given a tour of the refurbished visiting centre and also the external visitors centre that provides support and advice to families who have a relative in jail. The external centre, which is run by CrossReach, provides emotional support and advice on benefits, health and care. External visitors centres are valuable, and they should be mandatory in Scotland, as they are in England. I commend the Government’s guarantee that all new prisons will have improved centres for family visits.

Yesterday was the most recent meeting of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on families affected by imprisonment, which works closely with Families Outside. The speaker, Oliver Robertson from the Quaker United Nations Office, gave a fantastic update on the recent day of general discussion with the UN children’s rights committee. The day provided many recommendations for a set of international guidelines on how to handle children with incarcerated parents, with much focus on reoffending. A few examples of good practice were discussed, from countries that are less developed than Scotland. One example from Jamaica was the creation of PrisonBook, a heavily regulated form of Facebook, through which parents and children can have regular contact. In Poland, the police are given guidelines and protocols on how to handle children, and when they arrest a parent they take the child into a separate room. Those are just some of the examples of good practice that were discussed during the UN’s day of general discussion and then raised in the cross-party group.

While we are looking at our justice system and assessing reoffending in Scotland, we must also look at good practice internationally to keep people, especially parents, out of prison and away from a life of crime. If we keep parents out of prison, we have a better chance of keeping future generations out too.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

I thank Alison McInnes for bringing this debate to the chamber, and I hope that she is less disappointed after hearing the cabinet secretary’s reassurances that he is not dismissing the social impact bonds but has an open mind on many of the suggestions and is looking at many different ways of resolving some of the problems of reoffending.

Rehabilitation is extremely important, but so is understanding why people offend in the first instance. Members across the chamber acknowledge, I think, that there are far too many people in the criminal justice system and in prison who, because of the type of offence that they have committed, probably should not be there. Christine Grahame made a valid point about how often it is a cycle that needs to be broken. Too often families engage in the cycle because their parents did, and perhaps their parents before them—it is a life of crime. We need to look at the social impact of crime in our society and to afford people who enter into crime new opportunities to move away from it. That is about giving them self-belief, self-worth and self-respect.

People need to respect not only themselves and the wellbeing of their families, but their communities too. We are some way along that journey thanks to the community payback option, which has led to a reduction in reoffending. Communities are benefiting from that model because they engage with the community payback orders that local authorities implement.

Like others, I extend my gratitude to all the third sector parties involved in tackling reoffending. There are so many organisations that afford people various opportunities through their programmes. Turning Point, which has been mentioned, is a valuable organisation that works throughout Scotland.

If there was an easy fix, we would not have this problem, but there is not. We must consider every aspect of reoffending and look at why people get into the offending mode in the first place. As I have mentioned, that often relates to where people are in their lives, whether they are in employment, their family status and their place in society.

We can point the finger at drugs, alcohol and so many other social problems that occur in communities, but many people do not enter into crime, so we must look at the facts that are before us and ask what makes some people go into crime. The majority of crimes are low level, and prison is certainly not the place for those offenders.

With regard to rehabilitation and prisoners’ visiting rights, Mary Fee made the exceptionally good point that prisoners should be in an environment that is conducive to the rehabilitation programme. There is consensus among members from all parties, I think, that we need not only affordable but effective rehabilitation. I look forward to engaging in a further debate, I hope, once we have seen the results from the Angiolini commission later this year.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

Unfortunately, I must begin my contribution by agreeing with Christine Grahame and acknowledging all that she said about the 218 project in Glasgow. It is an excellent project that tackles reoffending, and it is well worth supporting.

Today’s debate is rightly concerned with rehabilitation. I welcome Alison McInnes’s interest in that area and in particular her efforts in respect of the women’s prison at Cornton Vale. As other members have acknowledged, the purpose of a prison service is to hold prisoners safely in a secure environment, to punish them, to ensure the public’s safety, and—just as important—to address reoffending through education and other programmes.

I have already stated in the chamber my admiration for the work that is carried out across the prison sector in delivering the first two elements of a prison service’s duties. Unfortunately, however, evidence of success in addressing reoffending is thin on the ground and, despite regular pronouncements to the contrary, a great deal of effort is required in that regard.

At the Justice Committee we have heard much about the management of overcrowded prison facilities and the introduction to the system of additional capacity, including the new prison at Low Moss, which is to be welcomed. However, questions on the literacy and numeracy courses that are delivered received broad-brush responses that lacked detail on precisely how the Scottish Prison Service intends to deliver satisfactory courses against achievable targets and to publish results.

The most recent figures show that the rate of reoffending within two years of liberation stands at 42.4 per cent, yet Her Majesty’s chief inspector of Prisons, Hugh Monro, has regularly commented on the significant amount of time that prisoners of all ages spend inactive in their cells, avoiding opportunities for improvement. The challenge for the authorities is to tackle that and to provide the kinds of courses that deliver success. As members have pointed out, that will be no easy task, but it is a prize worth winning. Literacy and numeracy levels across the prison population remain stubbornly low, leaving the majority of prisoners incapable of filling in application forms or dealing with job interviews after release. That is not a good outcome in what is an already depressed employment market.

Much has been said about social impact bonds. If the model can be shown to deliver success while maintaining the necessary security within prisons, why should it not be used? However, that will be a matter for the authorities and I hope that the cabinet secretary will tell us how he intends to encourage results from the initiatives that he announced today and outlined in his speech.

The key demand is that the authorities focus and take steps to deliver on reoffending rates. Prisoner release dates should be linked to successful prisoner participation in education and behaviour improvement courses. Moreover, prisons should be empowered to reduce methadone programmes for each prisoner over the period of their sentence. The return of men and women to our communities with little home support or little evidence of educational improvement and without a new-found independence from methadone creates the fertile circumstances that prepare them for reoffending.

In her motion, Alison McInnes draws proper attention to the issues and challenges that the authorities must respond to. I support the motion and welcome the cabinet secretary’s positive approach in his opening speech.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

First of all, I thank Alison McInnes for lodging a motion on what is an important issue.

When we think about offenders, we find it all too easy to think purely in terms of punishment, public safety and deterrence. However, as far as the individual in question and society are concerned, in this era of preventative spending, rehabilitation in all its forms and reducing reoffending must be priorities. With regard to rehabilitation, I am pleased to note the terms of the Government’s press release on Low Moss.

As we all know, cutting reoffending is a long-term business and, as with minimum pricing, there is no silver bullet for it. As a result, I believe that we should consider the use of social impact bonds. Although they have been welcomed by Conservative proponents of the big society, the idea was embraced initially by the former Labour Home Secretary, Jack Straw, as Lewis Macdonald made clear. The Peterborough pilot raised £5 million from 17 social investors and is expected to involve 3,000 short-term prisoners set to leave Peterborough prison over a six-year period. The voluntary organisations involved, including YMCA and various trusts, aim to concentrate on improving the education skills and confidence of short-term prisoners in jail to make them better able to integrate into the community. Support organisations will provide intensive assistance after prisoner release to help individuals to settle into the community. Early indications are that participation is high; indeed, a key factor of the Peterborough trial is that its participants are volunteers. The fact that prisoners have expressed the desire to seek help and avoid reoffending is welcome and the Scottish Government should certainly be open to innovative schemes that help former prisoners to readjust.

However, the only report so far on the Peterborough project was commissioned by the Ministry of Justice 10 months ago. It states:

“given the early stage of development of the Peterborough SIB, we are unable to draw conclusions about or comment on outcomes.”

My understanding is that the minimum possible period for assessing reoffending rates is two years and nine months from the project’s start and that investors can look forward to a return only after the project’s fourth year. Whatever the merits of the Peterborough project, it is really too early for the Scottish Government to reach a considered view on it.

Moreover, how likely is it that SIBs will attract funding entirely additional to that for the third sector? After all, we might well need a high rate of return in order to attract investors. In addition, to make real savings in cash, significant scale will be required. From the Government’s point of view, savings might not be great, and set-up costs might be high.

Therefore, we should not assume that social impact bonds are a panacea. A more straightforward public-social partnership might have something to teach us, too.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

I have limited time, so I cannot.

