Scottish Parliament, 22 March 2012

450 contributions from 84 members. The official report.

Ferries

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02421, in the name of Elaine Murray, on ferries.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

The island of South Uist in the Western Isles has a population of 1,950 people, with Lochboisdale being the main settlement. The port is served by CalMac ferries from Oban and Castlebay on the Isle of Barra. A ferry service calling at Mallaig, Lochboisdale and Castlebay operated from 1967 to 1974, from 1988 to 1990, and again from 1994 to 2001. The intermittency of the route seems to have been due to a combination of factors, including the upgrading of harbours, the development of new routes and ferries being withdrawn from service due to age and safety regulations. There has been no vehicular service on the route for over 10 years.

The current journey time for the vehicular ferry between Oban and Lochboisdale is approximately five hours and 10 minutes, which extends to six hours and 40 minutes if the journey is via Castlebay. I could drive from Dumfries to the south coast of England in a similar time. In addition, the timing of the Sunday service is such that it is impossible for people from South Uist who work or study on the mainland to get home for a weekend to attend a family occasion, for example. The length of the vehicular crossing also restricts opportunities to expand tourism on the island.

A direct crossing from Mallaig to Lochboisdale, which is the request, would take about three hours and 20 minutes. Western Isles Council had discussions back in 2006 with Tavish Scott regarding the introduction of such a service, in which the previous member of the Scottish Parliament, Alasdair Morrison, was also involved. I understand that the discussions were extremely encouraging, but elections intervened the following spring and Tavish Scott was no longer in a position to take things forward.

In 2008, transport minister Stewart Stevenson also seemed positive about the idea. He invited Stòras Uibhist to submit a proposal for the introduction of a service and, at that time, an offer of £1 million seemed to be on the table to support such a service. Stòras Uibhist submitted a proposal, but unfortunately it was disappointed: the proposal was rejected because the proposed vessel, the Claymore, which belonged to Pentland Ferries but was surplus to its requirements, was considered unsuitable as it was 30 years old. Arguably, it could have been suitable, at least for piloting the reintroduction of a service on the route and finding out what demand existed.

Also in 2008, the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee undertook an inquiry into ferry services in Scotland. Two members, Charlie Gordon and Alison McInnes, visited Mallaig on behalf of the committee for two days in March that year. The notes of their visit state:

“All attendees expressed a desire to see an increase in the use of Mallaig Harbour”

and that there was a

“strong desire to see a reinstatement of the route from Mallaig to Lochboisdale”,

although the committee did not make any specific recommendation in its report about that or indeed any other route.

On 5 December 2008, Scottish Government officials wrote to Stòras Uibhist stating that a standalone ferry service between Mallaig and Lochboisdale would be considered

“in the context of the ferries review”.

However, the campaign did not stop with that assurance. In July last year, Huw Francis, the chief executive of Stòras Uibhist, lodged petition PE1394 in the Scottish Parliament, which was duly considered by the Public Petitions Committee and the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee. By that time, the Fionnlagan had been introduced on the Islay to Kennacraig route, relieving the Isle of Arran on that service. That offered another opportunity at least to pilot a Mallaig to Lochboisdale service. However, Transport Scotland set its face against the suggestion, arguing that the Isle of Arran was required as a relief vessel and that, at 27, it was too old to undertake the proposed service. Graham Laidlaw of Transport Scotland did, however, provide an assurance in his letter to the Public Petitions Committee of 4 October last year that a Mallaig to Lochboisdale ferry service was

“being actively considered as part of the Scottish Ferries Review”.

That was reiterated in a further letter dated 15 December, which refused to consider trialling a service.

Only a few days later, on 21 December last year, the document “Scottish Ferry Services: Draft Plan for Consultation” was published. We can imagine the anticipation of the people of South Uist as they turned to chapter 4 to find out what the Scottish Government was saying about consideration of the vital Mallaig to Lochboisdale service link. Paragraphs 38 and 39 discuss the routes between Uist and Benbecula, but the ferry campaigners were to be sadly disappointed. Paragraph 149 states:

“we have no specific proposals for the Uists and Benbecula”

and paragraph 150 says:

“We have considered whether a Mallaig to Lochboisdale service could become the principal route for the Uists and Benbecula”.

However, that was rejected in favour of the status quo. The document goes on to assert:

“Our household survey showed that while 42 per cent of residents in South Uist were not satisfied with Oban as their mainland port, 52 per cent were satisfied and 6 per cent”

do not care. The review was published only six days after assurances were contained in the letter from Transport Scotland to the Public Petitions Committee.

Huw Francis wrote again to David Stewart MSP, convener of that committee, advising that statistics in the review document were, at the very least, misleading. In the previous March, 200 people attended a meeting arranged by Western Isles Council and only one person preferred Oban to Mallaig as a destination. Moreover, further analysis of the ferries review household survey painted a very different picture and showed that 83 per cent of the population wanted a shorter crossing time, 51 per cent wanted different harbour locations, and 72 per cent wanted an increase in the number of days that the ferry runs.

Last year, a staggering 1,500 people signed Stòras Uibhist’s petition—the population of South Uist is only 1,950—calling on the services to be reintroduced. That support replicated a petition that was organised during the previous parliamentary session by my colleagues Rhoda Grant, David Stewart and Peter Peacock, which achieved 1,260 signatures. Such a massive response begs the question: why does the draft ferries plan not seek the views of the community on the route? Perhaps it is because the answer would not be the one that the Government wants.

I am aware that concerns have been expressed about the introduction of the service having a deleterious effect on the Barra to Oban service. However, Stòras Uibhist’s proposal is for an additional service that need not affect the service to Barra. Indeed, it has been put to me that a direct service from Lochboisdale to Mallaig could provide an opportunity to improve the timetabling of the Barra service thus benefiting that community. I understand that visitors to Barra have to return to the mainland on a Saturday, with the return sailing the next day, meaning that income from the Saturday night is lost to tourism businesses. So the proposal could assist the economy of Barra as well as that of South Uist.

The failure to include consideration of the service in the ferries review has added impetus to the campaign. Four community councils—Benbecula, Bornish, Lochboisdale and Eriskay—have joined Stòras Uibhist to form the Lochboisdale-Mallaig Ferry Group, describing the non-existent service as the “missing link”. Members of the group were outside Parliament this morning trying to lobby MSPs on their way in. A public meeting held on 24 February and attended by the constituency and regional MSPs attracted more than 200 local residents.

There did appear to be strong support for the campaign from local SNP politicians. Last July, the local MP, Angus Brendan MacNeil, stated:

“The need and case for a Mallaig to Lochboisdale ferry gets stronger each year”,

and as recently as 27 February, Angus Brendan MacNeil and constituency MSP Alasdair Allan issued a joint press release calling for a trial run to test out a new ferry route, suggesting that it could be funded from within CalMac’s marketing budget.

When the missing link campaign took its case to the SNP conference earlier this month, it reported on its website that most of those that it had spoken to, including the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Michael Russell, said that they fully supported the campaign. Consequently, I was hopeful that SNP members would agree with their conference delegates, and with Mr Russell, and fully support our motion today.

Therefore, I am disappointed—but nothing like as disappointed as the missing link campaigners in the gallery must be—by the anodyne and rather self-congratulatory amendment in Mr Neil’s name. At least 12 proposals for service improvements are up for consultation in the ferries plan, but they do not include the Lochboisdale to Mallaig route. That route is being treated differently from other routes. It is not even being considered for the next tender, while other routes are.

I know that Stòras Uibhist wants to meet Mr Brown, or possibly Mr Neil, and I hope that one of the ministers will accept the meeting and be prepared to discuss the proposed route in future. It would have many benefits, not just the benefit of cost to the traveller, which is significant, but benefits for carbon emissions, because journeys would be shorter and people coming south would have to drive less. The proposal would also free up about 31 hours of ferry time, which could be used to improve other island services.

I am disappointed that the proposal does not seem to be under consideration, although perhaps we will see a change when the final ferries plan comes out. In the meantime, I beg members of the other parties to consider supporting our motion on allowing the ferry service to go forward.

I move,

That the Parliament is disappointed that the draft ferries plan does not include a new Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry service; recognises the social and economic need for such a service; notes the overwhelming support in the Western Isles and Mallaig for such a service, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure its inclusion in the ferries plan and to commence the new service as soon as practically possible.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We welcome the opportunity to discuss our draft ferries plan and, in particular, the proposals for a Mallaig to Lochboisdale ferry service. The plan has always been about the issues that matter most to our island and remote communities. We should not forget that the Mallaig to Lochboisdale ferry service was terminated by the previous Labour-led Scottish Executive in 2001. If Elaine Murray is going to quote paragraph 150 of the draft plan, she should at least be honest and quote what we say at the end of it. I will quote it exactly—it states:

“We will further consider the economic viability of this proposed service in the context of other planned improvements to services to, and within, the Western Isles.”

If Elaine Murray is going to argue the case, she should at least give credit where it is due and quote exactly what is said in the document.

We want to improve Scotland’s ferry services, which are key to the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of our remote and island communities. That is why this Government has been the first ever to carry out a thorough review of all ferry services in Scotland, focusing on the things that matter most to communities—fares, what services are in place, the level of services and who should be responsible for providing them.

There has been wide engagement, with opportunities for everyone who has an interest to engage in discussions on our ferry services. During a consultation period, it is not the normal practice for ministers to meet people who are lobbying for a particular point of view, but I have always made it absolutely clear that, once the consultation is finished at the end of this month, I will be happy to meet anyone from South Uist, Barra, Lochboisdale, Mallaig or any other community to discuss their concerns.

About 600 individuals, groups and organisations replied to the initial consultation in 2010 and, with more than a week to go, we have already received 1,100 responses to the draft ferries plan consultation. I can give members an assurance that we will listen very carefully indeed to what people say in response to the genuine consultation that we are carrying out.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I thank the cabinet secretary for clarifying the position on the Mallaig to Armadale route and for guaranteeing its future. I look forward to a visit by him and the Minister for Housing and Transport—or one of them—to west Ardnamurchan and the small isles to speak directly to local communities. In principle, I support a Mallaig to Lochboisdale ferry route—

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Given the current financial constraints, will the cabinet secretary consider reconfiguration of existing services to allow the new service to be introduced?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Based on some of the responses that we have had, we are already working on that possibility. We are more than willing to consider any viable proposition that is put to us.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Not at the moment.

This is not the first time that the issue has been studied. In 2005, the previous Labour-Liberal Executive produced a report on the reinstatement of the service that it scrapped in 2001. The report is dated May 2005. What did that Executive do between May 2005 and May 2007? Nothing—it did nothing. Did Elaine Murray mention that report in her opening remarks? No, she did not. The reason is that, as usual, the Labour-Liberal Executive commissioned a report but took no action whatsoever. [Interruption.]

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Then, the Labour Party has the cheek to come to the chamber with a motion criticising us when we are contemplating the options.

Let me give members the facts and explain the issues that we have to grapple with. The report showed that the annual cost of providing the service as a standalone service would have been between £3.5 million and £4 million and that the cost of introducing a new vessel would have been around £26 million—those are 2005 costs. By any standard, and given that the total ferry budget is just over £100 million a year, those are substantial figures. If Elaine Murray is going to be honest, she must tell us where the money would come from. Does she want the £26 million to be spent on a new ferry between Lochboisdale and Mallaig instead of on upgrading the A75, which she said should be a top priority for transport in Scotland?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

The Scottish Government is consulting on 12 different routes for upgrading, including the Ardrossan to Brodick service to Arran, as part of the new tender. Why is the route between Lochboisdale and Mallaig not being considered in the same way as those 12 routes?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We have explained exactly why: because we have to consider what resources are available to us and how we can make best use of them. If the Labour Party wants the service—which it abolished in 2001—to be reinstated, the onus is on Labour members to tell us where the £26 million and the £4 million a year are going to come from. Are they going to come from other ferry services, from other transport services, from childcare services or from other services? If Labour is serious about it, as opposed to playing games, it must tell us how it would fund the service.

As Dave Thompson has made clear, we are considering a number of options that are being put to us and we would like the maximum number of ferry services for all our island communities. We recognise the special needs of the island communities, but we have to operate within the very limited resources that are given to us by Westminster under Labour and Tory Governments. If we spend money on this ferry service, we will spend less on something else—that is the language of priorities. We will listen to the people, not to Labour politicians, who are guilty of removing the service in the first place.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Nor will we listen to Liberal politicians. The transport ministers between May 2005 and May 2007 were Nicol Stephen and Tavish Scott, but what did the Liberals do about the ferry service? The same as the Labour Party—nothing.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We will listen to the people, not to those who speak a double language, telling one story here and another story elsewhere.

I move amendment S4M-02421.1, to leave out from “is disappointed” to end and insert:

“welcomes the Scottish Ferry Services: Draft Plan for consultation; in particular the focus of the Scottish Ferries Review and the draft plan on the issues that matter most to island and remote communities and their central theme of further improving Scotland’s ferry services; welcomes the wide engagement and consultation that has taken place throughout the Scottish Ferries Review; notes the Scottish Government’s commitment to fully consider the consultation responses from communities representing their local interests, including those advocating the introduction of a service between Lochboisdale and Mallaig, and looks forward to the publication of the final ferries plan in 2012.”

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the Labour Party for securing the debate. There is no doubt that a new Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry service is a popular option for people in the Uists as well as for businesses and tourists. I am delighted to learn that the cabinet secretary is contemplating the options.

The motion states that the draft ferries plan does not include a new Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry service, but it is worth restating that there is still an opportunity for people to respond to the Scottish Government’s consultation on the plan, the closing date for which is 31 March. The case for a new Lochboisdale to Mallaig service is fully supported by the local MSP and Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages, Alasdair Allan. He has stated:

“I made a strong case for the retention and development of Lochboisdale as a ferry port and continue to argue that the trialling of a service between Lochboisdale and Mallaig is an option”

that the Government “should consider” and contemplate.

There would be many advantages to the new ferry service. For a start, local people have suggested that it could be operated with a more fuel-efficient and smaller boat than some of the existing Caledonian MacBrayne ferries, which can use up to 1,500 litres of fuel per hour.

Most deliveries to the Uists come from the mainland—the central belt in particular—via Inverness and Skye, through the Uig to Lochmaddy service. That results in considerable traffic pressure on the A9 and the A82. A new ferry service would alleviate that traffic and reduce travel times. I am also told that, at the height of the tourism season, it can be difficult for fish producers to get their product on the Lochmaddy to Uig ferry.

As the Fort William to Mallaig road has been significantly improved in recent years, it would provide improved journey times from the central belt to Mallaig for onward transport and provide a quicker route for many travellers to and from the Western Isles.

As other members have said, the sea journey from Oban to Lochboisdale is 74 miles, compared with a 48-mile sea trip from Mallaig to Lochboisdale. As Elaine Murray said, a normal journey from Lochboisdale to Oban can take more than six hours.

