Scottish Parliament, 29 March 2012

276 contributions from 77 members. The official report.

Cycling

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02522, in the name of Alison Johnstone, on cycling.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

It is often the case that the public are ahead of the politicians. In our capital city, on certain routes and at certain times of day, up to 20 per cent of the vehicles on the roads are bikes. Cycling rates in Edinburgh are becoming respectable, but the picture nationally is more mixed. The official estimate of the percentage of journeys that are taken by bike is a lowly 1 per cent. However, if we can achieve promising cycling rates in this city of seven hills, there is no reason not to aim high across Scotland.

I welcome the Government’s target of 10 per cent of journeys being made by bike by 2020. However, as members would expect, Greens believe that we could and should be going faster and further towards sustainable travel, although we recognise the significant work that has gone into producing the “Cycling Action Plan for Scotland”. In the rest of my speech, I will focus on the specific calls that we make in our motion on issues on which we think Government action has fallen short of ambition.

All members will be only too aware when a tragic cycling accident happens in their region. Since 2000, there have been 16 cycling deaths on Lothian roads, almost all of which involved another vehicle. The ages of those who lost their lives range from nine to 75. On Monday, I met the parents of Andrew McNicoll, an experienced cyclist who lost his life in January on the way to work. In his memory, the McNicolls have set up a website, www.andrewcyclist.com, to raise funds for campaigning for safer cycling. As many cycling organisations do, they call for mutual tolerance and respect and greater safety on our roads to result from education.

At the start of this month, Bryan Simons was tragically killed following a collision and, in the past week, serious cycle accidents have been reported in Dumfries and near Elgin. In highlighting those tragedies, we risk fuelling the perception that cycling is a dangerous activity that is to be avoided, but I share the view of Spokes, the Lothian cycle campaign, that it is essential that we learn from those tragic fatalities. My motion welcomes the gradual downwards trend in cycle casualties in the latest statistics, despite there being more cyclists on the roads. The benefits of cycling vastly outweigh the risks, and it cannot be repeated enough that the single biggest thing that we can do to build a safe cycle culture on our roads is to get more cyclists on them and, thereby, to build a critical mass in favour of active and healthy travel. However, I am sure that no one will argue today that we have a road network that is adequate for cyclists. It could be much improved for vulnerable users.

We must acknowledge, as the Government’s consultation has done, that safety issues and perceived safety issues are barriers to meeting the 2020 target. I acknowledge the minister’s action last week in dedicating a meeting to cycle safety and inviting representatives from cycling and walking organisations to meet transport experts to share experience and views on how we can greatly increase cycle use while reducing casualties. It is vital that those goals be seen in unity and considered together in every policy. In that meeting, there was much consensus on the need for mutual tolerance and respect among all users. In calling the debate, my hope and intention is that we keep up the momentum and convert the talk and plans into real street-level action. I was surprised to learn that the meeting was the first time that active travel champions had attended that particular road safety group in Government. I ask the minister to ensure that they have a permanent place on the group in the future.

Speaking of momentum, I give my full support for the pedal on Parliament event that is planned for 28 April. It is a grass-roots initiative that involves a diverse group of cyclists. I urge every member to read the group’s “Making Scotland a cycle-friendly nation: a manifesto”, which makes a set of well-researched demands and goes into far more detail than I have time to do here.

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

I thank Alison Johnstone for taking my intervention and for the constructive way in which she has brought the issue before Parliament.

Alison Johnstone has thanked the pedal on Parliament campaigners. Will she join me in thanking Spokes and Sustrans for their recent work on raising the profile of cycling and for championing the needs of cyclists across the Lothians and Scotland?

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

Absolutely, I will. We all commend the work of Spokes, pedal on Parliament, and Sustrans. They have all played very important parts in raising the profile of cycling.

It certainly feels to me that the cycling community is raising its voice louder than ever. For example, The Times’s cycle campaign is bringing the issue into the national domain. I urge the minister and other members who are around on 28 April to attend the pedal on Parliament rally, if possible.

Last Friday, the speed limit for many streets in the south of Edinburgh was reduced from 30mph to 20mph, as part of a pilot zone that was first proposed by my Green council colleague Steve Burgess. Way back in 2003, the previous Scottish Executive cited research that showed that injuries fell by 60 per cent and child accidents fell by 48 per cent in areas where 20mph zones were introduced. Nine years later, the Edinburgh pilot is still the most ambitious in Scotland, which suggests that progress is far too slow. We need to move to a situation where 20mph is the norm in residential areas. I would also like a broader review of speed limits in urban and rural areas. The recent accidents happened on 40mph limit roads. Those roads had parked cars, pedestrians, traffic islands and cyclists, so we must ask why they are 40mph limit roads. We must also look at the rural situation. Cars travel at 60mph through Newlandrig and residents there are calling for a 30mph zone.

If we are going to have in Scotland the type of cycle culture that we see in a number of similar-sized European countries, we need to train every child how to cycle safely on the road. The number of off-road cycle routes is growing every year, thanks to the great work that is being led by Sustrans, but the reality is that most everyday trips will involve cycling on shared road space. Currently, around 30 per cent of Scots children receive on-road training, whereas the figure is around 60 per cent in England. I think that the cycle plan needs to be more ambitious on on-road cycle training. I hope that the minister will agree to introduce a plan and resources to give all children access to on-road cycle training by 2015.

My motion also calls for more training for other road users. Just as there are careful cyclists and careless cyclists, there are careful drivers and careless drivers. We must do all that we can to build more mutual respect and tolerance on our roads. We must ensure that roads are safe spaces. Education and awareness raising are essential. I urge the Government to develop more resources for cycle awareness training for all professional and fleet drivers. I mention Lothian Buses in particular, as an example of best practice in that regard. We should also investigate the use of mirrors and sensors for some of the large vehicles on our roads.

In our Parliament city, the number of air quality management areas has doubled in recent months: they are areas where the local authority is in danger of breaching European Union air pollution limits. Breaches of the limits carry a hefty fine, not to mention having health implications and negative impacts on people who suffer from respiratory conditions.

Investment in active travel is savvy preventative spend of the best kind for any council and yet, according to Spokes—which is much-respected for its research—half of Scottish councils spend zero pounds of their budget on cycling investment. A number of parts of my motion would require working with local authorities, but this is not an opportunity to pass the buck: it is a call for stronger leadership from the Scottish Government. Pedal on Parliament is pedalling on Parliament because the campaign sees Parliament as having a leading role.

Anyone who has tried to navigate central Edinburgh recently knows the disruption that road works can cause. We desperately need a long-term plan and money for segregated cycle lanes in urban areas, which are the norm in some European cities, and we must get better at improving our road infrastructure. Every time a road is dug up, a junction is changed or new signs are installed, let us seize the opportunity to make the area better for cyclists. If a road is being dug up, let us lay a cycle lane at that point.

Government action is needed to simplify the current traffic regulation order process. It can take a council months simply to remove a parking space for a cycle lane, which is a significant barrier to councils that want to respond by increasing cycling rates. We can address that kind of bureaucratic barrier now.

I could not open a debate about active travel without addressing funding. During the budget process, many members raised concerns and I acknowledge that the Government made last-minute changes. Yesterday, the Minister for Housing and Transport announced that the total cost of improving motorways in central Scotland will be more than £500 million, but the sums that are invested in low-carbon travel are tiny and will still be only 0.8 per cent of the transport budget in 2013-14. If we get this right, we will reap a long list of rewards in terms of health, air quality, jobs, carbon emissions, congestion and more. As a country, we need to shift up a few gears and match our words and ambition with action. I look forward to hearing speeches from across the chamber.

I will be pleased to accept the Scottish National Party and Labour amendments, but I cannot accept the Conservative amendment, which would delete much of the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the growing number of cyclists in Scotland and the 12% drop in cycling accident casualties between 2000 and 2010; believes that investing far more in infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians will boost jobs, reduce business costs, cut congestion and climate-changing pollution and improve Scotland’s health by improving air quality and reducing obesity; recognises the central importance of cycling safety and the perception of safety on the road to encouraging more people to cycle; considers that active travel is a cross-cutting priority for central and local government and that active travel champions should be represented on relevant transport and land-use forums, and calls on the Scottish Government to place active travel at the heart of the planning system, to work with local authorities to implement a rolling programme to upgrade infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists as part of every road improvement, to expand the use of 20 mph zones in residential and shopping streets, to consider reviewing all urban speed limits and simplifying the Traffic Regulation Orders process, to provide the necessary support to ensure that all road users have access to increased cycling safety training and to work with local authorities to ensure that every child in Scotland has the opportunity to undertake on-road cycle training by 2015.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I thank Alison Johnstone for lodging the motion and for the way in which she has spoken to it. It is a comprehensive motion on cycling that provides us with a good opportunity to debate further what actions and partnership working are needed. As she suggested, Parliament is generally in agreement that cycling should be a safe, healthy and realistic choice as a mode of transport. There has recently been a focus on cycling, not least because of the four fatalities in Edinburgh in the past 12 months, which have led to the recent road safety operational partnership group meeting. That meeting provided an extremely fruitful discussion; it was well attended and there was participation from a wide range of cycling stakeholders, some of whom have been mentioned.

In Scotland, the growth in the number of cyclists has been accompanied by a 12 per cent drop in cycle accident casualties between 2000 and 2010. That was the result of a lot of activity by different partners. As Alison Johnstone said, we have a vested interest in trying to make it clear to the public—as far as we can and with the appropriate caveats—how safe cycling is and how much safer it has become, with fewer serious accidents happening. If we do that, we are more likely to encourage more cycling.

That said, we cannot be complacent. Everyone has been shocked by the cycling deaths in Edinburgh over the past 12 months. When such tragedies happen, we are all reminded that, although Scotland’s roads are among the safest in the world, one life lost is one too many.

I accept Alison Johnstone’s point that the Government has a leadership role to play in making use of our roads safer for everyone. We will do that by facilitating partnership working. At the forum that I mentioned, there were two excellent presentations from the City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council, which showed stark results in the reduction in the number of cycling casualties—in one case going back 50 years and in the other case going back 60 years.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I declare an interest as a former chair of the north east of Scotland transport partnership. In the north-east, there has been an initiative to fit Fresnel lenses free on articulated lorries, which has led to a reduction in the number of accidents. Could that initiative be rolled out across the country?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

At the road safety forum, we discussed several initiatives that are taking place in different localities, and the need to spread those out as best practice. Kevin Stewart mentioned one such initiative; others are happening elsewhere. The leadership role of the Scottish Government is to draw in those examples and to ensure that they are extended where that is possible. I commend Nestrans for having undertaken that initiative. A number of approaches to better cyclist safety are either being trialled or are in practice around Scotland, but people are not always aware of them. There is a role for Government in making people aware of them.