When the Justice Committee was taking evidence on the Scottish Government’s budget, we highlighted the fact that the obligation to produce throughcare plans for offenders was restricted to those offenders serving sentences of four years or more. The committee was keen for consideration to be given to extending that to short-term prisoners. In its evidence to the committee, Sacro welcomed the positive steps that are already being taken to address reoffending and reduce the reliance on short-term custodial sentences. Therefore, when we consider reoffending, we should bear in mind that the SNP Government is already committed to the reducing reoffending change fund and that, although reoffending rates are still way too high, they are dropping, albeit modestly.

In addition, as the cabinet secretary has said, the whole-system approach specifically targets young people who offend.

As I have said, we should be open to new ideas in relation to reoffending. I hope that, when the time is right, the Government will give full consideration to at least one social impact bond pilot project; it should certainly not dismiss the idea out of hand.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

This has been an interesting and useful debate with some excellent contributions. I thank Lewis Macdonald for pointing out that the social impact bond model was conceived by his Government and is now being implemented by mine. It is only fair that credit is given where it is due and that we acknowledge the cross-party interest in the use of the tool as a weapon to tackle a problem that is of concern to us all.

I was impressed by what Mary Fee said about the impact of prison on children and families and the need to address some of the problems that arise in that context if we are to break the cycle that she described. There was a great deal of truth in what she said. It was also instructive to hear from her of the international examples of ways of dealing with that particular problem.

Graeme Pearson was right to highlight the problem of tackling the poor literacy and numeracy levels among prisoners. There is far too much inactivity in our prisons. There needs to be more purposeful direction. There is no shortage of time to devote to tackling the underlying educational deficiencies; what there seems to be a shortage of are the necessary programmes. That needs to be addressed. We need to be able to lever in additional funding to support programmes of that nature. A social impact bond may be the sort of project that can be of benefit to us in helping to tackle that fundamental problem. If that problem is not tackled, there will be no rehabilitation of people once they are out of prison and back in society.

From the discussion, we have seen that investment in social impact bonds can fund the role that voluntary organisations and social enterprises can play in rehabilitation. It is a form of venture capitalism, as it were, with an added social purpose. Depending on how the programmes perform against set targets, Government can pay out to investors on the basis of the economic value to the Government and the taxpayer of the progress that has been made.

Roderick Campbell gave us some additional information and highlighted some fair warnings about how one might assess the value and outcomes of the Peterborough project. He was right to do that because a multitude of factors are involved, and sometimes results can be skewed by factors that are not directly related to the programme, such as the fact that participation is voluntary. On the other hand, I think that the initiative is worth trying. That was the message that came out of today’s debate. There is no magic bullet, but we must try to do something, because we believe in the value of redemption and of turning people’s lives around, as I said in my opening speech. We might be frustrated and sometimes disappointed at the outcome, but that is no reason to write ideas off or to write people off. We all have a moral purpose in government to try to do something.

As we have heard, this is an area in which there can be a great deal of co-operation between Her Majesty’s Government and Scotland in relation to programmes down south and what we are trying to do here. We can learn from one another and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments in that respect. We look forward to learning more from him about the innovative approaches to funding that he intends to pursue in the area of rehabilitation.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Alison McInnes reminded us of the poor outcomes: 62 per cent of prisoners reoffend, and the figure is even higher for young prisoners. Although there has been a little progress, we have a long way to go.

Christine Grahame reminded us eloquently that we debated the issue back in the first session of Parliament. Indeed, one of the initiatives of which I was most proud as justice minister was the 218 centre for which we got funding. It is a matter of some regret that that unique and successful Scottish centre has not been replicated for men, or for other women. The cabinet secretary might like to take another look at that. We will see what the Angiolini commission comes up with—I hope that it supports the centre.

As Dennis Robertson from the SNP and my colleague Lewis Macdonald indicated, reoffending is a complex issue. We must begin by understanding the needs of each individual prisoner and the barriers that they face in addressing their reoffending. As Lewis Macdonald said, it is clear that being close to home and family is important, as is tackling problems such as drugs and alcohol. We need to address not only illiteracy, which Graeme Pearson mentioned, but communication difficulties more generally. Areas such as education and the acquisition of skills need improvement, and we need to address all the barriers to effective reintegration into the community.

Scotland’s futures forum held a seminar on the innovative impact of social impact bonds, which, as Lewis Macdonald reminded us, was a pilot initiated by Labour at Westminster and continued by the coalition Government. The futures forum noted that prevention was often the first to suffer cuts in times of austerity, so SIBs were a way in which we might leverage in funds. However, it urged caution in that if there is to be a return to investors of between 3 and 13 per cent depending on the outcomes, we need to be very clear about those outcomes. It called for clarity on the goals.

One perceived advantage of the social impact bond is that it can bring together multiple agencies. An individual who has not only the core problems caused by drug or alcohol but literacy and communication problems, housing problems and employment problems can be treated holistically. Under the recovery framework, drug services should really be providing that holistic care, but I accept that the links are not easy to make, particularly in aftercare, out of prison.

Meaningful educational activity in prison is still far too sparse. Hugh Monro said in his annual report that a common theme was

“poor access to activities such as education, employability training, work, PE and programmes.”

David McLetchie reminded us that at Cornton Vale, 65 per cent of prisoners are locked in their cells and that only 35 per cent engage in meaningful activity. Although something has been done to deal with that, we do not go far enough. Glenochil is just as bad. It is unacceptable because we all pay the price when prisoners reoffend. The inspector has said:

“I would like to see increased opportunities and encouragement for prisoners to access alcohol reduction programmes. Too often I see addressing alcohol issues as being ... less important”.

He said that we needed to do more about that, perhaps particularly in Polmont.

Graeme Pearson called for tighter key performance indicators on activity in prisons. I support that call. Mary Fee talked about her commitment to families affected by imprisonment and mentioned the cross-party group on families affected by imprisonment.

We need to consider a charter of rights for the children of those in prison, like the one in the United States, perhaps as part of the children’s rights bill. Families are an important area.

Visitor committees are important. We do not have a programme for those. We need to have one in every prison, and not just Saughton and Perth. I hope that the Barlinnie one opening next month will receive support from the Government.

The Government’s amendment is interesting but I hope that, when he sums up, the cabinet secretary will go a little further in justifying it. As Roderick Campbell said, we should be cautious. However, we also need to be fairly detailed in our approach to the issue.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Justice debates in the chamber are frequently rumbustious and confrontational, and it is fair to say that, sometimes, they generate more heat than light. However, this has been a remarkably consensual debate. I pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats for bringing the issue to the chamber and to Alison McInnes for setting the tenor of the debate, in which there has been cross-party consensus. Whether it is what Mary Fee said about the specific needs of children or what Dennis Robertson said about the underlying causes of a lack of self-worth among individuals, we recognise that there is an issue. I hope that the Liberals accept that our amendment was lodged not as a wrecking amendment, but in the spirit of seeking to work together.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I do, indeed, welcome the cabinet secretary’s positive comments this morning, but I will press him a little on timescale. In 2009-10, the Scottish Prison Service delivered only 56 minutes of developmental activity per prisoner per day. We need to do better, and SIBs are one way of drawing ethical finance in when times are tight. Can the cabinet secretary give me some reassurance on the timescale?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

As Roderick Campbell eloquently said, we must build on the evidence. The only scheme of which we are aware is in Peterborough and I am happy to look at it, although it is fair to say—especially in a justice debate—that the jury is out. I give the member a commitment to look at the scheme with an open mind. I do not want to give a commitment on the timescale, but I am happy to look at the scheme. Given that it was started by Labour and supported by the coalition, we take no ideological view of it; we will look at what has worked, which is why we will also consider the concept of public-social partnerships.

The fundamental ethos of the debate has been about recognising the good reasons for tackling reoffending. There are financial challenges and questions about how best to use our public funds, as the cost of keeping someone in prison is significant and the cost of constructing prisons is even greater. However, as members have pointed out, there is also a moral obligation to deal with people with fundamental problems, whether with dyslexia and literacy, which Graeme Pearson and other members mentioned, or with drugs and alcohol, which Christine Grahame mentioned. We have a moral duty to help people who face challenges, although it is accepted by members around the chamber—perhaps more by some than by others—that prison will always be the right place for some people. Those who pose a danger to our communities must go there, and there must be imprisonment for serious offending. In other cases, however, we must consider other ways.