The road infrastructure on Skye has deteriorated in recent years as a result of the high volume of heavy goods vehicles that use it.

I put all those points in a letter to the previous transport minister, Stewart Stevenson, who responded:

“Given the wide ranging nature of the draft ferries review—it will include consideration of a possible Mallaig-Lochboisdale service”.

That takes me to paragraph 150 of the draft ferries plan, which says:

“We have considered whether a Mallaig to Lochboisdale service could become the principal route for the Uists and Benbecula”,

instead of the Lochmaddy to Uig route. That is where the problem is. As far as I am aware, no one has ever suggested that the Mallaig to Lochboisdale route should replace the Uig to Lochmaddy service. The community—and, I understand, the Labour motion—asks for an additional, new service between Mallaig and Lochboisdale. I appreciate what the cabinet secretary said, but paragraph 150 begins as I quoted it.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Will the member give way?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am still discussing paragraph 150. In quoting the draft ferries plan, I am being absolutely reasonable with the cabinet secretary.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

As always.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The Government says that it

“will further consider the economic viability of this proposed service”.

Economic viability is critical. I received a response to a parliamentary question last week that confirmed that no ferry routes in Scotland make a profit, so none is economically viable other than those that have no taxpayer subsidy and which provide an excellent service at competitive prices—the Western Ferries (Clyde) Ltd and Pentland Ferries routes.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Is the logic of the member’s argument that, if no routes make a profit and—she argues—they are not economically viable, we should run none of the services? Surely the whole point is the economic viability of the islands.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Paragraph 150 says:

“We will further consider the economic viability of this proposed service”.

My point is that the answer to my written question last week said that every service needs to be subsidised, except the Western Ferries and Pentland Ferries services, which run at lower prices for passengers. Why does the Government not consider carrying out a trial, as Alasdair Allan suggested, and asking a private operator to see how it works out?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

There can be no doubt about the crucial importance of the ferries issue to the people of South Uist in my constituency. If I had not known that much already, it would have been pretty obvious to me from the meeting that I attended in Daliburgh recently—it has been referred to—which more than 200 people attended and at which they made their views plain.

With that in mind, as local MSP I have responded—I sense from the tone from some quarters that I am criticised for it—along with many others in the Western Isles to both consultations associated with the ferries review and I have specifically mentioned the Mallaig to Lochboisdale issue.

As I said in my response to the initial consultation, if the resources can be found, we need to look seriously at having a Mallaig to Lochboisdale link. Any solution would obviously have to respect the needs and wishes of all communities in the islands, but there is a very strong case to be made for a shorter sea crossing from Lochboisdale. As local MSP, I support that case, and it was good to get a chance to speak to people from Uist at the door today who are making that argument, too. I am glad to say that I believe that they have joined us in the public gallery.

I welcome the specific recognition in the Government’s amendment of the importance of listening to communities before a final ferries plan is produced and of giving consideration to the issues that are being raised in Uist. I appreciate why the Government’s stance is to recognise the existence of the consultation process and not prejudice it.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am concerned about what Alasdair Allan is saying about the Government not prejudicing the consultation. If I understood Dave Thompson correctly, the Government has already given him reassurances about things that were in the draft ferries plan and told him that things will change. Why is the member not able to get the same reassurances for the people of Uist?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

As I understand it, the Government has said clearly that a consultation is under way and that it will consider representations, including those on the Mallaig to Lochboisdale question. I do not think that there is any need to obfuscate that point any further than the member has just done.

As the local member, I readily see the benefits that would come to South Uist if there were a shorter sea crossing to the mainland, not to mention a more frequent one—all of us can agree that there is little point in viewing three ferry sailings a week in winter as a frequent service. That argument is certainly made frequently in the constituency that I represent. I understand the need for there to be improvements to the service, the impact of which would be felt in areas of economic activity as varied as tourism, crofting and fisheries. However, as the minister said, the debate about ferry routes cannot be isolated from a discussion of the issues around procuring new vessels, which is a discussion that we certainly have to have.

The phrase, “fragile island economy”, is often used but is less often fully appreciated. South Uist certainly qualifies as a fragile local economy. Apart from the geography, it does not enjoy anything like the highest incomes in Scotland and it faces a continual battle with the elements and with the ever-present threat of depopulation. With those factors in mind, it is right that we explore every possible means of improving connectivity, whether that be through improved broadband or improved transport links, and ensure that the solutions that we come up with are the product of a genuine conversation in the community.

I hope that we will see further progress of that kind in Uist, with more detailed discussion around the various options and costings for a shorter sea crossing, and I welcome the willingness of the minister to engage in that debate.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

In that case, by way of conclusion, let me say that there is a surprising amount of agreement across the chamber on this issue, even if perhaps not everyone in South Uist will agree with the assertion of Elaine Murray that Lochboisdale is the primary settlement in South Uist.

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

There are not many ferry services in my Central Scotland region, but the ferries review has been topical in the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, which is why I am happy to speak in the debate.

At the last election, Scottish Labour made a commitment to turn the road equivalent tariff from a pilot into a permanent measure in the Western Isles, and we promised to extend the scheme to the Clyde coast and Argyll. We were also clear about our ambition to bring back a passenger service between Rosyth and Zeebrugge, in order to connect Scotland with Europe. We also reminded people that, under the Labour-led Scottish Executive, older and disabled people became entitled to two free return ferry trips anywhere in Scotland.

Let me make it clear: even Glasgow-born central-belt Labour MSPs are committed to good ferry services and reliable infrastructure for coastal and island communities. That is because we need a joined-up transport network across Scotland in order to make every part of our country as accessible possible, if we are to meet the social and economic needs of all our communities. The Labour motion makes it clear that we believe that there are real social and economic benefits to be realised from securing a ferry service between Mallaig and South Uist.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Given Margaret McCulloch’s concerns about that route, can she tell me why the Labour Party abolished the service in 2001?

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

We did not abolish it. If Kenneth Gibson will let me go on, I will explain why we should have that ferry service.

A well-serviced daily and direct route would not only reduce journey times between South Uist and the mainland but would help to reinvigorate the local economy. Faster and better connections to the mainland would make it easier for residents to trade, to commute and to access public services. It would bring more visitors to the area, thereby supporting local businesses and giving tourism in the Western Isles a welcome boost. We know from elsewhere that when the economic prospects of island communities improve, they can begin to tackle the problems of depopulation and of retaining and creating wealth locally.

Campaigners have also argued that a new ferry route would reduce the cost of transporting goods to the island, which members will know is a pertinent issue at this time because of the 50 per cent increase in fares that will soon come about because the RET is being withdrawn from commercial vehicles. Modern transport, especially in the Highlands and Islands, can be expensive. The rise in oil prices has increased pressure on motorists and hauliers and that pressure is often reflected in the prices that are passed on to consumers. The RET has made it more affordable to do business in and with the Western Isles; all the evidence suggests that withdrawing the RET from commercial vehicles will drive up costs and make investment by businesses in much of the Western Isles uneconomical.

The Outer Hebrides transport group offered members of the Scottish Parliament the example of a lorry on the Oban-Lochboisdale-Castlebay route that would face an 80 per cent fare increase under the plans that were originally proposed by the Scottish Government. A shorter route would be more affordable but would still be subject to higher fares. I therefore call on the Scottish Government to reflect on the impact that changes to the RET will have on the islands, and to think again.

The case for an affordable and accessible service between Mallaig and South Uist is clear. It would reduce journey times, boost tourism and support the local economy. The very least the minister could do for those communities is commit without further delay to a trial service.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate because, as an islander, I know how important ferry services are and how emotive the issue can be. I welcome the Labour Party motion, but I think that the Labour Party has already forgotten that it was Labour’s own Gordon Brown who was first mate and then captain at the helm of the United Kingdom ship of state when it crashed on the rocks and threw us into economic turmoil. It is cold comfort indeed that that economic shipwreck catapulted Gordon out of the cockpit only to make space for messrs Cameron and Clegg.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No. I have only four minutes, at most.

In the face of this economic storm and the most savage of cuts to our budget, the Scottish Government is due great credit for sticking to its promised plans for the most wholesale improvements to our ferry network in living memory.

It is entirely right that the ferries review should start with proper consultation, so it is interesting that it appears that there have been many more responses in the last round of consultation, as people realised that we really are consulting and that we really are listening. It is not a sham consultation of the kind that we were used to prior to 2007. What a pity, in that case, that both Labour and the Liberal Democrats can think of no more constructive response than to stir up one community against another: Barra against South Uist; Lochboisdale against Lochmaddy; and Oban against Lochboisdale. Lib Dem MEP George Lyon’s recent attempt to instigate a European Union inquiry and to halt the whole process of rolling out the RET was truly lamentable, and was potentially damaging for our economically fragile island communities. Tavish Scott’s recent proposals for the separation of Shetland are reminiscent of that Ealing comedy “Passport to Pimlico”.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Those actions are all much more about petty political posturing than about a genuine attempt to help our islands. I am delighted that cooler heads prevail in Scotland these days, that the ferries review represents a fair, methodical and consistent approach to improving ferry services for all our islanders, that the Scottish Government has given a commitment to listen to all our communities and all the consultation responses, and that it recognises and will carefully consider the wishes of the people in South Uist on a ferry service between Lochboisdale and Mallaig.

However, if for any reason that is not immediately possible, and blame must be cast, the wise and pragmatic folk whom I know on our islands will know to look to the south—to the dead hand of Westminster and successive economic mismanagement by the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories. For many years, they have failed to invest in our ferries, piers and harbours and have left us with a legacy of underinvestment, which will, in these difficult times, take some time to correct.

I am pleased to support the cabinet secretary’s amendment to the motion.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am pleased that the issue is being debated today, and I welcome to the public gallery the representatives from the long-running missing link ferry campaign. It makes economic sense to have a ferry from Lochboisdale to Mallaig, if one compares a three and a half hour crossing—both the time spent at sea and the cost—with a six and a half hour crossing. A ferry is especially needed now, following the withdrawal of the RET from commercial vehicles. That policy will have a detrimental effect on all the islands, but especially on those that have the longest ferry crossings. The Government appears to have no concept of the disadvantages that can be caused by geography.

I stress that we are seeking not a rerouting of any ferry that currently serves Barra or the rest of the Uists, but a new route that runs from Lochboisdale to Mallaig. That would allow the Barra to Oban service to concentrate on that route and provide a better timetable, which would have an immediate positive economic impact on Barra and the other islands. I recently spoke to a hotelier who told me that the ferries to the islands are full, but the hotels are only half full.

We need more routes for economic development of the whole area. The Scottish Government appeared to support the instigation of such a service a few years ago and earmarked £1 million for it. Unfortunately, however, that money was not forthcoming because the Government could not find a ferry. By the time the community—being as resourceful as ever—found one, the money was gone.

My colleagues and I have campaigned alongside the community for the route for many years, and we have 1,200 supporters signed up to our campaign. Stòras Uibhist, which is the community land owner, petitioned the Parliament with 1,500 supporters, but to no avail. It is interesting that the minister says that he is listening to the people, because nearly 3,000 people have put their names to those campaigns and he appears not to be listening to what they are asking for. It is, given that level of support, hugely disappointing that the draft ferries plan has not identified any public support for the route. The Government did not ask the community what its preferred option is.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I must correct Rhoda Grant on that. We specifically said in the plan that the survey—there was a survey—showed that views were divided on the importance of the service. It is not true to say that we did not survey people and that we did not put the results of the survey into the consultation.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

People were not, as part of the survey, asked whether they wanted a Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry service. If they had been asked that, they would overwhelmingly have said that they supported such a service. That is what was missing. The minister’s civil servants wrote to my colleague David Stewart and said that it would have been a leading question, so it did not appear in the ferries review questionnaire.

Although I was previously aware of the level of support for the link, I recently attended—along with Alasdair Allan—a packed public meeting at which there was unanimous support. There was also real anger, because people felt that they had been let down by the Government and by their representatives, and especially by their local Scottish National Party councillor, Donald Manford. Stewart Stevenson expressed his surprise that Donald Manford was so against the development of the route when he met representatives of Stòras Uibhist—

John Finnie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will Rhoda Grant give way?

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Mr Manford urged Stewart Stevenson not to allow the ferry route to go ahead before he had spoken to him. Local representatives need to stand up for their communities, so that behaviour is unacceptable.

I am pleased to support the Labour motion. I very much hope that the Government will listen to the many people who wish for the route to be reinstated.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

When the RET was first rolled out in the Western Isles, the Labour Party in North Ayrshire, where I am an MSP, denounced the SNP Government for subsidising the Western Isles with the taxes of the people of North Ayrshire. In Edinburgh recently, leaflets have been sent out that talk about the SNP subsidising Glasgow, to Edinburgh’s detriment.

This is another opportunistic debate from the Labour Party. We still have no answers on how it would fund the services. Despite what Margaret McCulloch said, it should show joined-up thinking on how it will address the issue.

Ferry services and the implications of the ferries review are important to my constituents in Arran and Cumbrae.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

Will Kenneth Gibson give way?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I will let Elaine Murray in once I have made some progress.

The RET will be rolled out to the Clyde islands and there will be £14.5 million of investment in the Brodick services. The proposed Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry service was not prioritised in the draft—I emphasise the word “draft”—ferries review because the Lochmaddy to Uig service is even shorter than Elaine Murray’s suggested service. That shorter and more easily accessible service is the principal one that islanders use. The survey of Uist households that has been referred to demonstrates that there is demand for a Lochboisdale to Mallaig service. However, although 42 per cent of Uist residents were not satisfied with having Oban as their mainland port, 52 per cent were satisfied and around 6 per cent claimed that the mainland destination port was of no concern to them.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will Kenneth Gibson give way?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I will let Elaine Murray in because she asked first. Perhaps she can explain where Labour would find the £4 million a year that would be needed to run the Lochboisdale to Mallaig service and the cost of the new ferry if such a service were to be introduced.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

How will the Government pay for upgrading the Ardrossan to Brodick service?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

That service is already funded through the capital infrastructure plan. Elaine Murray’s suggestion is that we take money from existing projects and transfer it. I will be glad to tell my constituents in Arran that the Labour Party does not want the £14.5 million investment to go ahead. I am sure that they will be delighted to know that.

As the December 2011 ferry services plan explains:

“The larger communities in the Northern and Western Isles do not show a personal dependency as a key dependency”

for an improved ferry service to the islands. As the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change said in 2007, the Scottish transport appraisal guidance appraisal of 2005

“noted that a large proportion of the increase in economic activities in South Uist and Mallaig would be the result of displacement from communities served by existing ferry services ... while there would be some demand for such a service the vast majority of demand would be displaced from existing services with little net increase”.—[Official Report, Written Answers, 3 December 2007; S3W-06718.]

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will Kenneth Gibson give way?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I am really sorry, but I do not have time to take another intervention in a four-minute speech.

If that displacement were to happen, we would have to switch resources from other islands that, perhaps, have only one route, which may be a lifeline service.