Currently, 98 per cent of Scottish primary schools offer cycle training and 70 per cent of pupils take up the offer. Of the eligible cohort of 55,000 pupils, 69.5 per cent receive some form of cycle training, but only 31.5 per cent are receiving on-road training to the national standard. That is why I have agreed a target with Cycling Scotland of 40 per cent of children receiving on-road training by 2015. I urge every local authority in Scotland to work in partnership with Cycling Scotland not just to meet that target, but to exceed it. We must reinforce the message that learning to cycle in a live environment is more beneficial than learning to ride a bike in a playground.

An immediate development from the operational partnership group meeting is that, following a representation from the sustainable transport team, which has responsibility for cycling, it will provide on-going feedback to the group on what the cycling action plan delivery forum and the national cycling interest group are doing, and on whether those fora have raised concerns about road safety. I hope that that will provoke wider discussion of the issues and improved communication in the established cycling groups, without unnecessary duplication of effort. There are quite a number of players, so we should co-ordinate our activities productively.

Funding has been mentioned. Over the next three financial years, £20.25 million will be provided for active travel projects, with a focus on cycling and walking infrastructure. That is in addition to £15 million for wider sustainable and active travel initiatives.

Sustrans was also mentioned. Its budget will increase from £5.5 million this year to more than £7 million, £8 million then £9 million in the next three years. We are retaining the ring fencing of the cycling, walking and safer streets grant, which is allocated to local authorities to deliver active travel projects. Alison Johnstone made the point that we rely on local authorities to play their part. Some—not least, the City of Edinburgh Council—do that substantially.

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

Does the minister agree that, by pledging to spend 5 per cent of its transport budget on active travel schemes, the City of Edinburgh Council sets a good example for the rest of Scotland, which other local authorities should follow if we are to meet our 2020 targets?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

It is true that, over a long period—certainly even when I lived in Edinburgh up to the 1980s—the council’s leadership role has been evident. Other local authorities might have different priorities and different opportunities, but the example that the City of Edinburgh Council has set is worth being looked at by other authorities. Some authorities around the country are doing great work.

The roads budget was mentioned. Alison Johnstone might not have had a chance yet to see the detail of the M8 bundle that was discussed yesterday, which she mentioned. If she has the chance to look at that, she will see that it involves substantial investment in pedestrian and cycling activity, which have also been included in other projects, such as the M74 extension. The issue is always at the forefront of our minds.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The cycling, walking and safer streets grant will be just over £6 million in 2012-13. Our grant offer retains a request for at least 36 per cent, and preferably 50 per cent, of the grant to be spent on cycling.

We are committed to meeting the world-leading Scottish climate change targets and are on track to do so. In 2009, emissions had fallen by 27.6 per cent from 1990 levels, which is almost two thirds of the way to meeting the target of a 42 per cent emissions reduction by 2020. Substantial progress has been and is being made.

We are doing what we said in our manifesto we would do; we are developing the infrastructure to support electric cars, on which I said quite a deal at a conference yesterday. We are also increasing the proportion of transport spending on low-carbon, active and sustainable travel. We are investing £1 billion in public and sustainable transport.

When I sum up, I will say more on current activity across Scotland. I am keen to hear others’ views.

I move amendment S4M-02522.3, to insert at end:

“, and reaffirms the Scottish Government’s target of 10% of journeys made by bike by 2020.”

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

I, too, welcome the opportunity to discuss cycling. We have had debates on buses, ferries and railways in the past few weeks, so it is about time we discussed active low-carbon transport as well.

It is sad that there have recently been four fatalities within a month in Edinburgh. However, it is worth recording that accident levels have fallen since 2000, as the motion says. In a recent briefing, Cyclists Touring Club said that the risks of not cycling outweigh the risks of cycling by 77:1. I am not quite sure how that statistic was calculated, but it is fairly impressive.

We need to be clear that active travel should not be confused with sustainable or low-carbon travel. The minister referred to the budget for sustainable and active travel, which I understand will increase its budget share from 1 per cent to 1.4 per cent over the three-year spending review period. We need a separate budget line for active travel so that we can see whether the spending commitments on active travel are being fulfilled.

Much of Labour’s amendment is about 20mph zones. I understand from a press release from the transport minister on 21 March that such zones were among the initiatives that were discussed at the recent meeting of the road safety operational partnership group that focused on cyclist safety. The motion also refers to 20mph zones and traffic regulation orders.

I have recently been in contact with a campaign called 20’s plenty for us, which has been active around a constituency issue in Langholm. Rod King, the founder and national director, made me aware of the difference between 20mph zones and mandatory 20mph limits. Reduced traffic speeds in residential areas benefit pedestrians and other road users. The conventional way of doing that is to use self-policing measures, such as road humps, accompanied by advisory signage. However, speed bumps can present a hazard to cyclists. Cars weave around the bumps, stationary cars are sometimes parked on the bumps and cars and lorries that weave around them create potholes, which can be hazardous to cyclists.

Meanwhile, 20mph limits are mandatory and are advertised and policed in the same way as any other speed limit. They do not require physical speed deterrents, but they require policing. Although there are 20mph limits in parts of Scotland, including here in Edinburgh, some local authorities and police forces are reluctant to introduce them.

According to 20’s plenty for us, part of the problem is the guidance that we use here in Scotland, which differs from that which has been issued by the Department for Transport in England and Wales. The Scottish guidance was developed in 2001, but the DFT guidance was further developed in 2006. It states that

“the needs of vulnerable road users must be fully taken into account in order to encourage these modes of travel and improve their safety”.

It goes on to mention the importance of setting appropriate speed limits and states that

“speed limits should seek to encourage walking and cycling and to protect community life”.

The DFT guidance also crucially differs from our 2001 guidance by stating that

“mean speeds should be used to determine local speed limits as this reflects what the majority of drivers perceive as an appropriate speed”.

That is a change from the previous use of the 85th percentile speed, which I understand still applies in Scotland. For example, the DFT guidance recommends use of a 20mph limit in appropriate urban areas where the mean speed is 24mph

Changes-to-signage requirements are UK wide, as are the speed limits, but their use is determined by what is considered to constitute a traffic-calming device. Down south, the signage counts towards being a traffic calming device.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

A mandatory 20mph limit was put in place in Sunnybank in my constituency in Aberdeen without any accompanying traffic-calming measures. Such measures had to be put in because the speed limit was largely ignored. Can Dr Murray comment on that?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

That comes back to policing, which is where some resistance comes in from local authorities and police forces. They do not want to have to police the 20mph limit, but we police 30mph, 40mph and 60mph limits, so we should also police 20mph limits.

The final part of my amendment encourages us all—ministers and the rest of us—to participate in active travel. I speak as somebody who took their bicycle home before the elections in 2007 and has not yet brought it back. That is something that all of us in Parliament can do to set a good example and to encourage other people to get involved in active travel such as walking and cycling.

I move amendment S4M-02522, to insert at end:

“; urges the Scottish Government to examine the guidance issued regarding the implementation of mandatory 20 mph limits to ensure that its policy meets the needs of vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists and actively encourages walking and cycling, and further believes that the Scottish Ministers should set a good example by using active methods of travel whenever possible.”

John Lamont (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I congratulate Alison Johnstone on using her party’s business time to bring this very important issue to the chamber. I think that it is the first time during my five years in the Scottish Parliament that we have had the opportunity to debate it.

To pick up on Elaine Murray’s theme, I should probably declare an interest, being a cyclist myself. Last summer I spent a week in the French Pyrenees and cycled more than 700km in six days, including 12 of the tour de France’s toughest mountain passes. I might not win all the debating points, but surely I will win that one.

The number of people who cycle in Scotland and across the United Kingdom has grown at an incredible rate in recent years. There has also been an increase in the public debate about cycling, following the successful cities fit for cycling campaign by The Times, which I fully support. About 30,000 people have now expressed their support for its eight-point manifesto. Perhaps more important is that the campaign has also been backed by organisations such as the Automobile Association and the RAC.

The benefits of cycling have been mentioned by others, but it is also important to recognise that

“Cycling is the most efficient form of transport in the world. ... A 2009 study by Professor David MacKay found that an average cyclist will use less than a third of the amount of energy required to walk, a sixth of the energy needed to travel by coach and an eightieth of the energy a car would use.”

Given that

“three quarters of our journeys in the UK are five miles or fewer”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 23 February 2012; c 343WH.]—

it is clear that cycling could and should be promoted as one of our basic transport needs. It is clearly not suitable for all journeys, and there are additional challenges in rural areas such as those in my constituency. However, rural areas and towns can all do things to promote cycling, although the exact details will be different in each case.

The health benefits of cycling are significant, and my colleague Nanette Milne will cover them in her speech. Cycling is good for the environment: even if one takes into account the food that a cyclist has to eat, where it comes from and how it was produced, carbon dioxide emissions are a fraction of those from other vehicles.

If we hope to encourage cycling—I think that we should—we must ensure that the safety of cyclists is improved. One way to do that would be through improved training. One training organisation suggested that two hours of training, costing £70, would transform the safety of cyclists on the road. We must also look at what our schools are doing to ensure that our children are introduced to the benefits of cycling at a young age, that they are encouraged to cycle to school, and that they are given training to do so safely.

However, it works both ways. Some cyclists ignore red lights, thereby endangering themselves. Many others do not use proper lighting on their bikes either at night or when visibility is poor. That is not the responsibility of Government or motorists; it is up to the cyclists to behave properly.

When cycling in Europe, I am always struck by how considerate other road users are towards cyclists. Indeed, I understand that in most other European countries the law states that the less-vulnerable road user causing harm is deemed to be responsible or culpable, unless evidence is produced to the contrary. Similarly, other countries often insist on minimum passing distances.

Local authorities need to do more to improve the safety of cyclists. Some councils have very good cycle-friendly schemes, but others have been found wanting. We must do more to invest in cycling infrastructure, not least to ensure that our roads are up to cycle quality. As a cyclist and a car driver, I know that what might be a relatively small hole for a car often becomes a more serious problem for a cyclist.