This is a common cause and there are good schemes out there, which have been commented on. The 218 centre was mentioned, first by Christine Grahame and then by Dr Richard Simpson. I visited the centre a few weeks back and had a cup of coffee with 15 or 18 of the women there. It was quite challenging but very thought provoking. I look forward to Elish Angiolini’s report but, having not seen it, I am not in a position to comment on it. Nevertheless, the Government looks forward to building on it. I have no doubt that Elish Angiolini, Dr Linda de Caestecker and Sheriff Danny Scullion will have given great thought to it. That may mean building on the 218 centre, as I cannot believe that they would take anything other than the same supportive view of it. When I visited the centre, I was told that Elish Angiolini had been there in her role as chair of the commission.

There is a need to reduce reoffending and, as Roderick Campbell said, the reducing reoffending change fund is about working together to do what we can. Some of the work must be in other portfolios, as it is not just prison officers, prison governors and criminal justice social workers who have a role. There is recognition from members around the chamber of the outstanding contribution that the third sector makes—whether through Sacro, the 218 centre or Turning Point, all of which play a great role.

Equally, we must make common cause across portfolios and we seek to do that at a governmental level. Some of the problems are to do with the lack of educational or work opportunities for individuals, and there are health issues, such as low-level mental ill health, for example. We must tackle those problems.

We know what works in reducing reoffending and getting people back on the straight and narrow. They need a home to go to and some contact with family, whether it be mum, a granny, an auntie or whatever. They need someone who takes an interest in them when they are in prison and when they come out. There should also be, I would hope, some opportunity for employment and, if not, something participatory and constructive that they can do during the day. We have to put in more resources for those things. Questions have been asked and we must check against delivery on literacy, for example. The SPS is putting in place appropriate monitoring of that.

I am grateful to Alison McInnes for raising the issue. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will accept the spirit of the amendment. I am more than happy to undertake to look at the good work that is being tried in Peterborough. If it works and can be replicated here, we will be more than happy to use it. In the interim, whether we are talking about public-social partnerships or the on-going good work that is being done the length and breadth of Scotland, it has the Government’s full support.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to sum up what has been an important debate that was led very ably by Alison McInnes on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. The debate has been quite consensual. There can be little doubt that we are dealing with a highly important subject. Tackling reoffending is about offering second chances and it is clear that members on all sides think that we are not offering enough of those second chances to the people who need them.

A quick glance at the statistics on reoffending that Alison McInnes highlighted is enough to make the eyes water. The simple fact is that most people who are convicted in a Scottish court have offended before and 62 per cent of Scottish prisoners will reoffend within two years of their release from prison. That is a deeply unhelpful statistic when we consider that Scotland’s prison population has increased by more than 25 per cent in the past decade.

Even more concerning is the fact that more than two thirds of the 9,372 people who received a prison sentence in 2009-10 already had five or more previous convictions. There is clearly a problem there and the Government is simply not getting a grip on it. “An overview of Scotland’s criminal justice system”, a report published last year by Audit Scotland, stated:

“Reoffending is a continuing problem in Scotland. There has been little progress towards the Scottish Government’s national indicator to reduce reconviction rates, which have fallen by less than one per cent in the last three years.”

The cabinet secretary and Mary Fee concentrated on talking about families. Each statistic represents not just a reoffender, but a personal tragedy for friends, family and other concerned individuals. The reoffender might have been brought up in a turbulent environment, might not have been able to enjoy the same educational opportunities as the rest of us, or might have had problematic drug addictions, which Lewis Macdonald addressed.

There are societal consequences from failing to tackle reoffending effectively. Just ask the 825,000 victims of criminal activity in Scotland in 2009-10, many of whom were victims at the hands of reoffenders. Many members, including Christine Grahame, mentioned the cost to society. Although there are no estimates of the cost to the Scottish criminal justice system, the Audit Scotland report highlights UK Government research, which estimates that every prisoner who reoffends costs the taxpayer around £80,000. Interestingly, research commissioned by the Wise Group, a social enterprise that helps unemployed people to move into employment, established that, by factoring in the costs of welfare payments, unemployment benefits and the cost to the criminal justice system, moving one unemployed reoffender into employment could deliver savings to Scotland of £940,000 over a five-year period.

Graeme Pearson mentioned how a reduction in reoffending would deliver significant savings to the criminal justice system. It would result in fewer cases heading into the in-trays of fiscals throughout the country, fewer court cases and fewer recipients of legal aid. A reduction in the case load for fiscals should be a pressing concern for the cabinet secretary in light of the Procurators Fiscal Society’s written submission to the Justice Committee. It revealed that fiscals had 14,000 unmarked cases in October, which was an increase of 7,000 cases in just six months. There would also be a reduction in the costs to the courts and the police of supporting the courts system.

The Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005 established Scotland’s eight community justice authorities while we were in government. The intention behind the CJAs was to enable a more co-ordinated approach to the delivery of offender services and to target those services towards the reduction of reoffending.

We established both a framework to tackle reoffending and some outstanding projects, such as the Women in Focus service in the south-west of Scotland, which I will touch on later. Sadly, however, no progress has been made and the Government failed to achieve its own national indicator on reducing reconviction rates.

I have spoken of the reasons why we require a new approach to prison rehabilitation in order to reduce reoffending rates in Scotland, and Audit Scotland has stated that there needs to be significant improvement in how services for offenders are delivered throughout the country. As with everything in life, there is no silver bullet, as David McLetchie, Dennis Robertson and others have mentioned, but social impact bonds present an attractive option for policy makers, and the evidence from the pilot in Peterborough seems encouraging, as Roderick Campbell mentioned.

Despite not operating on the basis of a social impact bond, the Women in Focus service, which is being delivered across the south-west of Scotland by Barnardo’s Scotland, is a useful illustration of how such a model could work here. The service works with women offenders who are serving community-based orders in Ayrshire and Dumfries and Galloway to reduce their levels of reoffending and reconviction, reduce the number of community-based orders and help the women to make positive contributions to their local communities.

The service was commissioned following a highly successful pilot in Ayrshire, the outcomes from which showed that the number of successfully completed community orders among women engaging with the service more than doubled, with significantly lower reoffending levels. Early indicators show that the service is achieving similar results to those the pilot achieved.

Driving down levels of reoffending in Scotland is in all our best interests. As a party, we wish to engage with the Government on the issue, which is why we suggested this debate. To be successful at reducing reoffending, we need to know what does and does not work and what is and is not cost-effective. Audit Scotland states:

“Performance information on both the level of reoffending and the effectiveness of services to reduce offending is limited and inconsistent.”

We need to remedy that and I would be keen to discuss with the cabinet secretary how the Government will assess the effectiveness of the preventative spend measures that he plans to explore, as detailed in his amendment.

As my colleague Alison McInnes mentioned, it is a matter of regret that the Government does not fully support our motion. We appreciate that this has been a consensual debate and will take the cabinet secretary’s words in good faith. However, we are disappointed: the amendment welcomes the fact that the Scottish Government will “explore the potential” of social impact bonds, but we would rather see a pilot set up.

Thank you for this opportunity, Presiding Officer, and I look forward to the rest of the chamber supporting our motion at the end of the day.

Dogs (Compulsory Microchipping)

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the compulsory microchipping of dogs. (S4O-00789)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scottish Government recognises the benefits of microchipping in helping to reunite dogs with owners when dogs have been lost or stolen, which is why it is recommended as best practice in the “Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs”, which was published in 2010. In addition, we have ensured that the owners of dangerous or out-of-control dogs can be required to microchip their dogs by the issue of a dog control notice under the relevant legislation. However, there are currently no plans to introduce compulsory microchipping more widely.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

The cabinet secretary is probably aware that Northern Ireland will introduce compulsory microchipping in April and that the National Assembly for Wales is considering the issue. Would he welcome dialogue with the Kennel Club on how we can best progress such a scheme in Scotland?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Yes. I am always happy to have dialogue with the Kennel Club and, indeed, with Dennis Robertson. If he wishes to put a case to me, I will certainly sit down with him and discuss the relevant issues. If he wished to contact me to set up a meeting with the Kennel Club and himself, I would be happy to take that forward.