In many parts of Scotland, the draft plan will have a tremendously positive impact. In Arran and Cumbrae, we will have earlier and later services, which will have a great impact on the economy of the Clyde islands. It has also been suggested that the existing Ardrossan to Brodick vessel may be replaced with two, more fuel-efficient vessels, which would decrease running costs and allow people to come for business travel and personal reasons, and would allow folk to commute to the islands. That would help to bring about a renaissance on Arran and Cumbrae.

I fully understand the concerns that members have about the Western Isles, but the Scottish Government must consider ferry services in the round. If we suggest additional services from one part of Scotland to another, it is important that we consider the impact on the rest of the network and how people would be affected.

I have 20 seconds. Can I take an intervention from Jamie McGrigor, Presiding Officer?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

No.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I am sorry. I did not realise that I had rattled through, as I have.

I add my support for the amendment. The SNP Government is doing a great job on ferries. Long may it continue.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

According to the Government’s draft plan for consultation,

“We all know that ferries are an essential part of Scotland’s transport network.”

The consultation should have been published in the summer of 2010 when communities and civil servants were crying out for the Government to make clear its position on Scotland’s ferry services. In an e-mail, a Transport Scotland official said:

“Our intention was to issue the draft plan last summer but Ministers were clear this should not happen before the election.”

In other words, it was a blatant exercise in electioneering.

The motion is concerned with the introduction of a new Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry service. The missing link ferry campaign, which has been driven by the four community councils on South Uist, is to be congratulated for its campaigning work and for making quite an impression at the recent SNP conference.

The strong feeling on South Uist is that Mallaig should be the main destination port. A journey time of three hours and 20 minutes to the mainland is clearly attractive and would give the islands an economic boost. Indeed, one Uist businessman lost out on two work contracts totalling £120,000 because of the lack of sailing opportunities. However, the statement in the draft plan that

“we have no specific proposals for the Uists”

will be a hammer blow to lobbyists. The SNP’s Angus MacNeil and Alasdair Allan have both called for a trial service, saying that it would be

“fantastic to see a ferry between Mallaig and Lochboisdale”.

The Government should produce proposals for a trial service and a thorough analysis of the route’s success, and it should consider any unintended consequences to pre-existing routes.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Will the member give way?

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

I am sorry. I do not have much time.

There has been £35 million spent on the ferry infrastructure on islands including Eigg, but the consultation proposes reducing that car-ferry service from five crossings a week to one. It also proposes reducing the car ferry service between Mull and Ardnamurchan to a passenger-only service, even though it is used by more than 5,000 vehicles a year. On the one hand, the Government’s baffling choices in distributing money from the bus service operators grant will obviously damage urban areas and, on the other, its proposals for the shake-up of vital ferry services could undo 25 years of hard work by local communities and the Highland Council.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

I will take a very short intervention.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

Will Mr Hume confirm that in 2006 Tavish Scott, the then Minister for Transport in the Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive, discussed with Alasdair Morrison proposals to introduce the service in question?

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

Elaine Murray is absolutely correct.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

So what happened?

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

Unfortunately, what happened was that the SNP Government got in in 2007.

The Government also asserts that the above-inflation hike in fares is down to the increase in fuel prices. However, when there was a previous increase in fuel prices—pre-election—the Government managed to cap fare increases at the level of inflation.

The way in which the Government has chosen to extend the RET scheme is unacceptable, so it should, in the interests of fairness, think again. My colleague George Lyon MEP, who was mentioned by Mike MacKenzie, was right to ask the EU competition authorities to investigate implementation of that extension. I note that the European transport commissioner will investigate the matter.

The fare increase for commercial vehicles might be even more devastating and could mean increases of up to 172 per cent for heavy goods vehicles on some routes. How are businesses supposed to absorb such costs?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Will the member give way?

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

I apologise that I cannot, as I have only 17 seconds left.

In conclusion, that massive increase will have a knock-on effect on the cost of living in our remote communities. When we have businessmen coming together to form the Outer Hebrides transport group in order to highlight the impact of such decisions, it is time for the minister to wake up and smell the coffee.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

I declare that my wife works part-time for Caledonian MacBrayne, but is permanently based in Gourock.

Scotland’s ferry network has been used as a political football for many years; indeed, we can trace all this right back to the long-running saga of the Gourock to Dunoon route, which predated the Parliament’s establishment. Now we have the debate over the Lochboisdale to Mallaig route which, as we have heard, was abolished in 2001 by the Labour-Lib Dem Scottish Executive.

Although I am greatly interested in the economic arguments that have been made this morning, I believe that Scotland needs to get to grips with its ferry network once and for all. I am not going to stand here and propose the perfect solution for our network or, more particularly, speak to the lack of a Lochboisdale to Mallaig route that is highlighted in the Labour motion. However, Scotland needs a sustainable, robust and affordable network—which does not necessarily mean that there should be no subsidy—and I am confident in the approach that was taken by the Scottish Government in the ferries review in 2009 and that the draft plan, which was published in December and is still out for consultation, is correct and should continue.

I agree whole-heartedly that MSPs—constituency and regional—have a right to campaign on behalf of their constituents—after all, that is why we are here. It is imperative, particularly during a consultation period, that we lobby on behalf of constituents and communities and that we put forward a strong and balanced case.

The motion mentions the “economic need” for a new Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry service. I do not doubt the ability of MSPs from all sides of the chamber to progress economic arguments for many things, nor do I doubt the ability of outside bodies to do the same, but I know from experience—I am sure that others do, too—that the economic argument can be the hardest part of a case to make, regardless of what the issue is. For rural and smaller communities, the economic argument can be that bit harder to make. When it comes down to a business decision, the numbers need to stack up.

We all have projects that we think, for a number of reasons, it is vital to progress, but ensuring that the numbers work is key to getting to the next stage. I stress that I do not for one minute dispute the economic argument that has been pursued this morning but, as we know, our belts have been tightened as a result of budget cuts from Westminster. Those cuts have put added responsibility on ministers and the Scottish Government to ensure that they get the best economic returns for their expenditure.

I am sure that, across the chamber, we all wish that we had more money to spend on projects. I know that the demands that have come from some quarters in the recent past would require more than £1 billion of extra expenditure, but no indication has been given of where that money would come from. The Government and Parliament need to deal with the reality that less money is coming to us.

I am sure that the Labour Party or individual Labour MSPs will have contributed to the consultation exercises that have been held so far. If they have not, they still have time to contribute to the consultation on the draft ferries plan before it closes at the end of next week. I am sure that they, along with others, wish for a comprehensive ferries strategy that covers the country.

From a West Scotland perspective, I hope that more shipbuilding work will come to Port Glasgow, and I will certainly lobby the Government for that to happen. The recent announcement of the £20 million order for the world’s first two hybrid ferries for Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd was excellent news, which will help employment prospects in Inverclyde. The draft ferries plan shows an exciting future for the ferry network, with newer ferries being required to replace older vessels, as well as the prospect of new routes. That opens up further opportunities in Inverclyde which, as we all know, builds first-class vessels of which all Scotland can be proud. After the loss of orders in the past—before 2007—for Scottish fisheries protection vessels and for some CalMac ferries, I am glad that the tide has begun to turn. I am sorry for the pun.

It has been an interesting debate and I commend Labour for bringing it to the chamber, but I support the Scottish Government’s amendment, because we need a robust ferries review and a more robust network around Scotland.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am glad that Labour has chosen to debate the subject of the long-awaited Scottish ferries draft plan and I am especially glad that it has focused on a Lochboisdale to Mallaig service.

Ferry services are vital to the people who live on our islands. As other members have done, I urge my constituents in the Highlands and Islands, including supporters of a Lochboisdale to Mallaig service, to ensure that they make their views known to the Scottish Government by the time the consultation closes at the end of next week. It is extremely important that ministers hear loudly and clearly the views and concerns of people and businesses that use the ferries. I agree with members who have talked about the crucial nature of regular, affordable and reliable ferry services for remote and island communities. The viability, sustainability and economic development of those areas are strongly tied to the connectivity that the ferries provide.

I am aware that the Government is emphasising that the proposals in the draft plan are all just suggestions, but it is a matter of regret that quite a number of the details of the plan have caused concern and alarm in parts of my region, and that only the vaguest of references is made to introducing a Lochboisdale to Mallaig service.

As others have said, the Scottish Crofting Federation has described the review as “lamentable” and has said that its general thrust seems to be

“one of withdrawing and diminishing routes in peripheral areas.”

I share the concern of the SCF and of other MSPs about the possible withdrawal of the vehicle ferry between Kilchoan and Tobermory and the review of the popular route between Mull and Lochaline, and I strongly support Mary Scanlon’s comments on the Mallaig to Lochboisdale route. That service would increase choice for local residents and tourists and could be a real plus not just for South Uist but for all of the Western Isles.

I want also to emphasise the importance of the existing services from Oban to the Western Isles. May I make a special plea for my constituents on the Isle of Barra, including Angus Brendan MacNeil MP and Councillor Donald Manford? They might both vote SNP, but should they not have a better service than one that runs on only three days a week?

In addition, I will take this opportunity to speak up for my constituents in Mid Argyll, with reference to Kenneth Gibson’s speech. Many of them are deeply worried about the possible removal of the ferry between Claonaig and Lochranza on Arran. That could hit the economy of both Mid Argyll and Arran and would completely remove connectivity between Argyll and Arran. It would also leave Arran without any ferry services if there were any problems at Brodick.

An additional service that is suggested in the plan can be cautiously welcomed—namely the service between Campbeltown and the Ayrshire coast. That is an idea that I and my colleague Councillor Donald Kelly have backed consistently for some years. It would be a positive move for Kintyre, given that successive Scottish Governments have patently failed to make any progress in re-establishing the Campbeltown to Ballycastle service that existed under the Conservatives. However, local people in Campbeltown and Kintyre are very clear that a route between Campbeltown and, perhaps, Troon should run for five days a week, thereby becoming a popular service. I hope that the ministers can take that idea on board.

In conclusion, today’s short debate has been welcome and useful in allowing members to speak up on behalf of their constituents’ concerns on some very important issues, including the failure to recognise the potential importance of a Lochboisdale to Mallaig service. I urge ferry users and constituents from across my region and elsewhere to take part in the consultation before the end of next week. This consultation seems to have gone on for ever, but I repeat that it closes at the end of next week.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

First, let me place the debate in context as regards, in general terms, two of the big challenges that are faced by people in the island communities and by the Government. The first is the substantial hike in fuel duty, with a 3p hike confirmed in the budget yesterday for August, which will have a devastating impact on the island communities throughout Scotland. The Tories and the Liberal Democrats have a lot to answer for in supporting that. Secondly, the 33 per cent reduction in our capital allocation has had a direct impact on our ability to invest in new ferry services in different parts of Scotland at the speed and on the scale that we would like. Those are the challenges that we face as a Government. They are not self-made challenges, but the result of policies that were introduced by Alistair Darling and supported by George Osborne and Nick Clegg.

I want to make it absolutely clear—I hope that people will read my lips—that, as we said in the draft ferries review, we will listen to what people say in all their submissions, including on the possibility of reintroducing a Lochboisdale to Mallaig service. However, there is no escaping the reality of the cost of reintroducing that service as a dedicated service. The capital cost is at least £26 million and the annual resource cost is between £3.5 million and £4 million. If we were to make a decision to allocate money to that service, we would need to take it from elsewhere. None of the Opposition parties has in any way begun to address the cost or from where we would reallocate the funding.

The report that was produced in May 2005—an independent report by Halcrow—stated the dilemma about the crossing very clearly. Let me quote the executive summary:

“It is also clear however that the vast majority of the demand for the new service is abstracted from existing services, i.e. the Lochmaddy - Uig and Castlebay - Oban routes. Only a small proportion of traffic is generated traffic”

and therefore the impact on other services could be quite dramatic.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I do not have much time, unfortunately.

We have to take what Halcrow said into consideration, because our responsibility is to consider the totality of the ferry services. I do not want to take action in one area that will have a damaging impact on other areas. The survey work that we did in the run-up to the publication of the draft ferries review showed clearly that the majority of people are satisfied with the existing service and 10 per cent fewer people want it to be replaced by the proposed service, as Kenny Gibson said.

Rhoda Grant rose—

Jamie McGrigor rose—

I do not have time for interventions.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. You are extremely generous.

I will give way to Sir Jamie McGrigor in a minute. I am always deferential to Scotland’s aristocracy—and I am worried about Sir Jamie, because he might lose his housing benefit if he is living in an underoccupied castle.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Labour Party proposes a trial. I can see the merit of having a trial service. However, we must decide whether it would be a trial of a dedicated service, with a dedicated ferry that would run only on that route, or a trial rerouting of existing services. There is a debate to be had on that, but members should not underestimate the capital costs and resource costs or, more important, the implications for people in the islands. The rerouting of existing services, albeit well intentioned, might do more damage than good.

I give way to Sir Jamie.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for his compliment.

An enormous amount of money has been spent on the road from Fort William to Mallaig. Is it not a shame that it cannot be connected to the islands by a ferry?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

It connects to the small isles and to Skye. I recognise the importance of the totality of the infrastructure. Decisions on ferry services cannot be made in isolation. Access to piers and harbours on the mainland and on the islands is important. If I had a bottomless pit of money I would invest much more—

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Not if we had independence.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We will have more money when we are independent, and we will be able to do much more. After yesterday’s budget, many people in Scotland will be a lot worse off. I am not talking about the millionaires on the Tory benches. Every granny in Scotland who saved for her company pension will be a lot worse off.

The reality is that we must be responsible. Any changes that are made must be properly planned and thought out. I have made it clear and I repeat that we are listening carefully to what the campaigners from South Uist and elsewhere are saying about the reintroduction of a Lochboisdale to Mallaig service and the possibility of a trial service. We will engage with them after the consultation period, on the pros and cons—because there are cons as well as pros, not least the capital costs and resource costs of reintroducing a dedicated service, which need to be addressed.

The Labour Party should at least conduct the debate in an honest way. I know from Mr Russell, who was misquoted by Elaine Murray earlier, and from other people, that the people of South Uist are pretty fed up with their comments being manipulated by the press and politicians. We need an honest debate about how we take matters forward.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am happy to give way to Mr Stewart, if the Presiding Officer permits me to do so.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Thank you. Does the cabinet secretary accept that Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd has the ability to lease vessels on the international market, and that it is important that the Scottish Government considers better utilisation of vessels, so that we can exploit new opportunities for routes?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I absolutely agree, which is precisely why, when we publish the results of our ferries review, we will simultaneously publish a long-term ferries investment plan. That has not been done by any previous Government.

We are at one with everyone in the community in South Uist and elsewhere on improving the ferry service. We will look seriously at campaigners’ proposals for a Lochboisdale to Mallaig service. We will talk to them about the pros and cons and we will reach a decision based on the needs of all the islanders on the west coast of Scotland.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

This is the second time that we have returned to the issue of ferry services in Labour business in the past few weeks. Once more, it has yielded a good debate on an important issue.