We will support the SNP and Labour amendments. I lodged my amendment simply because I feel that the motion is slightly too prescriptive and does not recognise the potential involvement of the business and third sectors in developing and promoting cycling.

With the Olympics and the Commonwealth games fast approaching, the next few months and years will give us a huge opportunity to transform cycling in Scotland. If our cyclists are as successful as we hope, many more people—particularly youngsters—will get on their bikes.

Finally, I will be taking part in the Galashiels triathlon in about nine days. I encourage Alison Johnstone—or any other member who wishes to join me—to take part, because cycling is very important.

I move amendment S4M-02522.1, to leave out from “considers that active” to end and insert

“; commends the Cities fit for cycling campaign by The Times, which has led to cycling being given more prominence in public debate; supports greater business and third sector involvement to boost infrastructure development, and notes the potential that the Olympic and Commonwealth Games can have in contributing to an increase in the number of people taking up cycling.”

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I will not even try to follow that with my cycling record.

I am grateful to the Green party for bringing this timely debate to the chamber. Cycling has been a huge feature of my mailbag for the past few months, mainly in relation to funding, but more recently to the safety aspect, as many people are concerned about the four tragic deaths of cyclists in Edinburgh.

I am sure that other members welcome, as I do, the summit that was held on March 21 and the Scottish Government’s repeated recognition that, although it does not always have a role in delivering cycling funding or cycling schemes, it has a leadership role that applies not only to cycling but to all aspects of road safety.

A strong argument that has been made by cycling groups, and by Alison Johnstone today, is that one of the best ways to ensure safety among cyclists is to create a critical mass on the roads, so that cyclists are seen as partners and equal road users rather than as unwelcome intruders. That stands alongside all the technical road-safety improvements that were set out in the eight-point manifesto of the pedal on Parliament campaign, which I commend to members. It proposes a number of practical changes to planning, speed limits and other traffic laws, transport strategies, training and—above all—funding.

A good starting point in the discussion on active travel funding and the effect on cycling uptake is the excellent “Civilising the Streets” report by Transform Scotland. It looks at 13 cities around Europe and how they have substantially increased safe cycling. The report consistently argues that the key drivers that increase safe cycle use are material upgrades in three areas: dedicated cycle lanes, parking spaces and reduced speed limits.

One of the issues around dedicated cycle lanes that has been articulated to me by cycling campaigners is that they can make cyclists seem like the “other” by segregating them. I have also had constituents firmly make the case that, if large numbers of cyclists are to be encouraged, people have to know that they will be protected by something more than a line of paint. That is my view, as well.

An interesting section in the Transform Scotland document says:

“In all cases, the investment in active travel was coordinated and implemented by ... local government ... The study also found that financial support from the national government could be a vital factor”.

That is a useful interaction. It is similar to the situation that we have at the moment, with central funding through the CWSS grant scheme and Sustrans, which is matched by local authorities, and a strong emphasis on the actions of local government.

Transform Scotland highlights Stockholm as being a particularly illustrative example, because it faced many of the challenges that we face, including its geography, a low starting base and—a perfect parallel with Edinburgh—the medieval design of its city centre, which restricts flexibility.

Although setting aside a percentage of money and putting it in a pot for cycling is welcome, the greater prize—as illustrated in the part of the Transform Scotland report that focuses on Stockholm—is to ensure that all transport planning mainstreams the needs of cyclists, whether on general-use roads or new developments. That is the second point of the pedal on Parliament manifesto. That is not easy, and no one should pretend that it will be. However, it is not distinct from funding and it is a core part of what must be done.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The City of Edinburgh Council is now showing the kind of leadership that has been shown by other cities across Europe. I hope that Scotland’s other local authorities will watch and learn from its example.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I welcome the Scottish Government’s reaffirmation of its commitment to ensure that 10 per cent of journeys will be made by bike by 2020, since that is clearly highly desirable in terms of health and climate change. However, being realistic, I do not think it looks like we will achieve the target given that—late increases in the budget process notwithstanding—the active travel budget is still less than 1 per cent of the total transport budget.

It seems to me and, I am sure, to others in the chamber that safety is the key to reaching the target. Alison Johnstone highlighted the sad and tragic fact that 16 cyclists have died on Lothian roads this century. Cyclists desperately need more space on roads and more 20mph limits in residential areas. In that regard, I emphasise the importance of the Labour amendment and I hope that the Scottish Government will consider the guidance that appears to discourage some local authorities from introducing such zones.

Of course, cycle paths are important—there are many good ones in my constituency, which will encourage me to return to cycling in due course—but action on cycle training is also required. Alison Johnstone and I attended a recent cycle training event at Leith primary school, but we would agree that action on cycle training of that sort is to no avail if the other safety measures are not taken.

Local community-led campaigns, such as the we love Leith campaign by the Greener Leith organisation, are important. I pay tribute to the Scottish Government for providing much of that campaign’s funding through the climate challenge fund. It involved community consultation, behaviour change work and efforts to tackle the barriers to active travel that were identified by local residents. The first consultation, involving 450 residents, put the behaviour of other road users at the top of the list of reasons for people disliking cycling, along with danger and vulnerability in general. That is perhaps not surprising because, as I was alarmed to read in a newspaper report a couple of weeks ago, Leith Walk has been flagged up as one of the 10 most dangerous streets in the United Kingdom for cyclists.

When residents were asked what would encourage them to cycle more, 49 per cent said that infrastructure improvements would be the main thing that would get them back on their bike. A second consultation flagged up dedicated cycle lanes on main arterial routes as the top cycling priority.

Greener Leith has also highlighted the need to reduce traffic growth in general in order to encourage cycling, as well as for many other purposes. In particular, it flagged up the social cohesion of neighbourhoods, the sense of ownership of public space and mental and physical health. Therefore, I am alarmed that traffic trends tend to be going in the opposition direction. I have lodged some parliamentary questions about that this week.

Edinburgh has been referred to quite a bit. We must acknowledge that a lot of good work has been done, but I think that the 5 per cent of the budget for active travel schemes next year is not matched by this year’s budget for them, which is 1 per cent of revenue spend. Edinburgh Labour has emphasised the separation of bikes and road traffic, the safe storage of bikes, possible cycle hire schemes, school cycling training and 20mph speed limits. I re-emphasise that last point. It seems to me that the widespread use of 20mph speed limits in residential areas would benefit cyclists and pedestrians alike.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I join other members in welcoming this Green party debate.

It seems to me that there are three strands in this debate about cycling. We are talking about cycling as transport and cycling for leisure, and underpinning it all is introducing children to safe cycling. I want to give three examples from those areas from my Strathkelvin and Bearsden constituency. I will talk about East Dunbartonshire’s Cycle Co-op, which is based in Bishopbriggs, the rebound initiative in Lennoxtown, and pedal on Parliament, which has already been mentioned. I thank Dr Brennan, who is a constituent of mine, for his work in making that happen next month.

East Dunbartonshire’s Cycle Co-op is a not-for-profit social enterprise team led by the redoubtable Mark Kiehlmann. It is a team of certified bike ability tutors and cycle mechanics. Those people have done many things. Among them, they set up the East Dunbartonshire bike library to assure parents that, when their children start to learn to cycle, they cycle on a bike that is fit for purpose.

Over the team’s few years of working, the most remarkable achievement it has seen has been Bishopbriggs becoming the first town—indeed, as far as I know, it is still the only town—in which every primary school has received a Cycling Scotland cycle-friendly school award. That achievement is even more remarkable in light of the fact that only 2 per cent of children in Scotland cycle to school. At St Matthew’s primary school in Bishopbriggs, 20 per cent currently cycle to school daily. Double the 2020 target is being achieved in Bishopbriggs in 2012. It is therefore not surprising that when the BBC and other media outlets are looking for someone to go to to highlight the benefits of cycling, they go to East Dunbartonshire’s Cycle Co-op. As a result, Bishopbriggs has received a lot more publicity than a small town of its size would perhaps normally expect to receive. I thank the many MSPs who supported my motion S4M-01910, which highlighted the work of East Dunbartonshire’s Cycle Co-op.

I turn to cycling for leisure and the rebound initiative in Lennoxtown. The plans are ambitious for a not-for-profit social enterprise. We want to see a cycle tourism hub in Lennoxtown that utilises the Forestry Commission tracks around it, and—most importantly—taps into the central Scotland cycling route network and uses the Forth and Clyde canal, which goes through my constituency. A community consultation was held in March, which more than 80 people attended. There were nothing but positive comments from the questionnaires and the ideas board that day.

I know that we are short of time, so I will conclude. I hope that those examples of local initiatives in my constituency show what can be done across Scotland.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Cowdenbeath)

I congratulate the Green party on choosing to use its parliamentary time to highlight cycling and call on the Scottish Government to improve the offering for cyclists. That is a welcome development and I hope that ministers will listen to and act upon the call. I also congratulate John Lamont on his 700km cycle ride and on his forthcoming endeavours.

The motion in Alison Johnstone’s name highlights the increase in cycling, which is something that the whole Parliament should welcome. If we want a fitter, healthier population, active travel should be a cornerstone of our approach to improving the lives of Scots. The cycling boom of recent years, which has no doubt been fuelled by the success of Britain’s track and road cycling squads, is making a difference, even away from the context of competitive cycling.

I am delighted that the UK’s blue riband endurance cycling event, the mille Alba, will have its headquarters in my constituency, at Fordell near Dalgety Bay, which is very near my home. Cyclists from throughout the country will ride 1,000km around Scotland in just 75 hours, starting on 22 June—John Lamont would be up for that. I am sure that the Parliament wishes the participants the best of luck and the best of weather for their endeavours.

If the cycling boom is to become the cycling revolution that we all want, we must make the necessary investment as well as the necessary attitudinal changes. As convener of transport in Fife Council and former vice-chair of Sustrans, I campaigned and worked with officers, and the team secured £3.5 million as Fife’s share of the cycle route around the countries that border the North Sea. The North Sea cycle route is still open. Many cyclists use it for recreation and commuting, and some hardy souls do the entire route—I am looking at John Lamont; I will be glad to see him cycling past my window. He will be sorry that he talked about his prowess.

I also campaigned strongly for better cycle parking at railway stations, to encourage cycling. I am pleased to say that a legacy of that work is the better parking for bikes that still exists at many stations in Fife.