There are a number of issues that we should be conscious of. Enforcing a widespread requirement for compulsory microchipping could be costly for local authorities, and a scheme could of course be costly for owners, since any registration system and database would have to be self-sustaining financially. We are concerned about a number of issues, but I would be happy to sit down with Dennis Robertson and the Kennel Club, if that is what he desires.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

Does the Scottish Government believe that the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 is strong enough to ensure responsible dog ownership?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

We supported the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill, which Christine Grahame introduced. Indeed, I believe that all parties in the Parliament supported it. The new powers for local authorities under the 2010 act have been in force since February 2011 and, since then, local authorities have undertaken more than 1,000 investigations and issued 92 dog control notices to irresponsible dog owners. That means, of course, that 92 dogs have been microchipped and that local authorities are monitoring under the 2010 act those dogs’ behaviour and that of their owners. I hope that the legislation is making a good difference. We will of course continue to monitor it to ensure that that is the case.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Has the minister had any discussions with his United Kingdom counterparts on the compulsory microchipping of dogs? Does he agree that any consultation on the issue should be UK-wide?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I have had no direct conversations on the issue with UK counterparts. I indicated in my previous answer that we will pay close attention to developments in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales, should they, too, decide to proceed with compulsory microchipping.

On consultation, clearly Northern Ireland has taken its own decision and England and Wales will take their own decision, so here in Scotland we will take our own decision. However, I assure the member that we will pay close attention to what happens elsewhere in these islands.

Northern Isles Ferry Contract

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive when it will announce the preferred bidder for the northern isles ferry contract. (S4O-00790)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We expect an announcement on the preferred bidder for the next northern isles ferry services contract to be made in April 2012.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I thank the minister for his answer and for his answers to the written questions on the issue that I lodged earlier this month. He will be aware from those questions of my concerns about the scope for the communities that rely on the services to shape the way in which they are developed. Will he assure my constituents that the quality, reliability and affordability of passenger and freight services across the northern isles network will be safeguarded? Will he guarantee that the new contract will not adversely impact on the local economy and my constituents? Specifically, will he offer an opportunity for the regional transport partnerships or the local councils to review the contract specification before it is finally agreed and published next month?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

It is probably worth underlining the extent to which what Liam McArthur has asked for has already happened. Over the past two years, in preparation for the contract, we have taken the views of the Orkney and Shetland communities. There was a consultation exercise in summer 2010, which had more than 400 responses from individuals and organisations. We also held a series of public meetings. During the initial phases of the contract a key stakeholder group was involved, with relevant local authorities and RTPs. External organisations have been involved in the tender, even up to the latter stages of the tender being let, which is obviously not entirely risk free. For that reason, some RTP representatives had to sign confidentiality agreements to protect the integrity of the process. It is my view that such people have been completely involved as far as is possible in a tender process.

Our intention is that the new contract will mirror all the best aspects of the current contract, which attracts support of about £42.2 million from the Scottish Government. That is a commitment to support the economy of the northern isles. Would that commitment be mirrored by the United Kingdom Government, which is bleeding the Scottish economy dry through the fuel duties that it imposes? That would be a very good thing for the member to take forward with his colleagues in that Government.

We will continue to provide our support. I have tried to reassure the member before about the extent to which we are involving local communities in the tender process, which we are doing as far as we can.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister update the Parliament on recent discussions with Shetland Islands Council and Orkney Islands Council about this year’s extended dry-dock period for vessels?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The island authorities have raised a number of concerns, not least about the extended nine-week dry-dock period that the member mentions. Unfortunately, I had no part in the current contract, which has led to that situation. However, I have said to the northern isles authorities that we will ensure that the next tender process does not allow such a situation to arise again.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Question number 3 by Annabel Goldie has been withdrawn, but she has provided a satisfactory explanation.

Question 4 was not lodged by Mary Fee.

Landlords (Registration and Appointment of Agents)

John Pentland (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive how many landlords have been fined for (a) failing to register and (b) not notifying local authorities of the appointment of an agent since 31 August 2011 and how much has been imposed in fines. (S4O-00793)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Local authorities have not informed the Scottish Government of any landlords who have been fined by the courts for failing to register since 31 August 2011, when the maximum fine for that was increased to £50,000. Similarly, local authorities have not made us aware of any landlords who have been fined by the courts for not notifying their local authority of the appointment of an agent.

John Pentland (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Many of my constituents are concerned about the difficulties that are caused by landlords who allow their properties, grounds and tenants to blight the community. Unregistered landlords make the situation worse. At present, housing benefit rules do not require their registration. Will the Scottish Government consider measures in the housing benefit system to ensure registration of landlords?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The housing benefit system is under substantial review and is undergoing changes at the behest of the United Kingdom Government, which controls it. At least currently, this Parliament does not control it.

In relation to unregistered landlords, it is hard to say whether the absence of referrals is because the increased fine of £50,000 is having a deterrent effect. The measure was introduced only in August last year, so we will have to give it a bit more time.

The member makes a fair point about landlord registration and behaviour. We have set up a short-life working group to consider the issue and what more we can do.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Another way in which private tenants could be protected is through tenancy agreements, which we already have in the registered social landlord sector. Could they be rolled out into the private sector?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

At the risk of repeating myself, I point out that we are working with members of the Scottish private rented sector strategy group on a consultative strategy for the sector, which is due for publication next month. As part of that work, we aim to seek views on the current tenancy regime that governs private sector lets and to consider what more can be done about the issue that the member raises.

Public Entertainment Licensing

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

6. To ask the Scottish Government whether local authorities are keeping to the spirit of the order that allows charging for free events held under public entertainment licences. (S4O-00794)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 amended the licensing regime for public entertainment in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 to remove the automatic exemption for free-to-enter events. The amendment, which removes the previous anomaly whereby large-scale free raves did not require a licence, will come into effect on 1 April 2012.

Local authorities have complete discretion over which types of entertainment they wish to license. Highland Council has confirmed that its existing resolution already exempts free-to-enter events and that it will review which events require a licence. Similarly, Glasgow City Council and the City of Edinburgh Council are reviewing their resolutions. I have written to all licensing conveners setting out the issues.

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

We expect local authorities to take decisions that fit their local conditions. Glasgow City Council, Highland Council and the City of Edinburgh Council have been forced to suspend public entertainment licences for free events. Will the Scottish Government monitor the application of public entertainment licences to free events in all local authority areas after one year?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

We are more than happy to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to review matters. Fundamentally, we want to ensure that local authorities, which are best placed to know which events should be dealt with and which should be exempt, have discretion. It has always been the intention to ensure that relatively small-scale events that are not a risk should not be charged. That approach is replicated in Highland Council and the City of Edinburgh Council. Equally, for events such as the recent one in Kelvingrove park, local authorities should have the opportunity to take the appropriate action to ensure public safety.

Police Support Staff

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Executive how many police support staff are employed across the country. (S4O-00795)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

On 31 December 2011, there were 6,957 police support staff across Scotland. Operational decisions about levels of police support staff are a matter for chief constables, the Scottish Police Services Authority and the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will know that that is nearly 1,000 fewer staff than were in post two years previously. Will he take steps to ensure that the police service is not damaged by a significant loss of skills and experience in an effort to deliver Government efficiency savings?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Absolutely. When I went to the Unison conference earlier this week, I confirmed that we welcome the contribution that is made to policing in Scotland not simply by those who have the office of constable and wear a uniform or otherwise work as a member of the constabulary but by those who do a variety of other tasks that make the life of a policeman easier or are of such a specialist nature that police officers cannot be expected to do them.

As we move to ensure that Scotland remains safe from crime and we continue to build on the 35-year low in crime, we have to move towards a single service and, in doing so, we have to ensure that there is no duplication. However, we have given a commitment to Unison that there will be no compulsory redundancies.