We have returned to the subject to highlight an improvement that we and many others wish to see in our ferry services. These are lifeline services for our island communities, which is why we oppose the removal of the RET for hauliers because, in effect, it will be a tax on island households. It is why we propose today that a new additional ferry service be established between Lochboisdale and Mallaig. Disappointingly, the cabinet secretary talked down that proposal throughout his speech.

More important than our proposal for the establishment of that route is the overwhelming support that it has locally. It is not just us saying this; it is people who have come to Parliament today from the missing link campaign. As Elaine Murray said in her excellent opening speech, four community councils—Benbecula, Bornish, Lochboisdale and Eriskay—have joined Stòras Uibhist to form the Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry group, and 1,500 people have signed a petition calling for the service to be reintroduced. As Elaine Murray said, the population of South Uist is only 1,950, so that is a phenomenal level of support. It may even dwarf the percentage of the population that is likely to respond to the Scottish Government’s consultation on the referendum.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The member will be aware that when Huw Francis gave evidence to the Public Petitions Committee he made the strong point that piloting the route on a temporary basis was an excellent way of assessing the real demand, rather than the demand that is picked up in some abstract economic report.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Absolutely, and of course that point has been supported previously by SNP members. I will come to that later.

We believe that the ferry group makes a powerful case. It argues that

“Eriskay, Benbecula and South Uist are some of the most remote and economically fragile areas of Scotland”

and that

“it is unacceptable that the only direct ferry service from South Uist to the mainland of Scotland operates only four days a week and can take up to 7.5 hours to reach Oban—the worst provision of any lifeline ferry service in Scotland.”

It also makes a strong case about the benefits that a new service would bring, saying that it would

“support the local economy and boost the committed efforts of an island community that has been working towards its own economic regeneration by taking ownership of the South Uist estate in 2006.”—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 6 September 2011; c 70.]

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Will the member take an intervention?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Unlike the cabinet secretary, I will happily take an intervention.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

When Labour was in power for eight years in this Parliament, why did it not do any of these things?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

The fact is that the ferry broke down and we tried to replace it. The cabinet secretary’s Government has not bothered. I will return to that later. [Interruption.]

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Again and again, the cabinet secretary has misrepresented the history of the route.

We believe that the Scottish Government needs to support the local economy and boost the efforts of an island community that has done so much for its own economy.

Poor transport links continue to constrain the benefits that investment has brought to the islands. As an example, the group referred to the constraints and capacity of the current services, which deter potential ferry users from travelling to the Western Isles at all because desired sailings are fully booked. Hotel operators regularly report bookings being cancelled because potential guests cannot book a ferry to reach the islands. It is clear that the demand is there. With a frequent daily ferry service to Lochboisdale, the constraints on the tourism sector would be significantly reduced, particularly on the important Saturday changeover day. If the status quo remains, those constraints on the local economy will remain in place, too.

A new service would not only benefit island residents but boost the area economically. A Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry service would significantly cut travel times for business users, tourist visitors and residents on all the major routes to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Inverness. It would encourage more people in Scotland to visit a beautiful part of our country and increase the impact of the significant investment that has already been made in the area.

Since the community purchase of the island estate, Stòras Uibhist, in partnership with Western Isles Council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Government, has directly secured more than £20 million of investment from the public and private sectors. The new service would provide a further, much-needed economic boost, and the Scottish Government would capitalise on its investment if it played a role in securing the new service for the area. The new service would also be important to the local fishing and fish farming industries in providing more routes to market.

We agree with the Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry group that the benefits of the new service are clear. That is why we are bewildered that it is not referred to in the ferry services draft plan, which refers to many other potential changes to ferry services, and that the case for the new route has not found favour with the Scottish ministers, particularly in light of statements by the SNP’s Angus Brendan MacNeil. Once again, in a ferries debate, I find myself quoting what he said, which is against the Scottish Government’s position:

“The need and case for a Mallaig to Lochboisdale ferry gets stronger each year”.

Dr Allan has participated in the debate to refer to the case that many of his constituents have made for the establishment of the service, but the amendment that he supports makes no commitment on that; it does not even provide for the establishment of a trial, for which Dr Allan and Mr MacNeil have previously announced their support. The SNP has a track record of warm words about a new service and failing to deliver.

Under the previous Scottish Executive, Alasdair Morrison and Tavish Scott held talks on the proposal. In the incoming SNP Government, Stewart Stevenson, as the responsible minister, indicated after dialogue with Peter Peacock that £1 million was available for a new service and invited a submission from Stòras Uibhist on the new route. The SNP then rafted back. It argued that a ferry was not available and then, as Rhoda Grant said, the £1 million disappeared when the community identified a vessel that could be used. The Scottish Government’s position is therefore extremely weak.

Whatever the Scottish Government’s amendment says about welcoming views on a new service, the draft ferry services plan makes it clear that it does not feature, despite there being many proposals for changes in ferry services elsewhere. Indeed, as Elaine Murray and Mary Scanlon have pointed out, paragraph 150 of the draft plan goes out of its way to state:

“We have considered whether a Mallaig to Lochboisdale service could become the principal route for the Uists and Benbecula.”

It goes on to rule that out in favour of the status quo. However, we are not calling for a replacement of the status quo; we are calling for a new, additional service.

The tack that the minister has taken ignores the fact that 83 per cent of residents in South Uist want shorter journey times, as the campaigners remind us. That response is despite the call for a new route being backed by representatives of all parties. We understood that Mike Russell supported the campaign as well, but he seems to have changed his mind. He seems to have been given to doing that recently.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member give way?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

No. There are things that Mr Russell needs to hear. I will continue.

We believe that it is very much worth the Scottish Government’s making a commitment to a Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry service. [Interruption.]

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

It would be good if Mike Russell gained some consistency in his approach to politics for once.

If the Scottish Government is serious about ensuring that there is a clear focus on economic growth in our rural areas—we hope that it is, and Mike Russell should be serious about that—the initiative that we are discussing is exactly the kind of initiative that should be supported. It has the backing of the local authority and local residents. They have not simply given their voices to the campaign; they have delivered investment in their area, and through the community purchase of the island, Stòras Uibhist has shown its commitment to the welfare and future of its community. The Scottish Government should share that commitment. It is clear that there is widespread support for the service, and the opportunity is too important to be passed by for communities that need our support.

Earlier, Alex Neil said, “read my lips”. Members should remember what happened to the politician who said, “Read my lips”. If members are genuine about supporting a new ferry service, there is only one course of action. It is perfectly clear that they should vote for the Labour motion and a vital ferry service.

Children

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02430, in the name of Johann Lamont, on children.

I will allow members a moment to find their seats and their notes. Ms Lamont, you have 10 minutes.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Thank you for your forbearance, Presiding Officer.

In a speech to the Scottish National Party conference in Glasgow, the First Minister said that he would meet his manifesto pledge from 2007 to increase the number of hours of free nursery education for every three and four-year-old to 600 hours at some point after 2014. Given his commitment to that, I am rather surprised that he is not at his place to participate in, or at least listen to, the debate.

In that speech, the First Minister also quoted Nye Bevan. One thing that we will find out today is whether the First Minister fits the description in another quotation from Nye Bevan, in which he said of Harold Macmillan:

“The Prime Minister has an absolute genius for putting flamboyant labels on empty luggage.”

Let us see whether the First Minister has the same genius.

That promise—that reannouncement of a promise—cannot be an empty one. The First Minister has not actually promised to deliver on it in two years’ time. What he has pledged is a bill in two years’ time—a bill that he does not need, because he has the power to deliver today.

I am bemused by the SNP amendment to our motion, because it rolls back on the First Minister’s commitment to 600 hours of free nursery education. It talks broadly about more childcare and more flexibility, but the reality is that the Government could provide that now. SNP ministers are asking SNP back benchers to vote for an amendment that dilutes the First Minister’s position.

The First Minister and his SNP back benchers need to understand that children are not just for conferences. The commitment is critically important. It is bizarre that, in opposing our position, the SNP is denying the commitment that the First Minister made at his own conference.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I do not want to shoot the member’s fox so early on, but I say unequivocally and without fear of contradiction by anybody that the commitment stands as made and will be delivered. We should get on to the substance of the debate rather than the smears of the debate.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

In that case, I expect that the education secretary will join me in opposing the SNP amendment and supporting our motion. This is not a smear. Our motion makes it absolutely clear, and the Scottish Parliament information centre agrees with us, that we can do what the First Minister pledged to do right now.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No, we cannot.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Yes, we can. Without getting into pantomime with the education secretary, I say that we can swap advice, but the advice that we have received from SPICe shows clearly that that can be done. One has to ask why the education secretary would be so anxious to prove that he cannot do what the First Minister said he was so keen to do.

To the Government, the seven years between the manifesto pledge and the aspiration of delivery might seem a short space of time. Perhaps that is the fastest that the First Minister can move. After all, the biggest announcement of his Administration so far is that, after its five years in government, we can wait another 1,000 days for his long-promised referendum. The First Minister likes to talk about his positivity and claim that all his opponents are negative. I explain to him that there is nothing so negative in politics as a promise not kept, however many times the promise is remade.

Let me explain why, Scotland having waited five years for the First Minister to fulfil his pledge, to wait another two years at least is not just unnecessary but unacceptable. The reality today is that Scotland lags behind our neighbours in the United Kingdom when it comes to childcare. Scots parents have fewer hours of free childcare each week. They have the 12.5 hours a week that have been delivered by Alex Salmond as opposed to the 15 hours a week that have been delivered by the hapless Nick Clegg in England—not a man known for holding to his word.

When our parents pay for the childcare that they need on top of free nursery education, they pay at rates as high as those in the richest parts of the UK. Scottish parents pay a higher proportion of average earnings than even parents in London. Our aspiration must be free nursery education within flexible and affordable wrap-around childcare. The free 15 hours of nursery education must be the next stage towards that.

I am not sure that the First Minister really understands the pressures that Scottish families are facing. Working mothers and families have busy lives, juggling the demands of work with the nursery timetable, and they face increasing pressures on household budgets by way of increases in fuel, food and energy costs at a time of pay freezes and reduced hours. Making all of that work can be like spinning plates, and it can be achieved only through meticulous planning, careful budgeting and often the good grace of family members—often grandparents—and friends, who get children to and from the nursery gates.

Many people find that they work simply to cover childcare costs, making no significant net gain when those costs are deducted from salaries, but realising the benefits of nursery care for their children and the benefits of work for themselves. Increasingly, many people are not that lucky, and the reality is that it makes financial sense for them no longer to work and fund additional childcare.

Scotland’s unemployment crisis throws up big numbers, but behind those big numbers are thousands of individual stories, each with its own complexities and challenges. The huge drop in female employment tells us that many women are leaving the job market through natural turnover, whether it be through retirement or to start a family, and they are not being replaced because it is no longer affordable for working mothers to go back to work.

Despite the generous advances that were made in the area by the Labour Government in 1997, the flexible and affordable childcare that people require simply does not exist. Here in Scotland, we face some of the highest childcare costs in the United Kingdom and the highest female unemployment rate. That cannot be by accident.

The First Minister spoke to that vulnerability last month when he offered to increase the number of free hours to Scottish families. That seemed to be a welcome gesture to help to mitigate the pressures that childcare costs are placing on Scottish families but, cruelly, the First Minister made it a referendum bribe rather than the immediate help that working mothers need today. He proved once again that he does not care about Scottish families, that he does not understand Scotland’s working mums, and that the challenges that face the Scottish people are simply stepping stones to separation—his one and only obsession.

The First Minister has an opportunity today to prove me wrong, and to work with us and the other parties to tackle an issue that we all agree is a problem facing hard-pressed families. Today is one occasion on which the Administration has the chance to close the gap between rhetoric and reality. I ask all members to take that chance and start delivering for Scottish families now.

Often, it appears that the highest functioning part of the Administration is not the health department or education, and not finance or enterprise. The highest functioning part of the Administration is its public relations department—where the relationship between rhetoric and reality is less like that of distant cousins and more like that of separate species; where the falseness of a claim does not stop it being repeated; where no link can be too tenuous; and where when failure is finally admitted, it is regarded as a shovel-ready subject that can be buried as long as the day is bad enough. The spin doctors are the highest functioning part of a Government that promises a better tomorrow, but fails to deliver today.

We want to help the Administration to stop being a mañana Government. We believe that the Government can and must deliver now on its promise of better childcare, without any further unnecessary delay. According to SPICe, increasing the number of hours of free care for three and four-year-olds could cost as little as £40 million, which is just an eighth of 1 per cent of the Government’s overall budget. We will work with the Government now to find that cash in the budget and start delivering for families today.

The truth is that children who were born in Scotland in the year that the First Minister made his pledge will not benefit from it, and nor will those who were born the year after—or the year after that, or the year after that. Children who were born in the year that the First Minister was elected will be halfway through primary school before he starts to deliver on his nursery care promise, unless we take decisive action today.

The gap between promise and reality need not be like that. In 1997, Labour promised a free nursery place for every four-year-old by 1999 and we delivered. We promised a free place for every three-year-old by 2002, and we delivered and made that a statutory requirement in the same year.

The SNP seems to be keen to match the previous Labour Government’s language of aspiration, but that is just an election campaign con if it does not match the record of delivery. Separating Scotland from the rest of the UK has been the First Minister’s key aim all his political life. I do not agree with him, but I respect his view. However, he cannot put Scotland on pause while he waits for a time when he reckons he might win his referendum. He cannot take promises that he pledged to fulfil by last year, toss them into some date after the referendum, and expect us to put up with it.

Scots families need help now and it is not right to force them to wait for that help, or for the Government to pretend that it cannot do anything about it in the meantime. It is not right for the First Minister to make it a condition of that help that people will get it only if they vote in the way that he wants in the referendum.

The broken promises of today and yesterday will perhaps be made good, but only if the people of Scotland vote in the way that the First Minister wants at some point in the future. Scotland’s families do not deserve to be put at the end of the childcare queue in the United Kingdom and at the end of the First Minister’s list of priorities. We will work with the Scottish Government to put Scotland’s families first and to deliver for Scotland’s children. We will work with the Government to close the gap between its rhetoric and the reality that people in this country face every day. The First Minister has been stating his childcare aspirations for more than five years. If members vote for the Scottish Labour motion, we can turn aspiration into delivery today.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that an extension to available nursery hours for pre-5 children is an important contribution to their educational development; notes the commitment made by the First Minister to extend available hours; further notes that the Scottish Government previously extended hours in 2007 through the use of a statutory instrument, the Provision of School Education for Children under School Age (Prescribed Children) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2007, SSI 2007/396; recognises that there is no need to use primary legislation to increase the number of hours of pre-school education available to pre-5 children, and considers that the Scottish Government should give early effect to the commitment made by the First Minister by introducing a statutory instrument before the end of June 2012.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I am happy to have another opportunity to set out in more detail what we seek to achieve with our expanded early learning and childcare commitment and why we need primary legislation to do that. I will explain the facts to Labour. It is a pity that Labour has struck such a negative tone in the debate.