However, much needs to be done. We must get serious about providing facilities for cyclists. The cycle path from Fife to Edinburgh along the A90 is a disgrace. It is no wonder that many cyclists refuse to use it and instead take their chances on the roads. The cost of upgrading the path would not be too onerous for the Scottish Government to meet. No public body, including City of Edinburgh Council, appears to be willing to take responsibility for the path, but it is time that someone did so, because many of my constituents cycle regularly from Fife to Edinburgh—indeed, my son-in-law did so.

Alison Johnstone’s motion mentions the welcome decline in cycling accident casualties during the first decade of the 21st century in Scotland. However, we should not be complacent. In Fife, the news is bad. The proportion of accidents that involve bikes is higher, at 4.76 per cent, than it has been in any year since before 2007. Some people might put that down to higher bicycle use and others might look for other explanations, but the accident figures are too high and work needs to be done to drive them down.

Cycle paths and sensible road and traffic planning make a positive contribution, but we also need attitudinal change. Cyclists are vulnerable road users and we need to ensure that motorists treat them with care and respect, rather than skimming past them. That does not cost money; it is a question of common decency.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I declare an interest; I am an executive member of the Scottish Accident Prevention Council.

I welcome the debate and endorse the comments about the health and environmental benefits of cycling. I will talk mainly about safety. I have no doubt that if we want to make cycling in Scotland safer, we must ensure that cycling informs and is integrated into transport planning. I welcome what Alison Johnstone said about the need to consider what safety measures can be implemented when we are digging up roads and therefore already incurring costs.

In 2005, the Scottish Government commissioned the comprehensive report, “Extent and Severity of Cycle Accident Casualties”, which tried to get to grips with why there had been so many accidents in Scotland. The research exposed interesting facts about gender. Many more males than females were involved in cycling accidents—the ratio of males to females presenting at hospital accident and emergency departments as a result of such accidents was 3:1. That gender imbalance was observed across all age groups, although it was least obvious in children under 10. Staggeringly, among 16 to 18-year-olds, 91 per cent of the casualties were males. I suggest that that follows a pattern of risk taking among young male drivers that is well recognised by the insurance industry. If we are to tackle such issues through education, we must examine risk taking. That might improve some of the accident statistics.

The pattern of accidents does not reflect cycling participation rates, as the study showed that 55 per cent of cyclists were males and 45 per cent were females. John Lamont mentioned night-time cycling. The study also showed that males tended to cycle more in the evening and that women tended to cycle more during the day, which might be a reason for the imbalance in the accident rate. We must fully understand what is happening on the roads if we are to make progress.

People are more likely to become casualties as a result of cycling accidents in childhood—in the study, 54 per cent of all casualties were under the age of 16. When it comes to such accidents, our children and young adults are extremely vulnerable. Safety is paramount and improvements can still be made. Much can be done to improve safety for cyclists, especially our children.

I am still a member of North Lanarkshire Council, which used to have a very poor record on general road safety. I commend the council’s leadership, which, over the years, has made a determined effort to reduce the number of road accidents. The council has achieved the national road safety targets and has reduced the number of fatalities and serious casualties by 74 per cent—information published by Strathclyde Police shows that it fell from 276 in 1999 to just 72 in 2010. At the same time, the total number of people who were injured reduced significantly.

I put those reductions down to the council taking some key steps. Notably, it introduced a 20mph speed limit not just outside schools in North Lanarkshire—that was done as a pilot—but in all residential areas. That is a significant step that can greatly reduce the number of accidents on our roads.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

We come to the closing speeches.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have enjoyed listening to the debate and I commend Alison Johnstone for giving us the opportunity to focus on the benefits of cycling and active travel.

I am glad that pedestrians feature in the motion because, in sharp contrast to my colleague John Lamont, I am not a proficient cyclist, although I do quite a bit of walking. I was not allowed a bike of my own as a child, because we lived on a busy main road, and I regret that as a result I have missed out on a lot of the enjoyment that competent cyclists experience, so I sympathise with the calls to make cycling safer for and accessible to all children.

We have heard much about the many benefits of cycling and it is encouraging that an increasing number of people are taking it up because, in a busy modern world, it is all too easy to become less and less active physically and to suffer the health consequences of a sedentary lifestyle.

As recently as 2010, the Scottish health survey found that 61 per cent of adults and 28 per cent of children did not meet the recommended physical activity level of 30 minutes of moderate activity five times a week. That is simply not good enough if we are to tackle obesity and its attendant risks of high blood pressure, heart disease and diabetes, to name but a few long-term conditions that are prevalent in an underactive population. Cycling can aid weight loss even in the absence of dieting and, as well as having physical benefits, it has been proven to assist in preventing and overcoming depression. Indeed, statistics show that people who undertake regular moderate activity, such as cycling to work, enjoy the wellbeing of people a decade younger, as well as being more alert, more self-confident and better able to cope with stress and anxiety.

I find walking an excellent way to enjoy our beautiful countryside, and cycling enables people to see even more of it—that is particularly true of cycling on mountain bikes, which allows people to go on fairly rough terrain. Such activities are a great attraction for tourists, and it is good to see mountain biking tracks being developed at Glenshee, the Lecht and other ski centres, which have, of course, suffered from a lack of snow this winter.

Studies done last year reckoned that mountain biking contributes £139 million to the Scottish economy, which is expected to rise to £155 million by 2016 so it is an activity to be encouraged.

The minister may be interested to know that yesterday I met the chief executive of Glasgow 2014 Ltd, the organiser of the Commonwealth games. We discussed a range of issues, including the role that cycling will play in the games and the possible benefits from the games in terms of a physical activity legacy. In that regard, I note the caveat from Ramblers Scotland that such benefits will be achieved only if there is a massive increase in the proportion of the population who spend much more time walking or cycling.

I was interested to learn that the stunning new Sir Chris Hoy velodorome is scheduled to open in Glasgow in October, which will allow members of the public to use it for almost two years before the games take place. Given the intention to encourage people to cycle and walk during the course of the games, it would be no bad thing if ministers were to lead by example and get on their bikes instead of into their expensive ministerial cars.

No debate on cycling would be complete without a mention of the nation’s favourite cyclist: the mayor of London, Boris Johnson. Boris bikes have now become as much a feature of the capital city as red buses and Big Ben. His groundbreaking initiative of introducing 6,000 sponsored bikes for hire around London and 400 docking stations is, as he himself has said,

“a glorious new form of public transport”.

Therefore, I was pleased to learn that there are plans to extend the scheme across the east end of the city. That is one reason why members on this side of the chamber look forward to seeing Boris re-elected for another term as mayor of London. We might do well to pick up on some of his ideas.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am just finishing.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We feel that to achieve the very worthy aims of the motion, we would do well to be just a little bit less prescriptive and a little bit more creative, which is why I am happy to support the amendment in John Lamont’s name.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I am delighted to close this debate for Scottish Labour. Before I begin, though, I would like to share the sentiments of members across the chamber and take a moment to remember all those who have been seriously injured or have lost their lives as a result of cycling accidents on our roads.

No matter what level the accident rate drops to it will be too high, and I am glad to have the opportunity today to debate what we can do to reduce the number of accidents and encourage more people to engage in safe cycling. I thank Alison Johnstone for her broad-ranging motion.

I often seem to begin my speeches with a quote from ministers and today is no exception, as I will quote from the ministerial foreword to the “Cycling Action Plan for Scotland”, in which the then Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, Stewart Stevenson, stated his vision, saying:

“By 2020, 10% of all journeys taken in Scotland will be by bike.”

He went on to say:

“We just need more people to cycle more often and in so doing, develop a cycling culture in Scotland.”

There used to be such a culture, certainly in rural Clydesdale, where I stay. My old neighbour and the first person I met when I moved there was ex-miner Jim Simpson, who also used to play in a dance band. He used to tell me of many times making late-night rides home by bike with his fellow band members from as far afield as Moffat, instruments strapped to their backs. His village of Douglas Water had its own cycling club, as did many other villages.

There is perhaps a renaissance in popular cycling; certainly, there is an interest in it. I whole-heartedly support the Scottish Government’s vision for cycling, but like many of the SNP’s visions it lacks detail about how we are going to get there. I am concerned that without the financial support for infrastructure development, access to safety training and the creation of schemes to encourage more people to take up cycling, we will fall short of the 10 per cent target. Today’s new national travel survey shows that only 1 per cent of journeys were completed by bicycle in 1985 and that today that figure is the same, so a step change is definitely necessary if we are to reach the 10 per cent target.

Malcolm Chisholm highlighted the value of community-led initiatives. I, too, commend Spokes, Sustrans and other cycling organisations. The pedal on Parliament campaign group has some very positive suggestions in its manifesto. Some of its proposals inform the wider debate and are certainly worthy of consideration. I will attend its rally, but despite Alison Johnstone’s kind offer, I will not bring my bicycle. It sits in my basement, because I am a rural cyclist and not an urban one, and I was made even more nervous about urban cycling by Malcolm Chisholm’s remarks about the dangers of Leith Walk.

How do we ensure that cycling infrastructure is incorporated into the planning process for new roads and other projects? There is an example of that working well along the Airdrie to Bathgate rail line. However, as we heard from Helen Eadie and others, there are many poor examples. Also, cycle paths are often put in as an afterthought, with painted lines taking the place of safe and dedicated cycle tracks, as Marco Biagi highlighted.

I have spoken before about the great example set by the Netherlands, where a remarkable 25 per cent of journeys are completed by bike. We should look to incorporate infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists into planning guidance for rural and urban local authorities, and Scottish Labour supports that element of the motion. We also call for support for safer speed limits, which Elaine Murray highlighted.

I hope that the minister will consider more than 40 per cent of children having on-road training.

Scottish Labour supports the Government in its target of having 10 per cent of journeys completed by bike and supports the motion. In Alison Johnstone’s words, we need to move up a gear or two.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We have heard a number of views on making cycling safer and more appealing. It is worth saying that we cannot insist that people cycle. We must do what we can to encourage cycling and focus on making it as easy and safe as possible—I understand that—but if people prefer to walk, for example, as Nanette Milne said, they are perfectly entitled to do that.

I will return to some of the points that have been made in the debate and make some points that I did not get the chance to make earlier.

We plan a refresh of the cycling action plan for Scotland following the first progress report from Cycling Scotland in June. At that point, we will update all 17 of the actions in the plan, completing some of them and, potentially, adding some more.

Mention was made of the need for behavioural change. That is a crucial point. We just heard from Claudia Beamish about the Netherlands. The situation there, particularly in Amsterdam, has grown up over many years and benefits from a very flat environment, so a cycling culture exists. We must do all that we can to encourage such a culture, but that will not happen overnight; it will take some time to achieve.