Union Terrace Gardens Project (Business Plan)

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive when it received the business case for the Union Terrace gardens project in Aberdeen and when it will decide whether to approve it. (S4O-00796)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Scottish ministers have not yet received Aberdeen City Council’s tax increment financing business case for its city centre regeneration plans, which include the city garden project. Aberdeen City Council is working with the Scottish Futures Trust to develop the business case, which will be considered by Scottish ministers in due course.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Given that the business case was published in the Aberdeen press some weeks ago and the referendum has passed, I am somewhat surprised that the cabinet secretary has still not received the business case for this vital project. When does he expect to make a decision on whether he will approve it, given that there is so much controversy about whether the business case for the Union Terrace gardens proposal stacks up? If there is a shortfall in the ambitious plans to raise additional revenue from business rates, will the Scottish Government assist in plugging any funding gap that may emerge in the project?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I repeat that we have not received the business case. It is difficult for me to comment on something that I have not received. However, I am sure that Aberdeen City Council, under the excellent management of some of my colleagues, will submit a robust business case and ensure that the council’s finances remain in a robust position. I am sure that Richard Baker will be glad to join me in wishing that that happens.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I put on the record my membership of Aberdeen City Council. I welcome Richard Baker’s acknowledgment that this is a “vital project”.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that, the more private sector financial backing is secured for the city garden project, the less money will require to be borrowed under tax increment financing. Will he join me in calling for further private sector donors to come forward and add to the £55 million that has been leveraged thus far from private sector donors—the majority from Sir Ian Wood—and pledged towards the project?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

When we receive the business case, one of the issues that we will look at is the private sector leverage. Indeed, one reason why we asked for the business case to be submitted was that the projected private sector leverage in the proposal, as opposed to the business case, was very attractive. However, I will not be in a position to make a detailed comment on the business case until I receive it from the city council.

Cardiology Services

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

9. To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take following the recent Audit Scotland report on cardiology services. (S4O-00797)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I very much welcome the Audit Scotland report, which shows that

“More patients are getting more effective treatment, death rates have reduced, people are living longer after treatment and waiting times have fallen.”

We are already taking forward many of the report’s recommendations through our work on the better heart disease and stroke care action plan and Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s heart disease improvement programme. The national advisory committee on heart disease continues to monitor progress.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that very helpful response, but I suggest that further work needs to be done in relation to patients in remote and rural areas and the islands, given the specified time for the most effective treatment and recovery of cardiac patients.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I fully agree with Mary Scanlon that it is vital that we ensure that someone who suffers a stroke or a heart attack has access to good care, regardless of where in the country they live. As we have discussed previously in many different contexts, the challenges are different and often greater when we are dealing with remote and rural areas, but there is no doubt about our commitment and determination to deliver access to such care. I will be happy to keep Mary Scanlon and others advised of progress.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I agree that considerable progress has been made in tackling heart disease. National health service staff should be congratulated on their efforts.

However, the cabinet secretary will be aware that the recent Audit Scotland report on cardiology services showed that people in deprived communities

“are not always getting the same level of treatment as the rest of the population”.

What action will she take to ensure equal access to services?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

It is a very important point and, because it is so important, it is vital that we do not misrepresent the position. Jackie Baillie will be aware, and I am sure that she will agree, that inequitable access to cardiac interventions for people in more deprived areas is a long-standing issue, but there are numerous reasons for that. ISD Scotland has suggested that, once people from deprived areas get into the system, they are just as likely to access care, so encouraging and supporting people in deprived areas to access care is the key challenge.

However, it is also important to remember that we have cut heart attack mortality rates faster in the most deprived areas than we have anywhere else. The latest figures show a 34.1 per cent reduction in mortality among people in the most deprived category, which is double the drop observed in the least deprived category.

I take the issue very seriously. There is no room for complacency. As with many other conditions, we face particular challenges in relation to people in deprived areas. That is why it is extremely important that we continue to take forward all this work through our heart disease and stroke strategy.

Modern Apprenticeship Vacancies (Advertising)

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

10. To ask the Scottish Executive how it advertises vacancies for modern apprenticeships. (S4O-00798)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

In Scotland, all apprentices must be employed, so apprenticeship opportunities are advertised and recruited for by employers in the same way as they advertise and recruit to fill other job opportunities in their organisations.

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

Is the cabinet secretary aware that there is no longer a central portal for advertising modern apprenticeship vacancies, as there was in the past? Will he ask Skills Development Scotland to consider including such a portal on the my world of work website, to help prospective apprentices access the opportunities that they need?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We recognise the need to ensure that young people can access job adverts, but it is important that we do not duplicate existing services of one sort or another. Between 30 and 40 per cent of jobs are advertised through Jobcentre Plus and in a variety of other ways. I am glad that the Labour Party is now convinced of the worth of my world of work; its conversion from its previous hostility is welcome. The my world of work service includes a freephone helpline for young people. We are improving it constantly, and of course SDS will look to see how more progress can be made.

It is true that modern apprenticeship places are being filled and being filled well. The 25,000 places that are on offer are in considerable demand. That is a record number, which I am sure will be filled. In those circumstances, I encourage anyone who encourages young people to look for work to ensure that they look widely, that they always look at the advantages of modern apprenticeships and that they look on the my world of work website.

Engagements

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00547)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am sure that the whole chamber will wish to join me in congratulating Perth on achieving city status. [Applause.]

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

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the First Minister explain why Scottish families are facing some of the highest childcare costs in Europe while his Government offers less help than Nick Clegg?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As Johann Lamont knows, in our previous term of office, we took the free availability of childcare in Scotland from 425 hours, which we inherited, to 475 hours. I am sure that she will welcome the pledge to move that figure to 600 hours. That will go into legislation to ensure that that provision is available to everyone in all areas of Scotland, and that will give us the best package of childcare and pre-school facilities of any country in these islands.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I note that the First Minister did not answer the question why we are still in the place that we are in—but there is nothing new there.

On Saturday, the First Minister, who has, of course, never knowingly undersold his own position, promised

“The best package of free nursery education on offer anywhere in the UK”,

but just not yet. Nothing new there, then. We saw the same pledge in the Scottish National Party’s manifesto in 2007—remember that one? It is filed in the fiction section of a library near you. We know what happened with the pledge in 2007: Mike Russell dumped it in 2009. The First Minister repackaged it on Saturday, and we need to wait until after the referendum in 2014 before he delivers on it. Why has he failed to deliver on his own pledge? Why has he let Scottish families and Scottish children down?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Our ability to deliver on our programme was judged by the people of Scotland last year in an election.

I will correct Johann Lamont on the costs. She is wrong. She said that I did not answer her question directly. On the costs across these islands, the average weekly cost of nursery provision for children aged two years and over is £103.19 in England and £101.49 in Scotland. The average weekly cost of nursery provision for children under two is £94.52 in Scotland and £98.75 in England. Those are substantial childcare costs. An argument that is persuasively put forward is that supply and affordability can drive up costs in certain instances. If there is more publicly funded childcare and pre-school provision on offer, that will have two great beneficial effects: it will help the families who get that childcare and nursery provision, and it will help to drive down the costs of other provision.

In the election last May, the people of Scotland judged the ability of a minority SNP Government over four years, and they also judged the Labour Party’s attitude. I hope that, even if Johann Lamont cannot bring the Labour Party to a more positive position on many issues, at least she will now commit to supporting the legislation that will enshrine in law and make available 600 hours of childcare to families across Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

If we had been in power in 2007, we would now be in a position that the rest are in. If the First Minister had worked out how important public provision was, he might have acted a little earlier than now. We worked out its importance a long time ago.

Families need action now—not a provision in a children’s bill, and not a two-year delay. Families do not need legislation in the future; they need a Government that will provide funding now to deliver reliable and affordable childcare when people need it. The First Minister has the power to do that now. Why does he not exercise it?

On Saturday, the First Minister promised a bill. It might be news to him that working families throughout Scotland already have a bill—for childcare, and it is a pretty expensive one. Families need support now. Why do we have to wait another two years for the First Minister to put a provision in a bill, never mind delivering what people need?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

If the Labour Party was so keen on the policy, why on earth did it not implement it in the eight years during which it was in power? Why did we inherit 425 hours, which we increased to 475 hours? If it was only after eight years, during which Johann Lamont was a minister, that Labour decided—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order. We will hear the First Minister, please.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am not surprised that Labour members do not want to hear this. It is inconvenient for them to be reminded of the dreadful record of the Labour Party in government.

If, after eight years, there was a conversion, so that, if only the Labour Party had been re-elected in 2007, it would have implemented the policy, why did Labour not implement the policy south of the border, where it was still in government?

The record of the Labour Party in government up to 2007 was judged harshly by the Scottish people. The record of the Labour Party in opposition up to 2011 was judged even more harshly by the Scottish people. A key reason for that dramatic failure, when Johann Lamont was deputy leader of the party, was Labour’s total, absolute negativity. Can Labour members please bring themselves at this stage to welcome our announcement to take childcare provision to 600 hours, to benefit every family in every area of Scotland?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

If that is the First Minister being positive about me, God help me when he decides to turn on me.