First and foremost, with our pledge to increase early learning and childcare provision to 600 hours, we intend to bring about a transformational change in the way in which provision for our youngest children is delivered. Our approach is not simply about increasing the number of hours of pre-school education that children receive; it is far more comprehensive and ambitious than that—it is about taking strides on our journey towards making Scotland the best country to grow up in. Despite the negativity, I remain hopeful that others will work with and support us in achieving that ambition.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am positive that I can help the First Minister with his commitment, which was:

“Conference, we will place into the new Children’s Bill introduced to Parliament next year a statutory guarantee of over 600 hours of free nursery education for every Scottish 3 and 4 year old and for every looked after 2 year old in our land.”

We can do that now, as a starting point and then build on that. We want to help the Government on the issue, and we can do it now.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The First Minister also said in his conference speech that the system must be “flexible in its delivery”. I will go on to explain why Labour has kind of missed the point in the debate.

The current situation is based on three and four-year-olds being entitled to 475 hours of pre-school education a year. However, as Bronwen Cohen said in an article in The Scotsman last week,

“In the early years, care and education are indivisible.”

She is right, which is why we must legislate to break down the current barriers. We need to ensure that all three and four-year-olds, as well as looked-after two-year-olds, receive flexible, high-quality early learning and childcare that meets their developmental needs and the needs of working parents. We need to move beyond the rigidity of a system that is wholly tied to schooldays and terms. Increased hours are important, but the bigger prize is the flexibility that we can achieve through primary legislation.

Parents and families tell us that they require flexibility. We need to support them if we want Scotland to thrive and grow. We are legislating not to tinker round the edges but to bring about a fundamental and positive shift that delivers for families and for the children of Scotland. As the First Minister said when he announced our intentions, that is

“a statement of faith and commitment to the future.”

Last week, Labour spoke of a need for a Scottish model of childcare, which is what we seek to develop. However, we need to do it properly and we need to get it right. Primary legislation is vital to deal with the fundamental and complex issues of flexibility. By taking forward the issue through the children’s services bill, we will provide the necessary long-term focus that the children of Scotland deserve.

To deliver the fundamental change that is needed, we must engage with the people who will deliver and use the services. We will have a full and proper discussion during the consultation process and will develop our plans accordingly. We will engage with local authorities to develop a system that offers the increased entitlement and, crucially, a system that is more flexible and better integrated across early learning and childcare. At the core of our thinking will be the role of parents and the home environment.

Our proposals to legislate are bold and exciting but, in the here and now, there is much that we are doing and will do to make progress. From April, we will deliver increased early learning and childcare provision for our most vulnerable two-year-olds and their parents and carers. This year, we will deliver community-based early learning and childcare solutions in the shape of the £4.5 million communities and families fund. As I outlined in the debate last week, we will develop a series of public-social partnerships—PSPs—that will cover a range of early learning and childcare issues to meet parents’ needs. Those include the issues of parents who are on low incomes and/or who are in poverty; parents and carers who work shifts; out-of-school care, including holiday clubs; parents and families living in rural areas; and outdoor or nature kindergartens.

I am also aware of the important role for employers in providing flexibility for parents. As John Park highlighted in last week’s debate, a lack of flexible working and childcare opportunities can impact on the ability of families to engage economically—the economic arguments in the debate should not be ignored. That is why, as I also announced last week, we will hold a national business summit in June to explore new ways of incentivising and encouraging more flexible working in the private sector, including the promotion of childcare vouchers. That is action that the Government is taking now to address childcare needs.

Our early years task force will play a critical role in taking forward our aspiration for transformational change in and through the early years. It brings together experts from across civic Scotland, including health professionals, police and our partners in local government. That body disregards political boundaries, and I am pleased that Malcolm Chisholm is a member of it, because the early years are far more important than party politics. The task force has agreed its vision and priorities, which were published on the Scottish Government’s website and issued to key local delivery partners last week. The paper builds on some of the priorities in the early years framework and restates our commitment to key strands of work including the parenting strategy, the play talk read campaign and the further development of family support, early learning and childcare provision.

The task force met on Tuesday to discuss increasing early learning and childcare provision and our commitment to expand that to 600 hours. The task force members were supportive of that, but they were very clear that flexibility in the delivery of additional provision is vital if we are to achieve the impacts that we seek. Julie Wild of the National Parent Forum of Scotland, who is also a member of the early years task force, said:

“We welcome the increase in hours, but we especially welcome the added flexibility that the new proposals will bring for children and their parents. Flexibility is crucial to enabling parents to have a good work/life balance and to ensuring that services can be tailored towards individual circumstances. That is what families in Scotland need.”

Those are words that all members should take notice of.

We have within our grasp the opportunity to make an enormous positive difference for families in Scotland. I hope that, despite some of the comments that have been made so far, we can work together to put the needs of the children and families of our nation to the fore as we continue to strive towards making Scotland the very best place for children to grow up in.

I move amendment S4M-02430.1, to leave out from “there is no need” to end and insert:

“, to provide a statutory right to more flexible early learning, primary legislation is required; welcomes the Scottish Government’s intention to provide this through the Children’s Services Bill to be introduced next year, and further recognises the importance of developing early learning and childcare by working in partnership with local authorities, nursery and childcare providers to ensure that both the developmental needs of Scotland’s children and the varied needs of parents are met.”

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

When I was doing my teacher training, which was not exactly yesterday, there was a section about skills to use in the classroom, which included a unit about how to use repetition. We were told that repetition could be both a secret weapon and the cause of our downfall. It could be a secret weapon if we used it effectively in stressing the most important points in our argument, but it could be our downfall if we were merely to repeat the obvious and lose some of the essential facts. That turns out to be true also in politics this morning, notwithstanding the fact that we are all fully agreed about the importance of the topic. We had a good debate the last time that we debated the subject, although there were—as ever—political differences. If we have to repeat ourselves a little just seven days later, perhaps that will focus our minds more carefully on the key themes and the facts.

We are all agreed that early intervention is the crucial component in determining the future health, social wellbeing and educational achievement of any child. Last week, several members pointed to various aspects of the wealth of evidence that supports that view. I reread the Official Report from last week and, although I agree with some of Johann Lamont’s comments, I note that the main themes in that debate were the quantity of the hours on offer, the quality of provision within those hours, the flexibility to allow parents to take up their entitlements and, crucially, the need to ensure that childcare policies articulate with our other social and economic policies. The motion and the amendment both reflect that we probably need to take slightly different approaches to the quantitative and qualitative aspects of that care. I do not see any difficulties in that. They are not mutually exclusive, and the advice that we have been given—both by SPICe and by some of the legal team—is that they can work effectively alongside each other.

However, I hope that we can probe the SNP a little further on exactly what provisions it foresees in the children’s services bill on flexibility in how parents can take up their entitlements and on the use of qualified care staff, which obviously has implications for contracts and so on. Having that information before the division bell rings this evening would be helpful.

It is clear that extending the total number of hours matters not just because it is one way of ensuring that we provide more opportunities for our children but because it will allow us to catch up with and—should the Scottish Government succeed in keeping its manifesto commitment—overtake the progress that has been made south of the border. That is particularly important for parents to whom no partner or relative is immediately available to assist in raising their children.

The Liberals, who are absent today, were right last week to highlight the regional variations that we face in Scotland in the supply and the cost of childcare. We all agree that that is unacceptable.

The solution to the childcare issue will necessarily involve an effective combination of the educational experience that is on offer to the child and the convenience to the parent and the family. That challenge, which—let us be honest—is not easy, should focus our minds.

If there is one driving force, it is the need to ensure that the hours that are on offer are provided by qualified professionals and that, in adjusting the hours and the flexibility within them, we are mindful of the contractual arrangements for care staff and, for children from the age of three, the demands of the curriculum for excellence. Balancing the educational and practical needs is not easy. That is why we need to consider what is and is not helpful in legislative and non-legislative processes.

I think that the desire is felt across the chamber to focus on the most disadvantaged children who do not get what they are entitled to, which can put untold pressures on the budgets of the poorest families in our society. That is why it is important that we provide the extra choice dimension, which we debated at length last week, so that we can support those who stand to benefit most and who are most responsive to the changing focus of Government policy, by which I mean policy in Scotland and south of the border.

I mentioned last week that we should look at ideas from other countries and down south, where greater flexibility is available—not just in how we charge for care—to try to make the situation that little bit better. The debate is important and I will be interested in listening to more comments from the Scottish Government on how we will get such flexibility.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

When I saw that we were to debate childcare again, I was worried that I would have a sense of déjà vu, but this week’s debate is taking place in a different context. It is good to see that the Liberal Democrats have followed up their strongly held commitment to childcare in Scotland by not bothering to turn up for the debate this week.

Johann Lamont said that we need somehow to learn that children are not just for conferences and implied that the SNP does not really care about Scotland’s children. As a father and an uncle, I found those comments rather unnecessary. No party or politician has a monopoly on caring about or wanting the best for Scotland’s children. It ill behoves any politician—particularly a party leader—to try to make such a distinction and create some sort of clear blue water between the political parties.

The minister was right to make it clear that we want a constructive debate. There were at least glimmerings of constructiveness in Johann Lamont’s speech, although there were not quite enough of them.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Was the member similarly concerned when he heard the First Minister, on his platform at the SNP conference, raising childcare very much as a political issue? Did the member decline to applaud then, or does what he said apply only when other party leaders speak on the subject?

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Mr Smith has clearly been taking intervention lessons from Mr Findlay. Perhaps he should stop doing so.

It has to be said that at no point in the conference did the First Minister imply that other politicians or political parties did not care about Scotland’s children. That is the distinction that I would draw in that regard. As the person who governs Scotland, the First Minister is perfectly entitled to make commitments to Scotland’s children in a governmental and legislative context.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Urgh.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Mr Findlay might find talking about Scotland’s children tiresome—

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

No, it is just Mr McDonald I find tiresome.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

That is personal taste, and the feeling is mutual.

The key issue, as identified by the minister in her opening remarks, is the need to transform the system. The Children in Scotland briefing, which we all received this morning, highlights examples that illustrate why a commitment to 600 hours of early education is welcome. The message has to be put across that the key consideration is reforming the system and making it work better for parents. That is why there is a legislative context for the commitment to 600 hours. It is all very well for us to increase the hours that are available to children, but we must also ensure that the system works not only for children but for their parents, which means ensuring that flexibility is inherent in the arrangements.

The Children in Scotland briefing welcomes the fact that Scotland is the only United Kingdom nation that is currently represented on the European Commission thematic working group on early childhood education and care. It urges the Government to take inspiration from successful integrated strategies that have been adopted in a number of European countries. Although the commitment to 600 hours puts us at the vanguard in the UK context, we should have wider vision and be looking at strong international examples.

I have a three-year-old son who is currently in the nursery education system. In a selfish capacity, it would be easy for me to come to the chamber and say that we should increase the hours, as that would benefit him. However, I want a holistic system to be developed—something that is meaningful for Scotland’s children. Boosting hours is key and will benefit children, but it is important to consider what lies behind that so that, when my one-year-old daughter goes into the system in two years’ time, we will have put in place legislation to transform the system, to make it work for her and the rest of the children in Scotland who will be entering nursery education at that time, and for the parents of those children. That is why it is important that we get this right, and I hope that we can move forward on a constructive, cross-party basis on that.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The difficulties that parents face in organising childcare came home to me this morning when I had my own crisis in organising childcare and thought that I might not be able to attend this debate.

I welcome the announcement that the Scottish Government intends to extend early years education to 600 hours a year, even though the Government’s amendment today perhaps weakens that commitment. However, we should be clear about what the commitment means. It is good news in terms of access to good-quality nursery education. It contributes towards breaking the link between poverty and educational underachievement and it contributes to the learning, nurture, care, creativity and health of all children. Labour believes strongly in that agenda, which is why we extended nursery education to three-year-olds and vulnerable two-year-olds.

Although we support moves to extend provision, the question is, why wait? This is a commitment that fell by the wayside in the previous session but, as the Labour motion says, the Government could move much quicker on the policy. Of course there will be issues to overcome—capacity issues to be resolved, funding to be met, political leadership to be shown and priority to be given—but if those issues are all to be addressed in two years’ time, why not get on with it now?

There are a couple of points that I want to make about this policy. We need to be clear about what it will deliver for families. It has been described as a childcare boost but, without proper integration of the childcare system, it does not contribute to the childcare solution for many families. We can value it for what it is. From three years of age, children are brought into the curriculum for excellence. Although delivery is varied, they will have access to qualified nursery teachers. If we value early education for the benefits that it brings to the child, we might ask why it is children of the more advantaged families who get the most benefit from the current system—they are the children who have access to a greater number of pre-school hours, largely through the private sector.

Secondly, although the policy is described as “free nursery hours”, for many working parents who are trying to organise childcare, it certainly does not feel free. Many parents still pay the fees of mainly private nurseries while the child attends the school nursery, because of the lack of wraparound and flexible care. The fees are considerable. They are equivalent to private school fees, and represent a level of fee that parents will never have to pay again for any part of their child’s education in Scotland.

We need to find a way to make the system work for parents as well as children. We need commitment to make the arrangements more flexible, but I recognise the challenges in that. If local authorities introduce more flexibility and approve more private nurseries to deliver provision, will that affect the viability of their own nurseries? How will public sector nurseries that are oversubscribed be able to deliver additional provision? Will the increasing number of private nurseries delivering the curriculum break links with schools?

To make all this happen, the work of the early years task force is important, but the early years change fund must be transparent. Of the £250 million that was announced in the spending review, the Government’s contribution is £50 million over the parliamentary session and the rest is up to local authorities and the national health service. However, at local authority level the contribution is varied. I understand that some authorities are identifying existing work and money as their contribution, while others are identifying new money, but that is money that is contributing to the gap in their budgets. The necessary change cannot be underfunded.

School wraparound care is important and needs to be improved and to be accessible and affordable but, unless we get early years childcare right, we run the risk of excluding mothers from the workplace. It is difficult enough for mothers with one child to work, but if they have more than one, it can be unsustainable, even for well-off families, which means that we are in danger of taking talent out of our economy. As John Park highlighted last week, part of the solution is more flexible workplaces that recognise family responsibilities; other countries do it and evidence suggests that it does not affect productivity but leads to more committed staff.

What are the solutions? We can tinker around the edges of the system that we have, we can extend provision here and there and we can rightly focus on particularly vulnerable groups of children. I was encouraged by the minister’s comments about looking for a more flexible system, but my concern is that a clear commitment has been made to increase the amount of free nursery provision to 600 hours and we need to move forward more quickly on that.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I am afraid that you will have to conclude.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We perhaps need to be more radical. The Scandinavian model is universal early years provision. That is not free, but we should recognise that, for many families in Scotland, the solution that we are working with just now is not free either.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

It is good to get an ovation from Labour members before I have even started.