The behavioural change towards mutual respect that Alison Johnstone first mentioned must take place. Many cyclists come to speak to me because they are unhappy with the behaviour of other cyclists, just as drivers of vehicles sometimes do not show appropriate respect for more vulnerable road users.

The need to improve the perception of the safety of cycling among parents has not been mentioned. If we want to encourage more children to take up cycling, parents must feel more able to say yes to children who want to cycle to school or cycle recreationally. There are some excellent examples of that happening in Edinburgh, but there is more that we can do on the matter.

We must also develop awareness of cyclists and their needs on the road. That is why we will launch the give me cycle space campaign in May.

We also try to reward organisations that promote safe cycling and safe driving. For that reason, we have the cycle-friendly schools awards and various employers awards, which result in certificates being awarded.

We heard different examples of infrastructure being very good in some cases and not so good in others. That is often a matter for the local authority and its partners. The Scottish Government can be one of those partners and has tried to focus the funding that it has—as all members appreciate, there is not a bottomless pit—on ensuring match funding by local authorities and others. The investment that we plan over the next three years will allow more infrastructure to be developed.

Everyone else has used a local example, so why should I not? The old Menstrie branch line in my constituency is now being used as a cycle path to good effect.

There are events that recognise people’s efforts and encourage them to walk and cycle safely. A number of members mentioned the pedal on Parliament event. Unfortunately, I cannot take part in that, but I will take part in the pedal for Scotland bike ride, which will happen on Sunday 9 September. I invite John Lamont—if I can keep up with him—and anybody else who complained about having a bike secreted away in a cupboard to come to it. It is a chance to come into Edinburgh on a safe cycle route, which is a tremendous experience. I did it last year but only as far as Kirkliston and not all the way from Glasgow. I will try to extend that this year.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I welcome the fact that the minister will be on the pedal for Scotland event this year as well.

I request that he look at the trunk roads budget, because there are massive opportunities in it. It is a huge budget and he could use it to do a lot more to improve long-distance cycle routes and beef up the work that needs to be done by our local authorities.

The point that Helen Eadie made about getting from Fife to Edinburgh was absolutely right. Long-distance commuter routes are a nightmare for cyclists.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As I have said, we have tried to incorporate what the member has suggested into most of our major projects, including not only the M8 and the M74 but the Forth replacement crossing; indeed, that is how we intend to use the existing Forth road bridge. We have told officials that we should make what we are doing clear to the public. The Airdrie to Bathgate line has been mentioned in that respect but, in other road projects, the public might not have been made as aware of that aspect as they might have been and I will be encouraging that to happen.

We also fund Sustrans, which, as has been mentioned, is rolling out with Fife Council 20mph zones in parts of Kirkcaldy and as part of its street design project is redesigning streets with the support of local communities. The same initiative is happening in Moray Council. There have been many references to the City of Edinburgh Council, whose road safety team launched its 20mph zone last Friday.

At this point, I should make it clear that councils themselves can introduce—and have introduced—such zones. Alison Johnstone’s motion asks the Government to make that process easier; however, I am not sure that the Labour amendment quite addresses the same issue, because the “guidance” that it refers to is issued by the Department for Transport and is based on United Kingdom primary legislation. We are talking about Scottish Government-issued traffic regulation orders and, although we will look at how we can streamline that system, members must bear in mind that public consultation forms a large part of that process and we do not want to minimise any of that.

We have said many times that we can best achieve this aim by working in partnership with others, including those involved in climate change, to push these particular policies. As the report on proposals and policies makes clear, this is not solely about Government funding; many other financial and non-financial contributions are needed from local authorities and—as John Lamont pointed out—business.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We cannot support the Conservative amendment, as it removes a substantial part of the Green party motion. Although the Labour amendment is well intentioned, it presents certain problems, in that the guidance that it mentions is not strictly applicable to the Scottish situation.

That said, I am happy to support the motion.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

First of all, I should mention that I am a new member of Spokes.

I thank colleagues for taking part in the debate. Clearly there is much that the chamber agrees on and I welcome members’ recognition of the fact that active travel is well worth the investment.

The minister referred to the provision of active travel in the M8 project. However, I am sad to say that the same kind of provision has been omitted from the development of the Forth replacement crossing, and cycle path provision en route to the bridge requires urgent investment. I ask the minister to consider the latter point in particular. I echo Helen Eadie’s point about the need for good cycle infrastructure between Edinburgh and Fife.

I welcome the minister’s positive input, particularly his commitment to look at streamlining and simplifying the TRO system. I also agree with Claudia Beamish that we could do a bit better than the current target of 40 per cent of children having on-road cycle training. I ask the minister to revisit the target.

Elaine Murray focused on twenty’s plenty, the campaign to reduce traffic speeds, which provides so many benefits for vulnerable users and encourages walking and cycling.

We also heard about John Lamont’s athletic prowess. I take my hat off to you—your passion for cycling is obvious. It is certainly the world’s most efficient form of transport and has so many benefits. For example, it reduces obesity and cuts congestion—which in turn can cut business costs. You also talked about the culture of respect in other countries and the considerate behaviour shown by some of our European neighbours. As a qualified athletics coach, I agree that we should try to gain as much as we can from the Commonwealth and Olympics games. I have to say that I like the Conservative amendment; I just do not like what it seeks to delete.

Marco Biagi recognised the leadership role that Government can play and the need to normalise cycling. You pointed out the great work that Transform Scotland has done with its document “Civilising the Streets”, and you referred to the need for cycle lanes. Such provision would have an impact. Clare Adamson touched on the underrepresentation of women in cycling, and I think that we would see more of both genders on the roads if we had more segregated cycle lanes. Malcolm Chisholm was right to put safety at the heart of a successful cycling culture, recognising some of the excellent paths that we have in the city, but also the overwhelming support for more segregated paths and better infrastructure.

Fiona McLeod touched on the impact that social enterprise has in increasing cycling confidence and referred to the excellent work that is going on in Bishopbriggs. Here in Edinburgh, The Bike Station has done much to boost cycling. It takes in old bikes, refurbishes them and sells them at a reasonable price. It has queues round the corner in south Edinburgh on a Saturday morning. You also pointed out the tourism-boosting potential of cycling and the opportunity to attract tourists and locals to use forest tracks.

I look forward to John Lamont taking up Helen Eadie’s challenge to join competitors in her constituency. I am certainly going to take up the challenge and join the minister and others at the pedal for Scotland event in September.

The importance of better cycle parking at railway stations was also raised.

Clare Adamson focused on the fact that many young people—often males—are involved in cycle accidents. Cycle training and education have a big part to play in improving the situation. You also referred to the impact that the introduction of 20mph zones has had on accident rates.

I say to Nanette Milne that the Association of Directors of Public Health has called for far greater investment in active travel, notably for public health spend reasons. It is calling for 10 per cent of transport budgets to go to active travel. Its report is endorsed by more than 110 specialist and professional bodies, from the Institute of Highway Engineers to the British Heart Foundation.

I do not share Nanette Milne’s view that Boris Johnson is the nation’s favourite cyclist. I will perhaps keep my views on my favourite cyclist to myself.

I do not intend the motion to be prescriptive. I am simply seeking focus on the issues.

Claudia Beamish was right to point out that any fatality and accident is one too many. We could have a look at Sweden’s zero fatality approach. You spoke about people cycling home with guitars and so on on their backs. It is important that we normalise cycling as part of everyday life. It is notable that, in 1950s Britain, the cycling rate was 15 per cent, which is higher than Germany’s current 9 per cent. Perhaps that is because the roads were less congested. We can take heart from that.

Cycling has so much to offer. It is cheap, it is healthy and it benefits local economies. Parts of the United States have not just business improvement districts but bike-friendly business improvement districts. They have sussed out that one car parking space can take 10 to 20 bikes. In that way, they get more people in the shops, and people on bikes are more likely to stop and engage with their local independent stores. I would not often think of looking to the United States for green initiatives, but some excellent things are happening across the water.

As Nanette Milne pointed out, cyclists are less prone to the western diseases that afflict far too many Scots. I just think that cycling has so much to offer us as a nation. It does not all have to be about big investment. Small-scale local interventions can be highly cost effective. Confidence is delivered by safe routes to school projects, and workplace travel plans can reduce peak-hour congestion in a way that new large-scale road projects will never be able to compete with.

When a committee held an inquiry into active travel in the previous session of Parliament, there was cross-party agreement on the need to increase funding and resources to make our ambitions for cycling a reality.

Members might wish to know not only that the bicycle is generally agreed to have been invented by Kirkpatrick Macmillan but that the first cycling offence, which was recorded in 1842, was by the same man. He knocked over a girl in the Gorbals area and was fined 5/-. It is my hope that, long before 2042—200 years since that dubious milestone—Scotland will be able to stand tall and compare itself to those countries that have already turned their vision into reality.

I hope that, at decision time, we will show again that all parties in the Parliament are serious about and committed to transforming the way in which we travel in Scotland.

Local Energy Companies

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02523, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on local energy companies.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

When the Greens bring motions to the chamber for debate, we usually take what we laughingly call a soft-and-spiky approach. We lodge one consensual and constructive motion that seeks cross-party support, and another that might be a wee bit more confrontational. For some reason I usually end up with the confrontational one—I cannot think why that might be.

Today, we are doing it a little bit differently. We genuinely hope that the motion on local energy companies, like the motion on cycling, can move forward an argument on a cross-party basis. There should be political support from across the spectrum for local energy companies.

I begin by mentioning Jonathon Porritt, who spoke at the opening of the Scottish Renewables conference this week. He can speak the language that an audience full of professionals will readily understand while saying something really revolutionary. He said,

“We are in the very early stages of the most radical transition in the history of mankind”,

and he set out a vision of a 2020 target of 100 per cent equivalent of our electricity consumption coming from renewables, and a longer-term vision of an entirely renewable future. The Scottish Parliament should be proud of its commitments on climate change and renewables, but in those “very early stages” of the transition, we are missing a trick.

That transition or transformation in our energy system will require a huge amount of work and, no doubt, many will see it as an opportunity to make a lot of money—indeed, that is happening already. To be sure, the private sector has a central role to play, but the Greens have brought the debate today to develop the case for keeping a share of this new, growing industry in the hands of the public and communities, and to call for the Government to take a more proactive approach to ensure that that happens.