What Labour did on childcare over eight years benefited me as a mother, never mind as a minister. Indeed, we have the benefit in Glasgow now, with a Labour council—

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

Not any more! [Interruption.]

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

This episode is another example of the mañana Government: excuses today and jam not even tomorrow but maybe in two years’ time. Working families are struggling now and the First Minister simply does not get it. There are fewer children in nursery, after-school clubs are closing down, and the childcare that is on offer is simply not meeting people’s needs.

On Saturday, the First Minister said:

“In devolved Scotland we can demand. In an independent Scotland we can deliver.”

Members: Yes!

That was obviously for the children on the SNP back benches. They are so predictable. What the First Minister really meant was that he will not deliver until he gets his way in a referendum—talk about an abuse of power! The reality is that, for the First Minister, the issue is not childcare; what gets him excited is the constitution. In this devolved Scotland, families cannot and will not wait. We insist that the First Minister delivers for Scottish families now. Will he take the issue and the people of this country seriously and act now to help Scottish families?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have often said to Johann Lamont that she should move off script, but after that I think that perhaps she should stay on script in future.

I do not think that Glasgow City Council is Johann Lamont’s strongest suit at the moment. Labour is losing councillors in Glasgow even more quickly than it lost votes in the Scottish election.

If what we inherited from Labour was so wonderful, why did the previous, minority SNP Government have to increase provision from the 425 hours that we inherited to 475 hours, as part of the concordat with Scottish local government?

I took as a compliment the 18 mentions of me in Johann Lamont’s speech at the Labour Party conference two weeks ago, but it is rather better to lay out policies, as we did at our conference when we said that 2,500 young people are to be given life opportunities, that there will be an additional £10 million Commonwealth games legacy fund, that every SNP council in Scotland will introduce the living wage, as the SNP Government has done, and that we will introduce legislation to give the guarantee to families throughout Scotland of 600 hours of free childcare and nursery education.

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-00531)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have no plans in the near future.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

Earlier this week, the Scottish Medicines Consortium decided not to approve the drug abiraterone for men in Scotland who are suffering from advanced prostate cancer. Abiraterone is the drug that has been used so successfully to extend the life of Mr Megrahi since the Scottish Government sent him home to die. In a battle against a cancer that costs so many hundreds of Scottish men their lives every year, there have been few advances. This drug is one. Will the First Minister act to give cancer sufferers greater access to important new drugs?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

This is a hugely serious and important issue. Everybody in the chamber acknowledges that, as new drugs come on to the market, it is totally understandable that patients groups, and people who are afflicted with serious conditions, have a tremendous desire to see those drugs become available.

The SMC has been in Scotland now for 10 years, and it is hugely and substantially admired because of its independence and thoroughness. Over those 10 years, there has not been a single case of any Government overruling an SMC judgment. There is a substantial and good reason for that. What happens now? The drug company concerned has indicated that it will go back and resubmit. The SMC has the extraordinarily difficult task of judging the efficacy of treatment against the budgetary constraints that inevitably apply in any health service. If the SMC—or the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in England—were to accept every submission, it would be impossible to sustain the drugs budget. The SMC has to use criteria.

Ruth Davidson should pay considerable attention to what a number of the cancer charities have been saying about the obligations on drug companies to try to make new drugs, when they come forward, available to the national health service at a cost that can be afforded.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

The First Minister misrepresents what I was asking: I was not asking him to overrule the SMC, which is indeed independent and thorough. There is an obvious solution—a Scottish cancer drugs fund. My predecessor, Annabel Goldie, raised the issue with the First Minister 14 months ago; Conservatives then met him and his health secretary; and we brought the issue to the chamber for debate as recently as September last year. In other parts of the United Kingdom, we have seen the huge impact of the cancer drugs fund for sufferers and their families. To date, 12,000 people have had their lives extended through the cancer drugs fund. What possible excuse does the First Minister have for refusing the same opportunity to cancer sufferers in Scotland?

Government is about choices. The First Minister chose to find £50 million to give free prescriptions to people such as himself who can afford to pay for them, but he is choosing not to find a more modest sum to extend and improve the lives of Scots with fatal conditions. Will he now make a different choice? Will he now—14 months down the line, and after countless premature deaths—reconsider, intervene and support a Scottish cancer drugs fund?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Ruth Davidson says that she did not suggest that ministers should overrule the SMC but, of course, her health spokesman did. He should not have done so, because the process depends on its independence for its effectiveness.

Even for medicines that are not approved by the SMC, it is not the case that they cannot be made available to patients in Scotland. We have the process of individual patient treatment requests. Through that process, 126 medicines not yet approved by the SMC have been requested in NHS Scotland. Of those requests, 87 have been approved, and 39 have not.

Ruth Davidson presents the chamber with the impression that the cancer drugs fund initiative in England is substantially supported. However, I remind her that cancer charities such as Myeloma UK, Breakthrough Breast Cancer and Macmillan Cancer Support issued a briefing paper for the Scottish parliamentary debate on whether Scotland should have a cancer drugs fund. It said:

“The Cancer Drugs Fund does not address the root causes of why patients may be denied access to treatments.”

Ruth Davidson’s colleague the Tory MP Pauline Latham said on 26 December:

“The Cancer Drugs Fund was set up to stop this kind of lottery ... In my area, it is not fit for purpose and is not working for the benefit of patients.”

The chamber considered the cancer drugs fund, and we paid attention to the many submissions that we received suggesting that it is not the best way forward.

I suggest to Ruth Davidson that the process that we have in Scotland works effectively, with the SMC approving 60 per cent of drugs that have been resubmitted on a more reasonable cost basis after being turned down. Now that Ruth Davidson has said that we should not interfere with the SMC process, I believe that people will understand the necessity of its independence and rigour. I am sure that she is aware that, if a drug is not approved, there is still the individual patient treatment requests process, through which a clinician can make an argument based on therapeutic value because of a patient’s precise circumstances. That process has had great efficacy when it has been applied. On this subject above all, the chamber has a responsibility to the people of Scotland, especially to those who suffer from grievous diseases, to demonstrate to them the substance of the efforts that have been made to give them the best possible treatment.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Given the highly critical report by the Accounts Commission on the Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service, which highlighted 35 substandard fire stations, a lack of investment in vehicles and information technology and, most damaging of all, a lack of training, equipment, and health and safety resilience for front-line firefighters, will the First Minister ensure that a thorough review is undertaken to find out how things went so badly wrong and to help to prevent that from happening again?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

It is right and proper to give the Highlands and Islands fire board time to consider its response to the Accounts Commission report. I see that, at the meeting on Monday 19 March, possible terms of reference for an inquiry will be considered. I am pleased that our other seven fire and rescue services have provided significant support, including the secondment of staff, to the Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service as it addresses the challenges that it faces. Of course, a single fire service will have access to wider management resources as a matter of course, to deploy them where they are most needed.

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

There have been allegations in the recent Megrahi biography and in the press regarding the Crown’s actions throughout the prosecution appeal process. Is it possible, through the Inquiries Act 2005, to instruct an independent examination of those allegations, and might that fall within the remit of the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The appropriate body for declaring guilt or innocence is, of course, a court of law, but I think that the recent media coverage indicates that it is absolutely imperative that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission be given the powers that it needs to release the full statement of reasons in this case. I obviously welcome disclosure: we are trying to get disclosure of the full SCCRC report, which is imperative. I do not think that partial disclosure, especially when it is done selectively, is assisting the debate. I cannot see any possible reason for there being obstacles in the way of full disclosure and publication of the complete SCCRC report. I hope that the chamber will unite to ensure, as far as is possible within our powers, that that happens.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

The First Minister might be aware from an article in today’s Evening Times of the completely unacceptable treatment of Mrs Maureen Leckie, a 73-year-old stroke victim from Paisley who was, because no clean towels were available, forced to dry herself with pillowcases after having a shower in the Royal Alexandra hospital. I note that the health board has today apologised to Maureen and her family. Maureen has spoken out because she does not want others to suffer the same experience. What action will the First Minister take to ensure that this does not happen again at the RAH or at any other hospital?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will discuss the matter with the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy, take appropriate action and write to Neil Bibby. Individual cases, and people speaking out about them, are an important part of the process of constant improvement in our health service. Such cases must be dealt with: the boards understand that and processes are in place to ensure that it happens. However, that should not detract from recognition among members that our health service and its workers are held in the highest regard—indeed, they are held in higher regard than ever before—in terms of public levels of satisfaction.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00541)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Issues of importance to the people of Scotland will be discussed.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Last week, I warned the First Minister about his unhealthy relationship with Rupert Murdoch. This week, the First Minister’s old friend, Donald Trump, turned into a foe. I will press him on another of his rich and powerful friends, and that friend’s influence on Government policy.