I hope that this is an important issue for all of us, whether or not we are parents, as I happen to be. Mark McDonald’s comments about the language that we employ when we discuss the issue of children in a political debate were well made. We should not question the genuine interest in the issue of anyone participating in the debate. I use the phrase “participating in the debate” advisedly because, like Mark McDonald, I could not help but be struck by the absence of the Liberal Democrats, who were perfectly entitled to bring forward a debate on this issue last week. When I hosted a members’ business debate on a similar issue in December, not a single Liberal Democrat took part. Without questioning the Liberal Democrats’ genuine interest in the issue, I note that a clear pattern of absence is emerging.

I will place the debate in the context of what the Scottish Government has done on childcare provision. Progress has been made over the past four years, so let us not pretend that it has not. There has been an increase in the amount of free nursery provision of the order of 20 per cent, which has benefited some 100,000 children. The Scottish Government is focusing on preventative spend in the early years to help children and is working on a non-partisan, cross-party basis with the early years task force, as the minister outlined, and with the early years change fund to strengthen support for children and their families.

Of course, there is another context at this time. We can see what the Scottish Government is doing to help families, but we hear a lot about what is emanating from Westminster and about the positive work that is being done south of the border. Let us remind ourselves of what is emerging from Westminster through the welfare reform agenda: 84,900 households in Scotland will no longer be eligible for tax credits from April, which means that 118,700 children in Scotland will be affected, potentially pushing thousands more into living in poverty. Research by Save the Children found that 150,000 of the UK’s poorest working mums could lose up to £68 a week under the UK Government’s new universal tax credit system. I question how that is likely to assist in the affordability of childcare.

Last week, we debated “The Scottish Childcare Lottery”, which was published on 27 February. The First Minister announced the additional support for childcare—which Save the Children welcomed—just a few days later on 10 March, and the minister has said that she is committed to making progress on the issue. It is clear that action has been taken and that the Government is moving quickly to improve the situation.

On the issue of primary legislation, there is a great deal of focus on the commitment to increase the hours of provision. I understand why that is important, but we are perhaps forgetting the other side of the equation, which is the flexibility of childcare provision. That issue was raised by Save the Children, and it featured in the members’ business debate that I brought to the chamber last year. It will take a little longer to get more flexible childcare provision, which is why we need primary legislation.

Members might call me cynical, but I wonder whether, if the commitment was not being put into primary legislation, Johann Lamont would stand up today and say that it was an outrage that it was not and that members were not getting a chance to have their say on the legislation.

Claire Baker rightly raised a number of genuine issues to do with childcare provision, which demonstrate why we must take just a little bit longer to get the legislation right.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I am pleased that the Labour Party motion acknowledges the need to extend early years education. The SNP does, too, which is why we are committed to delivering the best childcare package in these islands.

The 600-hour commitment for all three and four-year-olds and looked-after two-year-olds is just the latest milestone in a process of real improvement under the SNP Government. The pledge builds on achievements since 2007—as Jamie Hepburn just outlined—when the SNP Government moved to increase free provision by 20 per cent. That is 20 per cent more than the previous Liberal and Labour Administration in Scotland, which could manage only 400 hours, despite having considerably more financial breathing space than the Government does at present.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Joan McAlpine says that progress has been made as there has been a 20 per cent increase in free provision. However, the 2007 SNP manifesto promised a 50 per cent increase. Does she accept that we are simply not doing enough, which is why we must take action today to deliver on the pledge that the SNP made in 2007?

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The reason why we are moving to legislate—to which the Labour Party seems to object—is that we are committed to delivering. If Neil Bibby really is concerned about delivery, he should support us in legislating for those 600 hours.

Our approach is about more than simply increasing the hours of provision, although that is vital to working parents. It is part of a strategy that has been developed with some of the leading experts in the field, and which dates back to the early years framework in 2008, which set out 10 elements of transformational change. One of those elements—and, I would argue, the most important—involves using early intervention to break the cycle of poverty and inequality for our young people.

I am very proud that the Government has taken an inclusive approach to such a vital issue by inviting respected individuals such as Malcolm Chisholm and Professor Susan Deacon to help us to find the best solutions together. We must use all the talents to meet the challenge. Professor Deacon’s report, “Joining the dots: A better start for Scotland’s children”, was clear that the time for talking is over and it is now time for delivery. I was encouraged that the Government responded immediately to that report with a £6.8 million investment in an action fund that will support the third sector to deliver the services that parents and children need.

The issue of childcare provision is all about delivery and flexibility. We can promise all the hours we want, but that counts for nothing if the care that we offer is not flexible enough to cater for the real needs of real families. If we are serious about delivering flexible childcare and early years learning, we need legislation.

I agree that “The Scottish Childcare Lottery” demonstrated some shocking gaps and deficiencies in provision in Scotland. That is why the First Minister’s response was so firm and focused: within 10 days of the report’s publication, he promised to legislate for 600 hours a year. Only legislation will provide the assurance that the serious gaps that were highlighted in the report will be closed. We need legislation to ensure access to quality childcare all year round, as the minister said, and not just in the school term. We need it to help specific groups such as parents in rural areas, those who work shifts and those who care for other relatives. We need legislation in the children’s bill to ensure that the needs of every child, however complex, are properly addressed.

The issue is too important for us to cross our fingers and hope for the best. We cannot afford not to deliver, and we must deliver in such a way as to ensure that provision is tailored to individuals and families. I said that I wanted to consider the issue in a wider context, because it is complex and challenging. It requires creative solutions such as the public-social partnerships that the minister has outlined. Such partnerships meet the challenge of delivery and allow the Government to work with its partners to meet specific needs.

It is about more than totting up hours; it is about changing the landscape. We are changing Scotland’s early years landscape and moulding our country into a child-friendly and family-friendly shape, but let us not underestimate the challenge. It requires commitment, co-operation and a change in the law to make it happen.

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

I am glad that I have the opportunity to speak in the debate. As I said in the childcare debate last week, I am a working mother of three children and know how essential childcare is to parents and children. The opportunity to discuss its importance again is extremely welcome.

I have spoken to countless parents in Glasgow, which I represent—and, for that matter, to parents throughout the country—and I know that affordable, high-quality childcare is a top priority, especially given the economic strains that are being placed on hard-working families. I have also noticed that, over the past year or two, it is becoming an economic issue for people who were previously able to manage financially. If people who were previously getting by are now struggling, what does that mean for the people who have always needed slightly more support?

Last month, figures were released that showed that, in Scotland, more than 200 women a day were losing their jobs. The knock-on effect that that will have on children cannot be overestimated. In addition to that, Save the Children told us last week about working parents’ mounting concerns about the Welfare Reform Bill, which will affect almost 4,500 children in Glasgow. For any of those women who have lost their jobs and are trying to find other employment, the cost of childcare will be a massive hurdle.

We know that there are worries and that there are issues that must be addressed now. That is why action must be taken straight away, not in two years’ time. Five years ago, the SNP made a similar pledge that it did not keep. That cannot be allowed to happen again so, although I and my Labour colleagues are glad that the Scottish Government intends to increase childcare provision, members will forgive us for being a little concerned about the timeframe.

When I spoke in last week’s debate on childcare, I explained that the Labour-led Glasgow City Council had already introduced a raft of positive and progressive policies on childcare. It has shown the way by offering 15 hours a week of nursery provision and pledging to expand that provision to include children under the age of three. That move could benefit more than 7,000 children in Glasgow, but I do not want Glasgow’s children and parents alone to have that increased provision. Childcare should not be reduced to a postcode lottery. I want every family in Scotland to enjoy equal access to first-rate childcare.

This week, we witnessed an overdue U-turn from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning on curriculum for excellence. Today, the SNP has a chance to follow in Mike Russell’s humble footsteps by addressing the concerns of parents of younger children.

I read last week—this may just be a scurrilous rumour—that the SNP sent out an e-card for mother’s day. I ask it to match its fine words with actions and send a belated present to thousands of hard-working families throughout the country by supporting Scottish Labour’s motion.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

I associate myself with Liz Smith’s comments about how crucial early intervention is. The early years are incredibly important for all our children and the SNP Government is committed to accommodating early intervention for our youngsters.

We need to reassure Labour members that the commitment to deliver 600 hours is a commitment to deliver 600 hours. There is no dispute about that and I find it difficult to understand why they think that there could be any dilution of the commitment.

The Labour benches also assert that nothing is happening at the moment, but that is simply not true. A lot is happening. For example, a lot of engagement is taking place; as the minister made clear, dialogue is on-going with the early years task force. The proposed timeframe for legislation is essential in ensuring that we engage with those who are genuinely interested in giving our children the best possible future—in other words, our local authorities and parents—and that the programme is flexible enough to meet both the framework and the aspirations of all parents of young children.

In areas such as my Aberdeenshire West constituency, a large part of which is rural, these additional hours and the flexibility that the minister referred to are essential. Sometimes I think that good nursery provision is at the heart—indeed, is the lifeblood—of some of the very small rural communities in Aberdeenshire West and I hope that it will help to keep some of our rural schools open. The cabinet secretary knows my views on that matter and I look forward to hearing the results of the commission on rural education later in the summer.

Claire Baker articulated well the fact that this is a very complex issue. That is why we need to take our time. There is no point in rushing through something that is just going to fail. We will be failing our children if we do not take our time, embark on dialogue, listen and engage. We are moving forward; commitments to deliver have been made and initiatives put in place to ensure that the most vulnerable and those who require additional childcare get that provision. I hope that the Labour benches recognise that the First Minister’s commitment to give every three and four-year-old and every looked-after two-year-old 600 hours of funded nursery education was a commitment to every child in every part of Scotland and that it will be delivered.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The debate has been quite constructive, not least because it has flagged up one of the dilemmas with this particular childcare policy. The fact is that we are dealing with two very separate issues, the first of which is the number of hours on offer. In that respect, I think that we can all come up with slightly different answers to the question whether that requires primary legislation in all its guises.

The second issue is flexibility in the way parents who will have this entitlement use the hours. We must be very careful that we do not create a muddle here. If I read the legal team’s advice correctly, both the motion and the amendment contain factually correct points, and it will all come down to semantics and definitions about what exactly we are driving through. For that reason, I think that Claire Baker and Dennis Robertson made valid points about the basic principles underpinning what all of us on all sides of the chamber are trying to do.

These issues come down to three things. First, we are absolutely determined that the best possible childcare be on offer in all parts of Scotland and that it be provided by qualified carers and nursery teachers. That is essential and, indeed, it is what parents want. I know that many of the people who have lobbied us on the issue are concerned about that and at the back of all this lie various debates on certain contractual issues.

Secondly, as Claire Baker said, there are issues to do with the mix between the private and the public sectors. The fact that both sectors are valuable providers of care, even though they come from slightly different perspectives, adds to the choice that is available. We should not forget that that mix is essential, particularly in an age in which we want greater choice and flexibility. We need to make it possible for that mix to work as well as possible, and to ensure that private providers do not feel under pressure because of certain diktats from local authorities.

Thirdly, we should never forget that the policy is targeted at the most disadvantaged children. They, above all, are the priority, because it is they—and their parents—who need the greatest support. It was in that context that the minister referred to Bronwen Cohen’s article in The Scotsman last week, in which she threw up the challenge that we all face in striving for better articulation between care services and education. As several members have pointed out, the issue is extremely complex. Cross-party support will be required if we are to ensure that we can work through the complexities, just as we have done on other social matters that we have debated in the chamber. That is important.

Johann Lamont and Jamie Hepburn rightly flagged up the fact that part of the argument is about how well the welfare system that Westminster oversees works. As I said in last week’s debate, I am very conscious of some of the stresses and strains on that system and the arguments about whether the focus has been on the right places. I hope that the fact that some of the child benefit changes that were announced yesterday were not quite as radical as those that were originally planned is an example of that message having got home.

As Jamie Hepburn said, it is essential that we all pull together to ensure that we do what is right and proper for the educational, emotional, intellectual and social needs of our children. We look forward to hearing much more from the Scottish Government about the timing and the content of the legislative process that it intends to pursue. Thereafter, I hope that we can move further forward.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I welcome what is, as Liz Smith pointed out, the second debate on the topic in seven days. Last week’s debate was called by the Liberal Democrats. It is clear that they got a surfeit of information last week and decided not to have a second shot at the issue. This week’s debate has been called by Labour. I would not dispute any member’s describing childcare as being “exceptionally important”. It is exceptionally important. It benefits children, of course. Education and care are indivisible. Being within that process is extremely important for the youngest children. As they move towards formal schooling, the flexible childcare that we are talking about becomes ever more important.

Such childcare benefits parents, not just in their working lives, although that is clearly important. There are working mothers in the Parliament, two of whom have spoken in the debate. It also helps with parents’ work-life balance and, overall, it benefits society. [Interruption.] I am told that there are four working mothers in the chamber. Is there any advance on four? There are quite a number of working fathers in the Parliament, too. We should not forget them. We now have five working mothers in the chamber—Angela Constance has just entered. I think that I will stop with that. Flexible childcare also benefits the economy and the overall wellbeing of society.

We have had a number of positive contributions to the debate. Claire Baker’s was positive and helpful in pointing out the issues that need to be addressed, and Dennis Robertson’s was exceptionally well informed and constructive. The questions that Liz Smith asked are important ones. I will come to the issue of legislation in a moment. It is important that we take a fresh look at what we are trying to do. Dennis Robertson was right to say that a great deal is happening. It is definitely wrong to represent the debate as an either/or scenario—either you are interested in the provision of 600 hours or you are, in some sense, a failure. I will come on to address the tone of the opening speech in the debate, which was unfortunate.

There is very strong concern in this Government and across this chamber—nobody has a monopoly on concern for children—about making progress on a range of issues. We have done so: early years work has been done, getting it right for every child work has been done, and quality has been driven up. For example, additional qualifications are required for childcare. Those are all important things. The significant achievement of taking the number of hours from 412.5 to 475 in the early days of the first SNP Administration was important. The number of hours delivered was lower—I will not make any political point about this—before the SNP came into office. We still want to improve and we have that aspiration to improve, which the First Minister has been right to lay out.

We need to work out how we can improve and the right way to deliver that improvement. That right way must be flexible, because this is not just about hours or sum of hours. We have moved on from there and we know that early years’ care and education are indivisible. We need flexibility and we need primary legislation to deliver that flexibility. I will not swap opinions with people—that route will not help us—but this Government is committed to doing those things, wants to do so and wants to introduce the right legislation. The Government is happy to work with all parties—I make this offer—to introduce that legislation.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

In a moment, Mr Henry. The Government is happy to introduce that legislation. Liz Smith has asked to discuss it and I am very happy to sit down and discuss it. I make the same commitment to Hugh Henry. I constantly make commitments to Mr Henry that he can come and talk to me, and he never does, but on this occasion he would be very welcome to do so and we might make some progress.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

Will the cabinet secretary confirm whether he has the powers and competences to use regulation and ministerial guidance to introduce the increase in the number of hours now?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

That was an unhelpful intervention, but I am used to that from Mr Henry. I was talking about developing the way in which we deliver childcare to take account of the flexibility required, and that needs primary legislation. I make the offer again—if Hugh Henry wants to sit down and talk, or if Neil Bibby is asked by him to come and talk to the minister, I would be very happy to have those discussions. We need that discussion and debate.