If we do that, two of the many benefits that could be achieved go way beyond the renewable energy targets alone: it would generate revenue for public services; and it would build public support for an important industry that can be made to serve the common good. The transition that we seek and need will take place only with public support, yet there is a growing perception of private sector profiteering. Sometimes that perception is accurate, and sometimes it is needlessly fuelled by those who are opposed to the action that we have to take on climate change.

The profits of the renewable energy industry are certainly significant, as is the contribution made by the public through taxation and energy bills. The danger is that a reaction to that situation will prevent us from making the transition to a sustainable energy future that we need to make. It does not have to be that way. We can build public support by sharing the economic benefits of the industry.

Revenue could be generated for local authorities and other parts of the public sector, which could have huge benefits. I was recently at a site at Laurieston on the south side of Glasgow—next to the Citizens theatre, for members who are familiar with that area—where a huge amount of housing is about to be built. Some of it will be social housing, and some will be private sector housing and therefore for sale. That is exactly the kind of area where, if the public sector could make a bit of extra investment, we could build in transformational technologies using really low-carbon and genuinely passive housing standards and microrenewables to achieve a long-term energy supply for the community. With the power of the public sector, we could generate energy, yet we do not do such things because local authorities do not think in that way.

That said, there are some examples of local government trying to develop models. I will run through a few of them. Perhaps the most familiar example to members of this Parliament is Aberdeen Heat and Power, which is a not-for-profit company that was set up by Aberdeen City Council 10 years ago. The carbon emissions from the buildings involved have been reduced by about 45 per cent, and typical fuel costs to tenants have been reduced by more than 50 per cent.

Down south in Woking, Thameswey Energy Ltd, a company that is wholly owned by Woking Borough Council, aims to promote energy efficiencies, develop new technologies, produce and supply energy and acquire and hold interests in other companies. The council recently set up a joint-venture company, as it recognised that a wholly owned public company is limited by some of the constraints on capital controls that are imposed by central Government. Therefore, the different model of a joint-venture company has been adopted.

In Islington, the Bunhill energy centre is investing in local energy generation and reducing energy costs to households and businesses, as well as the carbon footprint. Sheffield has one of the largest district energy networks in the United Kingdom. It started out serving just a few buildings and now serves more than 140 buildings, reducing carbon emissions by about 21,000 tonnes every year. I do not have time to read through all the examples that I have, but there are similar schemes in Bristol and Norfolk and elsewhere in England and Wales. However, very little is happening in Scotland.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The Aberdeen combined heat and power scheme has got it right in my opinion. In part, the expansion in recent times has been down to the £1 million grant that was received from Government, which was most welcome. Does Mr Harvie agree that, although lessons should be taken from Aberdeen and exported elsewhere, that should not be down to Government insistence, and that it should be up to local authorities to move forward in their own way?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

That gets to one of the central issues. There should not be insistence, but there should be strong and compelling leadership at local and central Government level, in which the minister has a crucial role. I am slightly disappointed by the Government amendment, which deletes significant aspects of the motion that detail the role that local energy companies could play.

The Government amendment discusses a document that has been produced by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Futures Trust. I have seen the draft of that document, which was dated June 2011, and which was on the Scottish Futures Trust website. Just yesterday, the final version, dated August 2011, was added to the website. It is encouraging that my motion led to at least some action being taken before I even got to my feet to speak. However, if the Government does not proactively give leadership on the issue and does not even put up information on the website, we will not make progress. In conversation with my office yesterday, the SFT was keen to emphasise that no local authority has produced proposals recently, but that is no great surprise if the leadership is not there and information is not being circulated.

The forms of support that are needed from Government include financial support. As Kevin Stewart mentioned, such support has been given. We also have the renewable energy investment fund, which was announced last week and which will have elements of district heating and community renewables within its remit. We need to define the term “community” clearly because of the wide range of models that I talked about and the different balance of cross-party support in local authorities for different business models. Some promote wholly owned companies, some tilt more towards the private sector, whereas others prefer co-operatives, community interest companies or social enterprises. All those models are good, but they all need leadership if they are to happen.

As well as financial support, leadership needs to be about bringing together skills and experience and building partnerships to ensure that local authorities can make progress. At present, local authorities have a difficult balancing act just to provide basic services.

A report back from Government to Parliament on the issues would be of great benefit, so I am happy to support the Labour amendment. We need a proactive approach from Government on the issues, and a report back would certainly help to keep them on the agenda. Even better would be a commitment to a number of projects that could be developed during this parliamentary session. Shortly, Scotland will elect councils for another term in office. By the time that the councils that we elect in May have completed that term, the natural and default situation for every single one of them should be that they are working with a local energy company of one model or another—wholly public, a partnership, a co-operative or whatever. Different councils will find different solutions that are appropriate for their areas.

It would be bizarre—it would be unthinkable—if, in a few years’ time, local government did not see itself as having a role in public investment, not only in energy efficiency but in renewables. That investment can be paid back if local energy companies also have the power to become electricity retailers in the community.

There is the opportunity for a transformational vision, not just of meeting our renewable energy targets in Scotland but of local, public and community ownership.

I move,

That the Parliament reaffirms Scotland’s ambitious targets on climate change and renewable energy; considers that the private, public and third sectors, including co-operatives and community bodies, all have a role to play in developing a clean energy future for Scotland; is concerned by the growing perception that the renewables agenda is benefiting only big business, instead of serving the common good; believes that great public benefit could be achieved through the creation of public energy companies at local authority level with a remit to invest in publicly owned renewables, lease public assets to appropriate renewable energy developers and buy energy on the wholesale market to become a domestic supplier in the local community; believes that such public companies would generate clean energy as well as revenue for valuable new public services such as energy efficiency investment and support for community owned renewables projects and that the shared benefits would help to foster public support for renewable energy, and calls on the Scottish Government to investigate the concept of local energy companies and to provide assistance to local authorities and other organisations in developing proposals.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I am delighted to accept the invitation in the wording of the motion to reaffirm Scotland’s commitment to its ambitious, world-leading climate change targets. We will harness the best of our country’s assets—our people, our natural resources and our ingenuity—to ensure that Scotland leads the way in renewable and low-carbon energy.

As Patrick Harvie mentioned, public support is being built, and it will continue to be built. This week, 11,000 jobs have been created in the renewables sector, benefiting communities such as Orkney and the Highlands and many rural parts of Scotland.

Our draft electricity generation policy statement sets out an energy policy that will provide the key pillars of delivering secure and affordable energy and a cut in greenhouse gas emissions, achieving maximum economic benefit for Scotland.

Electricity is just part of the story. We need to reduce demand and improve energy efficiency. We also need to make significant progress on renewable and low-carbon heat, as well as sustainable transport. I commend to members a visit to the newly opened SSE centre at One Waterloo Street in Glasgow—a museum of modern renewable energy, where one can hire an electric car for an hour or so at a reasonable rate. Perhaps Mr Harvie might like to take up that option to learn to love the motor car, albeit the electric one.

While I acknowledge the perception in some quarters that the renewables agenda benefits only big business, that bears no relation to reality in Scotland. Our target for 500MW of community and locally owned renewables by 2020 could be worth up to £2,400 million to Scottish communities and rural businesses over the lifetime of those projects.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am glad that the minister mentions the 500MW target. It includes local ownership, and not just community ownership. My motion is about community and public ownership. Will the minister confirm that the fund announced last week will not use the same definition and that, when it talks about community ownership, it will talk about genuine community ownership and not local/private sector ownership?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

We clearly and explicitly want to encourage communities to own renewables schemes. There is no dubiety about that so far as I am aware. That is the best model—in which there is ownership, and not just the receipt of a cheque, albeit a bigger cheque than used to be the case, because the tariff is now moving up to £5,000 per megawatt. The best model—the one to which we aspire—is one in which communities have a stake in the ownership, such as Falck Renewables in Fintry. We want Scotland’s communities to benefit as owners and not just as recipients of cheques, no matter that that in itself creates great benefit. Once again, Mr Harvie and I are in agreement.

Our community and renewable energy scheme will provide some £25 million over the next three years to support community and locally owned renewables projects across Scotland.

The SFT and COSLA have been working to highlight examples of public sector involvement in renewables and the main commercial structures for local authorities to take forward those schemes. We welcome that work and we will support it where possible.

However, the suggestion that local authorities should form local energy companies to enter the energy wholesale market is a different matter. It raises a challenging and complex set of issues, in which market participants take on significant contractual and financial liabilities and are exposed to significant market and financial risk. That is extremely uncomfortable territory for public sector bodies on fixed budgets, which, they tell us, are already stretched to the limit.

The market is challenging for new entrants. The vast majority—up to 90 per cent—of wholesale electricity market trading happens between generation and supply businesses in vertically integrated companies: the big six are SSE, Scottish Power, RWE npower, EDF Energy, Centrica and E.ON. The remaining over-the-counter business happens either through third-party brokerage or on trading platforms for electricity products—power exchanges—where there are membership fees and other requirements. The key point is that taking part in that market demands that challenging credit and collateral requirements are met. Market participants must be able to access and agree credit, the cost of which fluctuates proportionately to their perceived capability to manage risk. They must post collateral as security for their trading activities and must have the institutional capacity and capability to understand how the market works. They must also properly resource their risk—that is essential in protecting consumers from the unacceptable costs of short-term or irresponsible trading and from a market player going bust. It is not an attractive proposition for a local authority.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I do not play down any of the problems and complexities that the minister has outlined. However, community development trusts have got into the market in recent years and have faced some of the issues that he has outlined, albeit on a smaller scale. Therefore, the issues that he is addressing are not insurmountable.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Those are suppliers of capacity, not retailers of electricity—there is a difference.

We are happy to look carefully at the emerging possibilities. The current market arrangements are not perfect—far from it. The lack of competition and the difficulties that new entrants to the market face are significant issues, which we want to address with the relevant bodies including the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets. We support more competition in the market. However, as Liam McArthur and others will agree, it would be foolish and irresponsible of us to ignore the practical, serious and massive financial liabilities that can be associated with entering the market.

We are happy to accept the Labour amendment. Government is accountable to Parliament and it is correct that we should report to Parliament, and that is what we will do. That is a sensible proposal. To Mr Harvie, I suggest that there are real, significant and unavoidable barriers to and risks in local authority engagement in the electricity market and that a clearer and more obvious path is through public and community bodies playing a stronger role in developing renewable energy projects for the benefit of local communities.