The First Minister will know that I agree with him on equal marriage for gay people. I want to remove the barriers that prevent churches and other organisations from conducting same-sex marriages if they choose to do so. However, Brian Souter, a donor to the Scottish National Party, has well-known views against equality for gay people. Can the First Minister confirm that he will not give in to Brian Souter and that he will stand up for what is right on equal marriage?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I understand that the Liberal Democrats’ ethos in politics used to be to seek consensus and agreement, and to find areas in which parties could unite. Two things have happened. First, even when the Liberal Democrat leader says that he is seeking consensus, he manages to do so in such a way as to make that consensus impossible. Secondly, people in Scotland did not realise when the Liberals said before the previous United Kingdom general election that they were seeking consensus that that would involve the continuation of Westminster Tory rule in Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Observers will note that the First Minister did not answer my question. It is simple: can he guarantee that he will not give in to Brian Souter? Equal marriage will be a mark of a modern Scotland. Last Sunday there was a big push by some churches to block the change. A cardinal said that it is “grotesque” and an archbishop said that there is a duty to stop it. The group Scotland for marriage went to the absurd extreme of saying that it would open the door for polygamy.

Those are serious forces against us, and I do not want the argument to slip away from us. I ask the First Minister again: will he stand up to Brian Souter and take a lead for equality in Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

That does not raise the debate to the level that we hope for and expect in Scotland. Incidentally, I agree with Willie Rennie that it is something that we should aspire to, but that requires all sides of the debate—not just one—to live up to a particular standard.

I made my views on the matter clear during the election, and they have not changed. The important point is that we are in a consultation process. The consultation has closed, and there has been a massive number of responses. As First Minister of Scotland, I believe that it is right and proper that the consultation process and the consideration of the evidence that has been presented be allowed to take their course.

We—members and parties in the chamber—are considering equal status in marriage, which has a strong moral dimension and is a matter of individual conscience. On such issues above all—if we are to have a debate on an issue of principle that is worthy of Parliament and, indeed, of the country—it behoves politicians, who lecture the rest of society about the care that they must take in using language, to rise to the challenge that they set other people.

Childcare (Pre-school Children)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

4. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will provide further information on its plans to improve childcare for pre-school children. (S4F-00539)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

We are making a transformational change in childcare support for families and are certainly committed to that shift. As Jamie Hepburn knows, and as we have discussed already during this very question time, the last part of the children’s bill that will be introduced next year will legislate for an expansion from 475 hours to a minimum of 600 hours per year of funded early learning and childcare for all three and four-year-olds, and for two-year-olds who are looked after, in Scotland. That will be the best package of free nursery education on offer anywhere in the United Kingdom and it represents a clear statement of faith in, and commitment to, the future.

We will, of course, use the wisdom and advice of the cross-party early years task force to help ensure that delivery of the provision is flexible enough to meet the needs of all Scotland’s families. [Interruption.]

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I thank the First Minister for his response and—not least as the father of a pre-school-age child—I welcome the Government’s commitment to extending free nursery provision.

Does the First Minister share not only Save the Children’s concern that the introduction of universal credit will make childcare costs more difficult for many families, but the concern of many organisations that the UK Government has reduced the cap for the childcare element of working tax credit from 80 per cent to 70 per cent, which is adding an average £546 to childcare costs for thousands of Scottish households? Is not it time that this Parliament had control over tax and benefits so that Scottish families are not left to the vagaries of the Tories and their Liberal friends?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Parliament should be aware that research from the Institute of Fiscal Studies suggests that the proposed changes to the whole welfare system will increase the number of children in absolute poverty across the UK by 500,000 by 2015. Is not that an argument for why we need powers over tax and benefits? We need to protect the children of Scotland from poverty and the worst excesses of the Westminster Government. It seems to me that the disgruntled members of the Labour Party have a very clear choice before them: to keep backing Tory control over the benefits that will worsen child poverty, or to join us and bring powers to Scotland that will allow us to look after all Scotland’s children.

Same-sex Marriage

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

5. To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government will announce its position on same-sex marriage. (S4F-00548)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

This is a hugely important issue. We have received more than 50,000 responses to the consultation—the most responses to any consultation under devolution. The responses are being collated and analysed and we expect to complete that process over the coming months.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Any Scottish Government proposals for equal marriage will have the support of the many members on this side of the chamber and across it who signed the equal marriage pledge. Will the First Minister confirm that the Government will not publish its response to last year’s consultation until after the local government elections? Furthermore, will he indicate whether there is any good reason why equal marriage cannot be achieved before the referendum in 2014?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As Drew Smith might know, what the Government can publish over the campaigning period for local government elections is heavily restricted, as it should be. We are going through the consultation responses and will make progress on that basis. I hope and believe that, regardless of their views on the issue, all members recognise the critical importance in this issue—perhaps above all others—of people on all sides of the debate being able to see that a genuine and proper process of, first, consultation and then analysis and publication is taking place. That is exactly the type of process that we intend to follow.

2014 Commonwealth Games

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

6. To ask the First Minister what progress is being made in ensuring that the 2014 Commonwealth games are on time and on budget. (S4F-00545)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am told that we are 860 days away from the opening ceremony of the Glasgow games in 2014 and I am delighted to report that preparations remain on time and on budget.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I am, indeed, pleased that the Commonwealth games are on time and on budget. The First Minister will be aware that, for the games to be truly successful, they must leave a lasting legacy. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that the legacy is not only for Glasgow, but for the whole of Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As Sandra White will be aware, last weekend I announced a further £10 million for a games legacy for Scotland get active fund to provide new and enhanced sports facilities in communities across Scotland.

Construction of the athletes’ village is nearing completion. During the games, it will accommodate approximately 6,500 competitors and officials and after the games it will be used to provide a range of affordable housing. The Commonwealth sports arena and velodrome are almost complete and will be accessible to the public in October, nearly two years ahead of the games. Those few but very important examples show that the Government, acting in conjunction with its partners, is determined to ensure that Scots feel the benefit of the Commonwealth games long after they are finished.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

I share the enthusiasm of the First Minister and Sandra White for the Commonwealth games and for what they can bring to Glasgow and Scotland. Is the First Minister satisfied that the games will deliver a tangible legacy for all areas of Glasgow?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Glasgow has a particular prominence as the host city of the games, and rightly so. The games will be extremely important, and I think that the people of Glasgow can see the advantages that are being built at present, in addition to the commitments that have been made in terms of local community involvement. That is a right and proper thing to expect. I know that Patricia Ferguson is well aware of the range of initiatives that have been taken by the Government and our partners in making that a reality.

I point out that the games will also leave a legacy across Scotland. It is important that Glasgow, as the host city, has the great prominence that it deserves, but the games are backed by the whole of Scotland and, indeed, by our many friends across the Commonwealth.

12:31 Meeting suspended.

14:15 On resuming—

Council Tax Bands (Appeals Procedure)

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on concerns that the appeals procedure for altering council tax bands is being applied inconsistently. (S4O-00799)

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

Proposals to amend council tax bands are considered by the assessor for each area, and any appeals are heard by a valuation appeals committee when there is disagreement on the outcome. Assessors and appeals committees are rightly independent of the Scottish Government and must interpret the law in a way that is correct, fair and consistent. I would be concerned if individuals were not being treated fairly. Ministers remain of the view that the council tax system as a whole is unfair and that the best way in which to resolve that is to bring forward a fairer tax that is based on the ability to pay.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board is refusing appeals in relation to wrong council tax banding based on an act that was implemented in 1993 and which states that appeals must be made prior to that date or within six months of a person moving into a property. Other valuation boards are not being so proscriptive. Will the minister write to the Lanarkshire board to request it to allow appeals that are outwith its rigid time limit?

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

Some boards are considering appeals that are outwith the time limit that Mr Lyle describes. I repeat that it is not for ministers to instruct local organisations. The issue would be for the courts and, if relevant, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. We expect the law to be interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the country. Mr Lyle might want to direct further inquiries to the organisation that I have mentioned.