A great deal is being done, and, of course, more can be done, but I want members to reflect on something else this morning. We have had two debates from Labour on interesting and important subjects. Unfortunately, the focus on the Labour side has been not on progress but on insisting on spending now—not next week or next month, but now. There was not a word, not a single contribution, about what they would stop spending the money on. That is important because of the constitutional circumstances in which we find ourselves. We live within a constrained, fixed budget and in those circumstances, if anyone is going to argue for additional expenditure—indeed, our budget procedures in the Parliament demand this—they have to say where it would come from. There has not been a word about that important aspect of the question.

It was also very telling—this was the difference between this week and last week—that there was not a word about the assault on families being undertaken by the coalition through welfare reform. The debate has simply, alas, been about oppositionalism—it is best just to say it and be open about it. It has been about naked, simple oppositionalism. The people of Scotland are not fooled by that and I will tell members how I know that they are not fooled. A year ago today, on 22 March 2011, this Parliament dissolved. We had had four years of oppositionalism from Labour members; four years of anger, bile and frustration. That frustration was not just at not being in office, but at having their entitlement to office taken away. That has been striking.

We went through that election and there was a lot of expectation that things would change, and they did change. They changed big style. This party got an overall majority, the first time that it has ever happened. There is a lesson in that and I want to give that lesson free, gratis and for nothing to Johann Lamont. The lesson is that people in Scotland find that type of oppositionalism deeply unattractive. I have not done the word cloud of her speech, but I suspect that my estimate is pretty close, and a speech on childcare from the leader of the Opposition that uses the words “First Minister” as often as it uses the word “child” tells us something about what is taking place. A speech that attacks the Government for not caring about children is deeply unattractive, too, I must say. I speak as not just a parent, but the minister who has overall responsibility for children.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I did not say that.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I suggest that the leader of the Opposition, who is shouting out as usual, and the education spokesperson who is about to sum up take a positive approach. They should come and discuss this issue. Let us get together on it, because I suspect that we are about to hear more anger and bile directed more at the fact that they are not in office than at any care about anything else.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

It is hard to know how to start, when the Government is making us an offer to come and talk and be positive while suggesting that the talk would take place in conditions of anger, bile and negativity. If the Government wants to talk, that is no way to frame the terms of the discussion.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member give way?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

Not yet. I heard enough of Mike Russell’s bile a few minutes ago.

Let us concentrate on what the motion is about. Mike Russell asked why we have not spent time talking about what the coalition Government has done on welfare benefits. There will be plenty of opportunities to look at other matters; this debate is about a specific issue.

We are all guilty sometimes of confusing nursery education and childcare. Mike Russell was right to say that the issues are indivisible to some extent, but there are also significant differences between them. I do not for a moment dispute that working families throughout the country need better access to more flexible, integrated childcare, which wraps around our important core education service. We need to ensure that the educational input can be more flexible and can link into what parents need. We perhaps also need to admit that we sometimes blur the distinctions between childcare and education.

I think that there should be more flexibility, but I also argue that we need to ensure that we do not lose the fundamental educational input into early years development.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

We are not doing that.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

I am not accusing the SNP Government of doing that. I am talking generally; we all need to ensure that we do not lose that fundamental input. We need to be careful. We also need to be imaginative and flexible, so that we can match what parents need to what can be delivered.

Whether or not Mike Russell liked hearing references to the First Minister, the debate has been framed by what the First Minister said. He mentioned childcare, but—

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the member give way?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

In a second.

The First Minister mentioned childcare, but he has laboured significantly on education. That is the bit that we need to look at. Let me remind members what the SNP has said. In its 2007 manifesto it said:

“We will increase the provision of free nursery education for 3 and 4 year olds by 50 per cent”.

In its 2011 manifesto, the SNP said that it would

“ensure ... that the expansion of nursery education continues.”

At the party conference, Alex Salmond said that there will be

“a statutory guarantee of over 600 hours of free nursery education for every Scottish 3 and 4 year old.”

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I thank Hugh Henry for giving way. He said clearly that the debate is predicated on the First Minister’s remarks at my party’s conference. Does that mean that if the First Minister had not made those remarks Labour would not have brought the subject forward for debate? Does that mean that Labour does not care about the issue?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

I will resist the temptation to thank Hepburn for that intervention.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Excuse me. Mr Henry, please refer to the member as “Mr Hepburn” or “Jamie Hepburn”.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

Oh, I am sorry; since he called me “Henry”, I was just making the point—

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. May I ask you to reflect on the Official Report? I did not at any stage refer to Mr Henry as “Henry”.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

Well, anyway.

The member asked whether we would have brought the subject forward for debate if the First Minister had not made those remarks. Well no, the subject would not have been on the agenda because it is about what the First Minister said. What he said—and what the SNP said—is that this is about the delivery of 600 hours of free nursery education. The question is whether we need primary legislation. Maybe in three years’ time, or longer, when the bill takes effect, there will be a need to consider legislation for flexibility, but—

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Will the member give way?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

No, thank you.

Primary legislation is not needed to deliver the extension to hours. The SNP has already extended the hours by statutory instrument and moved beyond what Labour delivered. I agree with Aileen Campbell that 600 hours should be the starting point for a flexible package of wraparound childcare. We do not need to wait for primary legislation to deliver it.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

No, thank you.

Section 32 of the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000 allows ministers to effect change through regulation; that is, by statutory instrument. Section 34 allows ministers to give guidance on how that will be delivered. Delivery of the 600 hours does not need to wait for primary legislation.

Joan McAlpine says that the commitment to 600 hours is a milestone. Normally, milestones tell us where we have reached in a journey. We have not reached 600 hours, so there is no milestone here.

As Dennis Robertson said in a very good speech, this is a complex issue. We do not want to do something that could fail, yet the SNP has already extended provision and has made improvements on the journey, and that has not failed—it has been positive—so why would an extension to 600 hours be a failure?

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

No, thanks.

The question is whether Scotland’s families and children need to wait for three years or more for the 600 hours to be delivered. The answer is no. Ministers have the power, and they have already used it. All that Labour is saying today is that we want to work constructively with the Government. We want the Parliament to send out the powerful message that we can unite on something so important to Scotland’s families. We all agree that 600 hours is a noble aspiration and that 600 hours will make a huge difference, so surely we can also agree that ministers have the power to deliver that now if they wish. [Applause.]

There is no bile on my part—[Interruption.]

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

Why not be positive? Why not say that we can all work together? Why not recognise the powers of this Parliament? Why not recognise the powers of ministers? Why not recognise that Scotland’s families could benefit now from the 600 hours rather than waiting three years or more?

The debate is about what we can do as a Parliament and not what we can aspire to as a Parliament. The debate is about whether there is a will to succeed. It is about whether we have the determination and ability to work across parties to do something now. We are offering the Government the opportunity and the mechanism not to delay nursery education provision for three years, but to implement it now and to work together to improve the flexibility of childcare and the integration of the different aspects of childcare. Above all, we are offering the Government the opportunity to make a difference now, not to postpone it to the dim and distant future.

United Kingdom Budget

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what impact the UK budget of 21 March 2012 will have on devolved matters. (S4O-00819)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The chancellor’s budget failed to provide any substantial measures to support economic growth or Scottish households. At a time when the economic outlook remains fragile, the Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that the United Kingdom Government’s measures will have a limited effect on its economic forecasts, and the Treasury’s analysis shows that the UK Government’s tax rises and benefit cuts will mean that the average Scottish household will be around £400 worse off next year. The budget provided £13.54 million in departmental expenditure limit capital consequentials over the next three years, but that will do little to offset the 33 per cent real-terms cuts to our capital budget that the chancellor has already imposed over the current spending review period.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

The cabinet secretary knows as well as I do how significant the impact of high fuel prices is on the people of Scotland, particularly those in rural areas, who have no choice but to use their cars. High fuel prices affect every single one of us, as higher haulage costs lead to higher prices for everything that everybody buys, including the Government and local authorities. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the plan to hike fuel duty by 3p per litre later this year is entirely the wrong move at a time when everyone’s budgets are tight, and that it shows up the UK Government’s complete inability to get a grip on soaring fuel prices?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There is tremendous substance in the points that Maureen Watt makes. The issue is significant for all parts of the Scottish economy and public services. The fact that no action was taken yesterday to mitigate in any way the prospective increases in fuel tax will put further strain on households and the development of the Scottish economy, and the fact that there were no compensating measures in the budget to try to encourage or stimulate a higher level of economic growth merely reinforces the point that Maureen Watt makes about the damaging consequences of the decision on fuel duty.

Scottish Retail Consortium (Conference)

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive what retailers will be included in its joint conference with the Scottish Retail Consortium that is scheduled to take place later this year. (S4O-00820)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We want as many retailers as possible to take part in the conference, and we will work with the Scottish Retail Consortium to ensure that there is varied and broad participation.

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

Several weeks ago, I raised concerns about major retail chains because of closures in East Kilbride and Hamilton town centres. There have been some welcome developments since then, with new investment and new shops opening in vacant premises, but the overall picture is not good. Will the cabinet secretary ensure that invitations to any major conferences on the future of retail are extended to East Kilbride shopping centre and South Lanarkshire Council? Will he ensure that he addresses employment and regeneration in South Lanarkshire?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am happy to extend an invitation either directly or through the Scottish Retail Consortium to participants from East Kilbride, and indeed to people from any other part of Lanarkshire who want to participate.

The member raises the important issue of the future of our town centres. We have made substantial input on that matter over the past two or three years and we are engaged in extensive discussions with regeneration agencies, local authorities and the private sector on what more we can do to regenerate our town centres.

Female Unemployment (Fife)

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it is taking to address female unemployment in Fife. (S4O-00821)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government is focused on jobs and growth and is taking a range of actions to ensure that everyone who wants to work can do so. During 2010-11, inward investment activities in Fife through Scottish Development International resulted in the planned creation of 1,072 new jobs and safeguarded 69 jobs. Since April 2010, businesses in Fife have obtained regional selective assistance offers that total £9.4 million, which are expected to create or safeguard 1,507 jobs.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The claimant figures for women in Fife that were published last week show that the biggest increase in female unemployment was in North East Fife—an area that traditionally has a lower claimant count. In recent months, the figure has been steadily increasing. What specific actions is the Scottish Government taking to support women who face unemployment in rural areas? Those women often face childcare challenges as well as difficulty in accessing training, both of which are barriers to employment.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government is determined to ensure that all parts of the country are able to prosper. A concern that arose from yesterday’s budget is the clear direction that has now been set by the United Kingdom Government to establish market-facing pay rates at a local level. For public sector employees in parts of the country, that means that wage rates will go down to ensure that wage rates can be inflated in and around areas of congestion such as the south-east of England. Clearly, that is difficult and unwelcome news for women in North East Fife, and for people in other parts of the country.

I say to Claire Baker that the female employment rate in Scotland is the highest of any UK nation, and our inactivity rate is the lowest. The Government is actively promoting the availability of particular training schemes for female recruitment. For example, we increased the number of women participating in modern apprenticeships from 27 per cent to 45 per cent in 2010-11. That is welcome progress in ensuring that we create the necessary opportunities for women to enter the labour market.

Machrihanish Airbase Community Company

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive what support it is providing to the Machrihanish Airbase Community Company. (S4O-00822)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

The Scottish Government is committed to supporting rural communities in acquiring land to help to build independent, resilient and flourishing communities across Scotland. Through advice and financial assistance, we have been supporting the Machrihanish Airbase Community Company to achieve its aim of buying the former Royal Air Force base at Machrihanish. We are working closely with the Ministry of Defence to take forward improvements to the water, sewerage and electricity infrastructure at the base.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for that reply, but he will be aware of concerns over problems with the water, sewerage and electricity infrastructure. What support is the Scottish Government giving MACC to tackle those problems and encourage the development of what could be a dynamic and economically important site for green excellence and a great economic opportunity for the people of Campbeltown and Kintyre?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

We should be happy with the progress that is being made. I note the explicit request, following a meeting of the Kintyre initiative working group on 24 February, for continuing support, which we are giving. However, there was also a specific request that there should be no running commentary on the detail of negotiations at this sensitive time. The constituency member—Mr Russell—has respected that request, and I strongly urge Mr McGrigor to do the same.

Roads (A75 Improvements)

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to prioritise the completion of the A75 Hardgrove to Kinmount improvement scheme. (S4O-00823)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Presiding Officer, I think that we are on question 5, not question 6.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

It is a great feeling correcting the Presiding Officer.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The statutory procedures for the scheme are complete, and construction will commence as soon as funding becomes available. The First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister on 2 March with a view to further capital funding being brought forward by the Scottish Government, with the co-operation of the Treasury, for a number of shovel-ready projects, including our planned improvements to the A75 between Hardgrove and Kinmount. However, those shovel-ready projects did not form part of the UK Government’s budget announcement yesterday.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his reply, although I point out that the improvement scheme was shovel-ready when his Government abandoned it a couple of years ago. However, I am pleased that it is Alex Neil who is answering this question, because, back in March 2000, he signed my motion calling for improvements to the A75. This is the last of the series of improvements, and it has not yet been commenced. Now that Mr Neil is in a position to make it happen, I ask him how high the £10 million Hardgrove to Kinmount project is on his list of priorities. Is it number 1 of the 36 that he submitted to the UK Government, or is it number 36? When will the project be done?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

First, the capital cost is almost £15 million. Secondly, had our capital budget not been slashed by one third by the previous Labour Government, and had that cut not been continued by the Tory-led coalition, the project would have been completed by now. It is thanks to Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown, George Osborne and the current United Kingdom Government that we do not have the money for the project.

Roads (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route)

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

6. To ask the Scottish Government when work on the Aberdeen western peripheral route will be completed. (S4O-00824)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

It is hoped that the small number of objectors who oppose the AWPR will be willing to accept the recent Court of Session judgment, so that we can get on and build the road. Subject to no further appeal being lodged against the judgment, we will continue to work with our project partners to ensure that this vital project is completed as soon as possible.

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

I concur with the cabinet secretary’s thoughts about the objectors. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the suggestions for an alternative junction design at the north Stonehaven junction with the A90. Does he believe that there is some merit in those suggestions—there appears to be—and that they could yet be incorporated into the scheme?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Given the procedures that we have been through, such as the public inquiry and the various appeals in the Court of Session, I can say that there will be no further changes to the design of the AWPR. The project has been delayed for long enough and we are anxious to move ahead and get it under way.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

If there are further delays to the AWPR, it will frustrate the majority of people in the north-east. Will the cabinet secretary at least give careful consideration to bringing forward the work on the Haudagain roundabout, which is a key congestion pinch point in the city, and not delaying that work until the AWPR is completed?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We have made it absolutely clear many times that we will do the work on that roundabout as part of the AWPR, and we hope that we will be in a position to start the AWPR process once we know whether there is going to be another appeal. Hopefully there will not be, and that will allow us to get on with the job of completing the entire AWPR.