I move amendment S4M-02523.1, to leave out from “creation of public energy companies” to end and insert:

“work being done by the Scottish Futures Trust in partnership with COSLA to help local authorities realise this ambition, highlighting opportunities to provide exemplary community benefits from renewables schemes on the public estate, publicly owned renewables and the lease of public assets to appropriate renewable energy developers; believes that public sector involvement in the renewables sector can generate clean energy as well as revenue for valuable new public services such as energy efficiency investment and support for community-owned renewables projects and that the shared and community benefits would help to foster public support for renewable energy, and calls on the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust to continue to work with COSLA, local authorities and other organisations in developing proposals.”

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I very much welcome the debate on local energy companies and hope that it will stimulate action. We will not all agree on everything, but I suspect that there is enough on which we agree for us to be getting on with. The Parliament set an ambitious target for a 42 per cent reduction in CO2 by 2020, and Labour believes that energy efficiency, with local heat and energy in our buildings and in our transport, must be part of the solution. I will not engage in a lengthy debate about the exact nature of the Government’s ambitious targets for renewables. Suffice it to say that we believe strongly in a balanced approach to energy supply that lets Scotland lead the way on renewables while remaining part of a United Kingdom energy market so that we can both export energy that we generate from renewables and use it ourselves. We must be able to export energy to the rest of the UK and import base-load when we need it.

The key issue is the need for a decentralised set of heat and power networks across our local communities. Such an approach would be a highly efficient way in which to generate heat and power and could provide much-needed base-load. We believe that it is the missing link in energy and heat supply in Scotland. If we had been elected to government last summer, we would have implemented radical plans for community renewables. We see local authorities as vital partners and key agents in leading the way.

The motion talks about the perception of renewables as being all about the benefits to big companies. It is vital that local communities and individual members of society are able to get direct benefits from the renewables revolution. Patrick Harvie mentioned some of the fantastic community projects that now exist throughout Scotland using co-operative, community trust and social enterprise models—whatever is appropriate locally. There is a big gap, however, caused by the fact that local authorities have not played their full part.

Council house tenants, housing association tenants and people who are on low incomes will never be able to benefit from technologies such as solar panels, solar water heating and combined heat and power schemes unless they are procured collectively on a mass scale.

I have mentioned many times the fantastic work that is being done in Aberdeen. I am glad that it has been namechecked today, but it should not be the scheme that we must always mention—there should be lots of others. That is why we need to put some political energy behind the process today.

Last year, our idea was to have a £100 million scheme that was based on the principles that Birmingham City Council adopted. Its model involved setting up a social enterprise company to bulk-buy solar panels for council house tenants. The council also reinvested in energy efficiency and in a new wave of solar panels across the city. It has now been joined by a host of other authorities. In north-east England, five local authorities are working together to do the same procurement work.

We would have worked with an initial 10,000 houses, alongside energy-efficiency work. We are not doing enough to address fuel poverty, and such an initiative would have helped to boost work in that area. Patrick Harvie referred to the new revenue that we could invest in such a process.

Fergus Ewing is right—it is an incredibly tough time for local authorities, which have had to bear the brunt of 89 per cent of this year’s budget cuts and are shouldering record debt levels. However, local authorities know local housing. We are not using their expertise and knowledge. They have the power to be transformative by establishing decentralised energy and heat networks. They are in charge of the planning framework for buildings and of transport and zero waste planning locally.

Local authorities could really make a difference. The levers are potentially at their disposal and they have the powers that they got under the previous Labour Government to buy and sell energy for their residents, but they have competing demands on their time. I say to the minister that the issue is not about him requiring local authorities to do things or ruling out what they can do but about transformational leadership to give them the capacity and the support to take on and lead on the agenda.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will Ms Boyack give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

No—I have only one minute left.

I welcome the minister’s support for our amendment. We believe that it is crucial that the Government comes back to Parliament. The cross-party group on renewable energy and energy efficiency regularly debates the issue, which needs to come back to the chamber and to committees. We need serious political momentum behind the decentralised energy and heat movement. Our local authorities are best placed to lead on that, but they are not doing so. Communities can do such work, but it is not happening on a local government scale.

The Scottish Government has a key role in leading on the issue. Patrick Harvie mentioned the local government elections. Glasgow City Council has done work on wind turbine development, which is producing energy and a sustainable income for the warm Glasgow fund. The City of Edinburgh Council wants to develop radical community co-operatives, and Dundee City Council wants to look at buying and selling energy.

The agenda is radical. We do not want just one or two local authorities to do such work. All of them need to engage with it, on their own terms. The minister could play a vital role in giving them a lead.

I move amendment S4M-02523.2, to insert at end:

“, and asks that the Scottish Government reports back to the Parliament on progress.”

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I, too, thank the Scottish Green Party for bringing the debate to the Parliament. I agree with most of Patrick Harvie’s motion—I am sure that he can guess the two or three lines with which I disagree.

There is no doubt that much can be gained from local energy companies and that the topic merits further discussion and consideration. We can learn from experience, as highlighted by Kevin Stewart. I will highlight a good experience and a bad experience. I find quite exciting the enhanced support that is now in place for local energy companies that the Government’s amendment highlights. I noted the minister’s comments about local authority energy companies.

As well as the private, public and third sectors, co-operatives and communities can work together to produce clean energy. I will give two examples: the Isle of Eigg, which is a blueprint for success, and the Caithness Heat and Power project, which is run by Highland Council but which cannot be deemed a success in any form.

Highland Council proposed to tackle fuel poverty in Wick by forming a new limited company—Caithness Heat and Power—to establish a woodchip scheme to provide electricity and cheaper heating for tenants. Those aims were worthy. The scheme started in Pulteneytown in 2004 to provide a renewable heating system for up to 500 houses.

There is no doubting the good intentions behind the project. However, after several years, many problems and an Accounts Commission investigation, it was found that there was a lack of appropriate risk management, and that Highland Council had faced many other problems, from the project’s inception in 2002 through to its delivery.

Caithness Heat and Power was abandoned in 2008. At the time, it was said that

“the technology originally chosen for the project is not capable of reliably and economically fulfilling its objectives.”

Although the project cost £14.65 million, the company was transferred in December of last year for £1. Caithness Heat and Power experienced technological and financial problems, with Highland Council having to pay back a £2.9 million grant and also having to pay to reconvert the 247 properties that had been modified at a cost of £2.3 million. Highland Council tried to recoup money from the £14.65 million project by selling off 14 lots online last year, including a boiler and a woodchip drier.

The council is still pursing £152,000 of outstanding electricity bills, but the system’s design prevents effective disconnection of individual customers without affecting others. A local councillor stated last week in the John O’Groat Journal that the £152,000

“was not run up as result of people in fuel poverty struggling to pay their bills but by opportunists taking advantage of a flawed setup.”

I highlight the project because, as others have said, we have to learn from experience.

The community on the Isle of Eigg had the opposite experience and its scheme is undoubtedly an outstanding success. Diesel generators provided electricity to the community for decades, but Eigg Electric can now provide 24-hour power through three hydroelectric generators that produce energy from water as well as four small wind turbines and solar panels.

An essential consideration of the design and development of the project was that it should not impact on the natural beauty of the island. The cable routes, both grid and domestic, are buried—unlike the Beauly to Denny power line.

The total generation capacity of the system is about 164kW at any time. The system is designed to provide 95 per cent of the power consumed on the island and it allows for population growth. Residents of Eigg can use only what they produce and, to ensure that no one goes short, each house has a maximum use limit of 5kW and each business a maximum use limit of 10kW at any one time. People spread their use throughout the day, the system is simple and meters are used to display electricity usage at all times, with surplus power distributed to community halls.

Eigg is an excellent example of full support being given, altruism and partnership in the community as everybody pulls together for the common good.

I will cover the other points when I sum up.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

A few years ago, I was lucky enough to be invited to a community conference on the island of Gigha, just after the people there had switched on their three wind turbines—the dancing ladies of Gigha—which are Scotland’s first community-owned wind turbines. We were taken out to see the turbines on a warm sunny day, with a few puffy white clouds lazily floating across a blue sky. Cattle grazed peacefully beneath the turbines and the turbines turned gracefully in the warm breeze. I felt as if I was in a Dali painting. Everybody was smiling.

Another kind of energy and another kind of power was being kindled on Gigha that day: community power, because a community had been empowered at last to tackle its long-standing problems and was generous enough to want to share its new-found knowledge and empowerment with other communities.

I have some sympathy with Patrick Harvie’s motion, but I am afraid that I cannot support it as it stands. Nothing stands in the way of any local authority that wishes to take up his suggestion, but I fear that local authorities are not always well equipped to follow that route. I am concerned, too, about Patrick Harvie’s antipathy towards business, and big business in particular. As with all things, there are some bad businesses—large and small—but also some very good ones.

The Government has set some very ambitious targets for climate change and renewable energy generation, but it cannot achieve those targets on its own—no Government can. We must enlist businesses, large and small, and communities at all levels to help us to meet those targets. That is a great and a common endeavour.

With infinitely renewable energy, which in time will become inexpensive, we can solve many of our other problems. We can create not only jobs but fulfilling careers, we can create prosperity and we can end fuel poverty.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No, I have only four minutes.

Little Scotland can, by becoming the world’s laboratory, make an unparalleled contribution to mankind in solving the problem of our renewable energy supply and exporting the technology and the knowledge across the planet. However, we will not achieve that through the narrow-minded exclusion of big business, because business excels at innovation—

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No, I am sorry—I have only two minutes.

Business excels at investing in new technology, and if we are to fulfil those targets and achieve all the benefits that come with that, we will need the massive investments that only big business can provide.

We can do that while ensuring that our communities also benefit by undertaking their own renewable projects or by collaborating with business in joint projects. In fact, we are increasingly doing that, and I commend our Government for setting another ambitious target of 500MW of community energy by 2020.

For those reasons and more, I am pleased to support the amendment in the name of the minister, Fergus Ewing.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I hope and believe that the Parliament will reaffirm Scotland’s ambitious targets on climate change and renewable energy, and I am happy to continue to commit to that position on behalf of my party.

The renewable energy target follows on from the climate change target, and the reasons for tackling climate change are well rehearsed and become more apparent every day. I am proud that Scotland, through the Parliament, is leading the way in tackling climate change and I am happy to reaffirm my commitment to the targets that have been set.