Electricity (Generation)

Margaret McDougall (Labour, West Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive what percentage of Scotland’s electrical energy is generated through (a) nuclear, (b) coal and (c) renewables and whether its 2020 target for renewable electricity will be met. (S4O-00800)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Based on published figures for 2010, Scotland’s electricity generation percentages were 30.6 per cent from nuclear, 29.5 per cent from coal and 19.1 per cent from renewables.

Last Monday, the Scottish Government launched a consultation on its draft electricity generation policy statement, which highlights how Scotland currently generates electricity to meet demand and outlines the pathway for the changes that are needed to meet our targets. The statement confirms that the 2020 target is achievable, while recognising it as a challenge to the energy supply sector, our renewables industry innovators and Scotland’s communities.

Margaret McDougall (Labour, West Scotland)

The electricity generation policy statement makes numerous references to Hunterston and suggests that its life as a nuclear plant could be extended by up to five years or that it could be a new contender for a carbon capture and storage plant. The minister might not be aware that, at a meeting of North Ayrshire Council on 5 March, Scottish National Party members voted against the Labour Party and removed Hunterston from the local development plan. There has been widespread opposition to a new coal-fired plant, including from the SNP constituency MSP, Kenny Gibson.

I ask the minister to confirm just what the Government’s policy is on Hunterston. Does it feature as part of the Government’s plans? When does the minister expect a decision on the Hunterston CCS project proposal?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

As I am the minister who will be required to deal with any such decision, it would be wholly inappropriate for me to make any comment on that matter. However, I can reassure the member with regard to the Hunterston nuclear power station. The position is crystal clear and is stated in paragraph 50 of the EGPS, which, as it happens, I have before me. That makes it absolutely clear that, if the office for nuclear regulation is

“satisfied that high levels of safety and security could be maintained over the planned lifetime of the installation”,

then,

“Subject to the relevant safety cases being made, the Scottish Government would not oppose operating life extension applications”

at Hunterston.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Question 3 was not lodged, for entirely understandable reasons. Question 4 has been withdrawn, for equally understandable reasons.

Industrial Operations (Permitted Hours)

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive whether an industrial operation may operate outwith the permitted hours specified in its planning permission. (S4O-00803)

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

Unless it is otherwise agreed by the planning authority, the commencement of operations at a time that is outside that specified in a planning condition or agreement is likely to constitute a breach of planning control.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Constituents are raising with me concerns about the operating practices of Lomond quarry in Leslie. I understand that Fife Council has received more than 900 complaints from residents about operating hours and blasting, yet the council is taking no action against the quarry even though it is persistently operating outwith its permitted hours.

Will the minister confirm that, in light of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Aarhus convention, if Fife Council continues to refuse to take enforcement action over operations that are only 55m from the houses, the local communities have the right to do so?

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

I say to the member, as she would expect, that it is a matter for Fife Council to pursue enforcement action, and I understand that it is doing that. It is making contact with the company to ensure that it abides by the conditions to the planning permission, and the council will continue to pursue that. Ministers have no role to intervene in such circumstances.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

The Daily Record recently exposed that the Henry Gillies dump near Pumpherston in West Lothian has been taking in contaminated waste from the Edinburgh tram project, outside the limits of its planning permission. I have heard and seen compelling evidence of alleged illegal activity by the contractor, Bilfinger Berger, but I have found it difficult to get responses on the matter from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, West Lothian Council and other authorities. Will the minister agree to meet me and community representatives as a matter of urgency to discuss this serious issue?

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

I am happy to receive further information and will consider what approach is most appropriate in the light of the information that I receive.

Jobs Market (Access for Women)

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to increase women’s access to the jobs market. (S4O-00804)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government is committed to helping everyone who wants to work to do so. Within our current powers, we are implementing an economic strategy for growth, targeting resources where they are needed most and working to better align all employability and skills services across Scotland.

Equally, we are committed to developing a system of early learning and childcare that is flexible, accessible and affordable for parents. That is why we have committed to deliver a minimum of 600 hours per year of early learning and childcare for all three and four-year-olds and looked-after two-year-olds by 2015. That is the highest level of funded provision anywhere in the UK, and it will ensure that Scotland remains ahead of the game.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The importance of childcare was recognised in our debate on the subject this morning. Another important issue is access to high-quality part-time employment. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will be aware of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report that was published this week, which discusses some of the barriers to such employment.

Is the Scottish Government in a position to lead the way and promote high-quality part-time employment opportunities in the public sector? What steps can the Scottish Government take to ensure that private sector employers do the same thing?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There is clearly a role for the Government to lead by example in relation to flexible working practices. It is important to enable individuals to access the labour market in a fashion that is consistent with other considerations in their lives. I assure Mr Park of the Government’s active participation in steps of that nature and of our willingness to continue to develop our employment practices to ensure that such issues are addressed.

The Government is going through a process of internal change, given the reductions in public spending and the constraints on our administration budget. That has given rise to other flexible working practices that ensure that we can continue to provide the public services on which people depend but in a fashion that is financially sustainable and which takes into account some of the considerations that Mr Park has raised about high-quality part-time employment.

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Can the cabinet secretary give us details of the female modern apprenticeships that are being delivered? Does the Government have any plans to increase the number of such apprenticeships?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As Margaret Burgess might be aware, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of modern apprenticeships that are available to women. That number has gone up to approximately 45 per cent, which represents a significant increase. We remain open to ensuring that that level of participation continues to rise as part of the Government’s overall strategy for enabling more women to access the labour market and to find fulfilling employment opportunities.

Female Unemployment

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the latest “State of the Economy” report, which reported that female unemployment is higher in Scotland than the rest of the United Kingdom. (S4O-00805)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The latest labour market statistics, which were published yesterday, show not only that Scotland’s female employment rate of 66.8 per cent is higher than the UK rate of 65.4 per cent but that it is the highest of any UK nation. Scotland also has the lowest female inactivity rate of all the UK countries, which is why both unemployment and employment are higher in Scotland than in the UK.

We recognise that the global financial crisis has had a significant impact on the labour market in Scotland. That is why our budget and the Government’s economic strategy contained a range of measures to create jobs for women and men across Scotland. We are taking forward a range of initiatives to improve employment opportunities for people with families, such as our recent commitment on childcare, which I mentioned in my answer to Mr Park.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I thank the minister for his answer, but the female unemployment rate is still worrying.

The minister will be aware of the growing number of unemployed mothers whose children live in poverty. Has the Government considered introducing a job guarantee scheme, similar to the one that is being provided for young people, to help that group?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I do not in any way question the significance of the unemployment figure for women, but we must look at the other side of the coin—the level of female employment in Scotland. As I said in my original answer, that rate is 66.8 per cent, whereas the UK rate is 65.4 per cent.

In that respect, the Government’s activities are focused on ensuring that we stimulate more employment opportunities in Scotland through a higher level of economic activity. That was at the heart of the budget propositions that I put forward earlier in the year, and it has formed part of the representations that we have made to the UK Government about its budget next week. We will continue to take all the steps that we can to ensure that more individuals can access the labour market and to improve the economic conditions so that that can happen.

Enterprise Growth Fund

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive how many applications were made to the enterprise growth fund and what the assessment criteria were. (S4O-00806)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Six hundred and seven applications worth more than £50 million were received for the then £4 million enterprise growth fund. The fund was increased to £6 million in December last year.

There was a two-stage application process. In the first stage, applications were assessed against specified fund outcomes and published criteria. Those that progressed to stage 2 were assessed on their financial information and business plans. Ultimately, 64 organisations were successful in receiving funding.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

It is clear that there was a huge demand, which resulted in the fund being oversubscribed, but does the minister think that lessons could be learned about the application process?

For example, the Cumbernauld-based charity Now You’re Talking, which does excellent work helping individuals with mental health issues, drug and alcohol dependency or substance abuse problems to build confidence and gain skills so that they can find work, completed an application that did not progress beyond stage 1. In feedback, the charity was told that that was because the financial information that it had provided was not sufficiently detailed and should have included a business plan, but it was not mentioned in the application process that that was required at stage 1.

Will the minister review the provision of advice? Will he consider clarifying the guidelines for applicants in any future bid submissions? Was any consideration given to distributing the funding evenly between established, sustainable organisations and new, young social enterprises, investment in which has the potential to kick-start the economy? What weighting was given to each key outcome?