Home Insulation (Energy Costs)

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what progress is being made on insulating homes and helping to protect families from rising energy costs. (S4O-00825)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

During the past 10 years, the percentage of houses in Scotland that are rated good for energy efficiency has doubled. That represents significant progress.

In the past three years alone, households in Scotland have received more than 327,000 free or subsidised, professionally installed insulation measures. Through our programmes, we have offered advice and free or low-cost insulation to more than three quarters of a million households. To help families with rising energy costs over the next three years, we will spend £250 million on our fuel poverty and domestic energy efficiency programmes.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Between 2004 and 2009, the number of households in fuel poverty in the United Kingdom rose from 2 million to 5.5 million. The UK Government will shortly publish its annual report on fuel poverty statistics, which is likely to show increasing levels of fuel poverty across the UK in 2010.

Given the UK Government’s failure to address rising levels of fuel poverty, does the cabinet secretary agree that the setting of the minimum wage and the power to regulate social tariffs for energy should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I agree entirely. I point out that there is a huge difference between our approach to fuel poverty and that of the UK Government. The Tory-led coalition is slashing the fuel poverty budgets, continuing the process that was started under Labour. In the next three years, we will invest £0.25 billion in tackling fuel poverty in Scotland.

Methadone Treatments

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive what the average length of time and dosage is for a course of methadone. (S4O-00826)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Data on the average length of time and dosage for a course of methadone is not held centrally and never has been since methadone prescribing commenced. To address that, the Scottish Government has invested in Scotland’s first drugs misuse database, which will be linked to other relevant databases such as the prescriptions database. From 2012 to 2014, the databases will start to tell us more about the types of treatment that are offered as well as their duration for each individual client.

The Information Services Division of the national health service does, however, publish comprehensive information on methadone prescriptions annually. That information includes the total number of prescriptions, the total number of daily doses per 1,000 population and the costs and fees associated with methadone.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

The Government spends more than £28 million a year delivering methadone maintenance treatment to more than 22,000 people, many of whom can be on methadone for 10 years or longer. At the same time, residential treatment units such as Castle Craig Hospital in West Linton in my region have seen a substantial fall in the number of patients who are referred to them. The hospital relies on patients from Holland, who are paid for by the private sector there, to support service provision. What strategies does the cabinet secretary have and what targets has he set to reduce drug dependency in Scotland?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

That question relates to “The Road to Recovery: A New Approach to Tackling Scotland’s Drug Problem”, which was delivered in the previous session of Parliament with cross-party support. We introduced it because we realised the great difficulties and challenges that exist and the need to address many of the matters to which Graeme Pearson correctly refers.

It is accepted that there is a role for methadone. The decision to use it is a clinical one, but far too many people have been put on it, which comes at a great cost to the taxpayer and does great damage to those people and others.

We need to allow the individual to work collectively. There is a role for organisations that take individuals from their communities to deal with the issues. However, we must remember that, ultimately, people have to go back to the community, which is why many programmes operate there. We have to challenge people’s attitudes, change their views and ensure that they remain off drugs when they are in the community and not simply when they are outwith it.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

When I was on a recent visit to Barlinnie, many of the inmates told me that they had joined the methadone programme simply to get through the boredom of the day. What measures will the cabinet secretary take to address that issue, particularly in Barlinnie, which, the governor tells me, has the biggest methadone queue in western Europe?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

We face a significant problem with drug addiction in our prisons, which we have partly addressed in two ways. One is through the McLeish commission, because we need to ensure that we address the underlying issues that result in people offending. We are trying to deal with matters other than those that arise in prison. When people are in prison, the issue has to be dealt with by clinicians. We correctly take the view that the health service in the prison system should be part of the general national health service. That ensures that, when people leave prison, they have a place to go to.

We seek joined-up working and thinking among those who face the challenges of dealing with prisoners. Many prisoners who are on methadone have to be in prison because of the nature of the offences that they have committed. We need to ensure that they are dealt with on a clinical basis. When they leave prison, we can continue to prescribe methadone, although we hope that we will have worked with them to try to get them off drugs. That is why the Scottish Prison Service tries to ensure that those who seek to come off drugs are given that opportunity.

Housing Policy (Private Rented Sector Tenants)

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

9. To ask the Scottish Government how it ensures that tenants in the private rented sector can participate in consultations and policy making on housing. (S4O-00827)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The private rented sector does not have as widespread a network of tenant representative bodies as the social rented sector has. To help to address that, we ensure that tenant advocacy bodies such as Shelter Scotland and others are involved in policy making on private rented housing. Similarly, to obtain the views of the many landlords across Scotland, organisations such as the Scottish Association of Landlords often represent the landlord view in dialogue on policy, through membership of the Scottish private rented sector strategy group.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The strategy group includes landlords, regulators and Shelter, but will the cabinet secretary reflect on whether it is appropriate and possible to find some way of inviting someone with direct experience of private renting, such as a representative of one of the groups that exist, to ensure that their experience and expertise are given equal prominence to those of landlords?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We are already attempting to do that. The private rented sector strategy group is supported by a wider virtual network of stakeholders who are kept up to date and invited to comment on the progress of the group’s work.

Engagements

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00570)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Later today, I will visit Irvine to welcome plans by the pharmaceutical manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline to invest £100 million and create 100 new jobs across its Scottish operations in Irvine and Montrose. That major investment reinforces Scotland’s global reputation in the life sciences.

I also welcome the fact that, yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer responded to John Swinney’s proposal of 7 February that Irvine, Dundee and Nigg should be granted enhanced capital allowances as part of their status as enterprise areas. I am sure that members recall the chancellor generously acknowledging that that was John Swinney’s proposal when he made his budget statement yesterday. I welcome those developments, as does the Parliament, and I look forward to announcing further investment in those areas in the coming months. I will visit Nigg tomorrow.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am sure that the First Minister will enjoy his visit. Labour always welcomes glimmers of hope for employment and investment in the interests of communities throughout Scotland.

Very few of us would agree with the approach that is taken by the Tories when it comes to our health service. I was glad when the First Minister told us, last month, that Scotland is choosing a different path. Since then, however, we have found out a little more about the path that the First Minister is taking, which seems to have been on a bit of a downhill gradient. We have fewer nurses, decreasing standards in care of the elderly, cuts to social care budgets and patients going without blankets. Even the good statistics cannot be trusted—as we found out yesterday. Before the First Minister rhymes off the statistics that he has, no doubt, already prepared, I ask why we should trust them.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

We should look at the record of public satisfaction with the health service in Scotland, which is currently at a record level. The ultimate verdict in such matters is the people’s confidence in their national health service, and that contrasts with what is happening south of the border, where many people wonder whether they are going to have a national health service worthy of the name. This Government, this health secretary and this First Minister are totally committed to a national health service in Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The point of the Scottish Parliament is that we all aspire to better than what the Tories are offering at Westminster. We expect the Scottish Government’s record to be better, too. I will talk about individuals in a moment. First, let us consider what experts have been saying over the past few weeks. The Royal College of Nursing says that there are not enough nurses to provide “basic, safe care”. Audit Scotland warns that councils and health boards are failing to ensure that vital care services can be delivered in the future. The Centre for Public Policy for Regions says that, since 2006, Scotland has been lagging behind the increase in resources for England. Does the First Minister think that they are all wrong as well?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

There are now more qualified nurses and midwives in Scotland than there were in 2006. Let us look at the figure per head of population in Scotland in comparison with the figures in the other countries in these islands. For every 1,000 people in Scotland, we have eight nurses and midwives compared to 5.9 in England, 7.3 in Wales and 7.6 in Northern Ireland. That indicates the huge priority that the Government and the Parliament give to our national health service in Scotland.

Johann Lamont says that there is not much point in comparing what we are doing in Scotland—as a united Parliament, I hope—in preserving our national health service with what is happening in England. We could look at what is happening at the moment in Wales—the sole area in these islands where the Labour Party is in government. I have great sympathy for the Welsh Government, which is under the same pressure from the Westminster Government that we are under. However, the Welsh Government decided not to protect the revenue budget of the national health service in real terms—it is due to fall by 8 per cent in real terms between 2011 and 2014—unlike the Scottish Administration, which decided to protect the revenue budget of the national health service in real terms.

The contrast is not just between the Scottish National Party in Scotland and the Tories in Westminster but between the SNP in Scotland and Labour in Wales. I think that the vast majority of people in Scotland support this Government’s policy of protecting our national health service.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The Government’s health budget has been cut in real terms by £319 million. The substance of the First Minister’s answer was that the RCN—the nurses union—is wrong. He talks about Wales; we would like him to focus on his responsibilities as First Minister here. I assure him that Labour members would love to be in his position.

Once again, the Government’s rhetoric does not fit the reality. If the First Minister does not accept the picture that the experts paint, what does he have to say to Helen Macbeth? Mrs Macbeth is 92 years old. When she was seriously ill in the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley, she spent her first night frozen, because embarrassed staff could not get her a blanket. She had to rely on her daughter to bring one in for her the next day. Jack Barr is a great-grandfather who went into the RAH for a serious operation. He spent three nights in hospital with only his beach towel to keep him warm. Does the First Minister realise that it is not enough just to say that he is protecting the NHS—he actually has to do it?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The health secretary has indicated that she is prepared to look into any case in which care has not met the standards that we expect in the national health service. The national health service is a huge priority for the Government and the Parliament.

Johann Lamont should just have a care. Jackie Baillie has already partially had to apologise—I think that that is how to word it—for her scare story about a shortage of blankets in Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board, which turned out to be totally untrue, as she is very well aware.

I know that the survey that was published this week, which was—incidentally—not a Scottish survey, indicated concern among nurses across the United Kingdom. That survey had no Scottish sample, but the RCN has had surveys with a Scottish sample. For example, in a survey that questioned 4,000 nurses in Scotland in April 2006—when, I remember, Johann Lamont was a minister—two thirds of nurses said that their workload prevented them from providing the standard of care that they wanted to provide. In a September 2011 survey, the number who were concerned had declined to 50 per cent. I would like no nurse to express in a survey concern about the pressure of work but, by any standards, the situation now, when the SNP is in office, represents a substantial improvement on when Labour was in office.

Let us remember that, when Labour was in office, it could not even spend the Scottish budget that it was allocated, because of its incompetence in financial management. We have protected the national health service against the most ferocious cuts for many generations. That is why we stand proudly on our record on Scotland’s national health service.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

It is one thing for the First Minister to repeat his version of his record, but he must confront the reality of what is happening in people’s lives. It is also one thing to attack Jackie Baillie, but it is something entirely different to attack others who raise concerns about the national health service.

We have established that the First Minister will not listen to me or to independent voices. Will he listen to people who are suffering from his mismanagement of the NHS? Mrs Macbeth and Mr Barr are sitting in the public gallery.

We have found at least seven recent cases of patients going without blankets at the Royal Alexandra hospital. We pointed out the situation, but the Government denied it. George Adam, the MSP for Paisley, called on me to investigate my health spokesperson, Jackie Baillie, for having the audacity to give voice to the complaints of her constituents. If he had just shelled out 45p for his local newspaper, the Paisley Daily Express, he would have seen that our claims are true.

If the First Minister will not believe me, why does he not come and meet Mr Barr and Mrs Macbeth in my office after question time to explain that we do not have a problem in the NHS and that the problem is a figment of Jackie Baillie’s imagination? They will tell him, as I am telling him, what the NHS is really like under the SNP. When will the First Minister stop the rhetoric and face up to the reality of his responsibilities?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I refer Johann Lamont to my last answer. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I said, specifically, that the health secretary, Nicola Sturgeon, would investigate any case in the NHS where treatment fell below expectations. She will be delighted to meet the patients concerned, or any other people who experience care that is of a lower level than all of us would expect. That is what I said in my last answer. I did not criticise the nurses of Scotland. On the contrary, I said that we would look to have a situation in which nurses were not concerned about numbers and standards of care and I merely pointed out that surveys show that the standard of care, according to the nurses, is in an improving situation, compared with when Labour was in power.

Of course, we should not be surprised about that. We should remember that, in 2007, before the current Scottish Government came into office, the Government that Johann Lamont was a member of said that the NHS would just have to cut its cloth, as it would get no consequentials whatsoever. That was the policy of Jack McConnell. Further, on 8 September 2011, during the election campaign, Iain Gray—who is sitting a few rows behind Johann Lamont—said on “Newsnight Scotland”:

“We wouldn’t ring fence the health budget.”

The reality is that, thanks to the election of the Scottish National Party Government in 2007, the NHS had more money spent on it, and thanks to the re-election of this Government last year, the NHS is having more money spent on it. Given what is happening in Wales, nobody can be in any doubt that the only party in Scotland that is committed to protecting the national health service and its real-terms budget is the SNP.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Whatever that was, it was not taking responsibility. I point out to the First Minister that his health secretary wrote and said that the problem with the towels was that, although they were there, the staff could not source them. The First Minister said that the incident was isolated. However, as was reported in the Evening Times, Unison members have been complaining for 10 months that this is a serious issue. It is about time that the First Minister took responsibility, recognised the powers that he has to defend the NHS and responded to constituents’ concerns.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As Johann Lamont well knows, the health board explicitly denied Jackie Baillie’s claims with regard to the recycled towels, and I do not think that it is useful to return to an issue that the Labour health spokesperson should be genuinely embarrassed about.

Like Nicola Sturgeon, I have a great interest in ensuring that every patient who experiences less than satisfactory care is not just met but has their issues and complaints dealt with. I merely point out that it is beyond argument that, if Labour had come to power in 2007 and continued in office, or if it had come to power last year, less resource would have been spent on Scotland’s national health service. Johann Lamont was in government in 2007 and was deputy leader last year, so she should hang her head in shame about the fact that she was prepared to underresource Scotland’s national health service.

Prime Minister (Meetings)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00554)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have no plans to do so in the near future, but I think that Ruth Davidson has an appointment with the Prime Minister in the very near future.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

Indeed.

Can the First Minister say how much money has been diverted within the health budget in Scotland to fund free prescriptions for people like him, who are perfectly willing and able to pay?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am not surprised in the slightest that Ruth Davidson does not want to talk about yesterday’s budget, and particularly its effect on old people across Scotland. However, let us remember the huge number of people—hundreds of thousands of people—who earn less than £16,000 who were having to pay for prescriptions in Scotland, before the charges were rightly abolished by this Government. I can tell Ruth Davidson that the idea that we should cut taxes for the richest members of the community at the expense of the provision of medicine that people can afford will be deeply unpopular in Scotland. However, deep unpopularity is nothing new for the Scottish Conservative Party.