The motion that Patrick Harvie and the Green party have lodged is right: there is a growing perception that the renewable energy agenda is benefiting only big energy companies or wealthy landowners, while local people often feel that they suffer from the consequences. In the case of large-scale wind developments, for example, communities often see little or no benefit.

People are becoming more concerned that the renewables agenda is pushing up their electricity bills. With one in three people affected by fuel poverty, that is already a massive issue that will keep getting worse as earnings remain static and energy prices continue to rise.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am sorry, but I am tight for time.

It is right that we should push for the creation of public energy companies that are publicly owned and publicly controlled and which deliver the benefits of renewable energy in our communities in the form of locally generated electricity, which is more efficient because of reduced transmission losses. The profits from the sale of the electricity can be reinvested in additional renewable developments or in adapting homes in our most deprived communities to reduce energy consumption, to help to lift people out of fuel poverty and to ensure that people do not have to choose between heating and eating.

Regardless of whether profits are reinvested in further renewable projects or in energy conservation methods, the revenue that is generated is, due to the nature of renewable electricity generation, also renewable and can be used to continue to stimulate the local economy. That would be a welcome boost to engineers who are looking for employment, or to builders who are currently looking for work as a result of the lack of new housing developments. Alternatively, profits could be invested—as the motion suggests—in providing front-line services at a time of reducing budgets.

Programmes to reinvest profits in new renewable projects or housing improvements can be supplemented by modern apprenticeship schemes, which many local authorities are running. As alluded to in the motion, it is hard to imagine a scheme that could contribute to so many Government priorities: reducing emissions and energy consumption; boosting sustainable economic growth; reducing fuel poverty; and increasing employment generally and youth employment in particular. That can all be done in a sustainable manner by a publicly owned and controlled company. It is enough to make me smile just to be talking about publicly owned companies in Parliament, although that sentiment might not quite be shared across the Parliament.

I am glad that the Green party lodged the motion, because it has given us the chance to debate public ownership and the change in public perception that could be achieved if the renewables revolution was being driven by the public sector to benefit communities and not big business, with profits being reinvested in reducing fuel consumption and fuel poverty rather than electricity bill premiums delivering dividends for shareholders.

I hope that the Parliament can unite around the principles of the motion and that members will also agree to the amendment in the name of Sarah Boyack, so that we do not lose the opportunity to track the progress of the concept and possibly give members the chance to feed into the development at a future stage.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

The city of Aberdeen is recognised as the oil and gas capital of Europe, and my constituency of Aberdeenshire West hopes to become the renewables capital. That is our mantra.

It is important that big business supports the renewables industry and uses its expert knowledge, skills and workforce to take it forward. There are many good community projects in Aberdeenshire West. For instance, as I mentioned in the chamber a couple of weeks ago, Grampian Housing Association and Huntly Development Trust have come together to work on a wind turbine project to generate local power for the community. The money that will be generated in the community will go into building affordable houses and other projects in the community. The project is wholly community owned. It is community based, community driven and community supported.

Also in my constituency, in Hill of Banchory, within the next eight to 10 weeks a biomass heating scheme will come on stream, which will support more than 600 houses, using the natural resources in the area’s woodland estates. That is the way forward: local communities taking ownership and benefiting from such projects.

Since 2007, the Scottish Government has given at least 800 grants to community projects. That is progress. That is about supporting community initiatives. Although, as far as I know, Aberdeenshire Council has no plans to become an owner of local renewable energy suppliers, it has been involved in supporting communities. I give Patrick Harvie an assurance that I am happy to engage with Aberdeenshire Council to see what more it can do on renewables and support for community initiatives in Aberdeenshire West.

The small community of Finzean, which I am probably the first to mention in the chamber—it is a word I like saying—has a fantastic community renewables project: a biomass system that supports its village hall. It also benefits from three water mills that have been there since the 19th century and which have heritage status. They continue to operate, and the energy and power that they generate support the sawmills that provide the fuel for the community’s biomass system.

There is a lot to be said for community ownership, and I endorse the communities that have done that in my constituency. Again, I say to Mr Harvie that I will engage with Aberdeenshire Council and I am happy to engage with him to take that agenda forward.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I, too, congratulate the less spiky, new-style Patrick Harvie on bringing the debate to the chamber, and confirm that his motion and Sarah Boyack’s amendment will enjoy the support of the Scottish Liberal Democrats at decision time. The issues that the motion highlights have certainly featured in our previous energy debates, but they have struggled to enjoy the prominence that they deserve in what is undoubtedly a crowded market.

As we seek to underscore Scotland’s potential to lead the way in the development of renewables, harnessing our natural resources, exploiting our skills base and capturing jobs and wealth creation opportunities, perhaps there is a risk that we will convey the message that size and scale are imperative. It is certainly true that we should aspire to nurture indigenous enterprises that are world leading in all aspects of the renewable supply chain and energy efficiency, but we also need to be alive to the opportunities for our local communities from the move to a low-carbon future. In his motion and speech, Patrick Harvie set out very well some of the ways in which that could happen that are applicable across the country, but I will pick up the minister’s implicit invitation and use Orkney to illustrate some of what is already being achieved and the potential for realising more of the objectives that are set out in the motion.

Orkney is fiercely proud of our place at the centre of the global development of marine renewables. Likewise, we take nothing but satisfaction from the interest that is now being shown by the likes of Siemens, Voith, Kawasaki, Scottish and Southern Energy, Scottish Power, E.ON and others in the various wave and tidal projects that are being progressed in the waters around our islands. If we are to avoid those technologies and industries going the same way as onshore wind in the 1970s, it is vital that we are able to demonstrate at scale what the devices can achieve. The involvement of such major industrial and energy companies in that process increases the chances of making that happen in the timescales that we need to see.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.

Patrick Harvie is right: we need to do more to demonstrate how the renewables agenda can and will serve the common good. Like Sarah Boyack, I am a strong supporter of a more decentralised model of energy generation, and I think that the potential for using smart grids has been underplayed over recent years. In Orkney, the establishment of a regulated power zone has allowed far greater flexibility in how we use our grid capacity. As a result, we have been able to unlock and unblock a host of renewables projects in the islands, many of which are community owned, that otherwise would have struggled to gain access to the grid. In turn, that has encouraged increasing numbers of community bodies, development trusts and co-operatives to bring forward projects. Most of the smaller islands in Orkney now have turbine developments that they own and from which they derive invaluable sources of revenue.

The capacity of local and community-owned projects in Orkney totals over 14MW, and more projects are in the pipeline. Orkney Islands Council has taken a stake in one of them, which demonstrates the role that local authorities can and should play in the development of the sector.

Of course, flexibility in the models that might be adopted is key, but as last year’s report by COSLA and the Scottish Futures Trust highlights, there are plenty of examples of what works from across the country, including partnership and arm’s-length options. As Patrick Harvie observed, most of the examples appear to be from south of the border, sadly, but whatever the model is, the benefits—from better utilising assets and hedging against future energy costs to generating much-needed revenue and addressing issues such as fuel poverty—can be considerable.

Orkney is showing itself to be particularly innovative in that respect. Care4Energy Ltd, which is a local co-operative venture that involves public, private and voluntary sector stakeholders, including the council, is being established, and fuel poverty reduction and the provision of access to affordable energy for all in the island community will be among its aims. I am happy to provide the minister with more details about Care4Energy and the objectives behind it. It further illustrates how the common good can be well served by co-operative endeavour and full engagement by local authorities and the public sector.

I congratulate Patrick Harvie again on securing the debate, and look forward to seeing a renewed focus and leadership on this aspect of the renewables revolution.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I, too, thank Patrick Harvie for bringing the issue of local energy companies to the chamber for an important debate.

We should remind ourselves of the Government’s ambition to increase dramatically the amount of energy that is sourced from renewables by 2020. It is clear that local energy companies have their merits in contributing towards meeting that aim. The Government says that it wishes to maximise the benefits for communities from renewable energy. In that regard, it is interesting that Patrick Harvie suggested that the debate might be confrontational. It has not been particularly confrontational, and it does not need to be, as there is a lot of common ground on the issue. Indeed, that was highlighted in his questioning of the minister after a statement on the renewable energy investment fund. Mr Harvie invited the minister to ensure that a wide range of bodies would be considered to be eligible to benefit from that fund, and the minister readily did that.

There is a lot of common ground in our starting positions on the contribution of local energy companies to the renewables agenda. That has been demonstrated by the Government’s actions in the past and during the debate. The Government’s willingness to agree to the Labour amendment will ensure that the Parliament is kept abreast of work to foster local energy companies. I look forward to hearing more about the matter.

The motion says that there is a perception that the renewables agenda benefits only big business. I probably agree; that is an unfortunate perception. Many large companies are investing considerably in renewables infrastructure and Patrick Harvie was right to say that much of that work is good, although there are perhaps some issues in that regard.

However, it would be wrong of anyone to believe that the renewables agenda is benefiting only big business. The Government’s ambition to fund and support the development of 500MW of community and locally owned renewables by 2020 will benefit communities. I was interested to hear about the community and renewable energy scheme, which is making a positive contribution by providing loans for the development of infrastructure. Of the 42 projects for which funding was announced in October 2011, 29 are community owned.

I instinctively have much sympathy with Patrick Harvie’s position on publicly owned companies, but we should reflect on two issues. First, it needs to be demonstrated that local authorities want to enter the market. A criticism that is often made of this Parliament, rightly or wrongly, is that we encumber local authorities with a burden of responsibilities that they do not want. Secondly, I take on board the minister’s comments about the limitations—fiscal, rather than legal. We can perhaps return to the issue in the future. I support the Government amendment.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I disagree with Patrick Harvie; he has not been confrontational this morning—I am sure that members who remember debates on similar subjects in the previous session of the Parliament agree. He has made a positive contribution to the debate; indeed, the Green party has brought two positive issues to the Parliament this morning for us to debate.

Like Patrick Harvie, I am a member of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Our current inquiry into the achievability of the Government’s renewables targets has thrown up two vital issues in relation to today’s debate: planning and the need to engage communities in renewables projects; and the need to ensure that we have the people, the skills and the resources to deliver projects and deliver on the targets.

If initiatives such as those that members have described and those that are mentioned in the Greens’ motion are taken forward on such a basis, we will ensure not only that cost-effective energy can be supplied in a way that is relevant to the needs of communities but that there are employment opportunities for people in schemes and that individuals who are engaged in the planning process will see the positive impact of renewable energy on them and on the wider community.

We are rubbing up against a key factor just now in this country. In general, people support the wider green agenda and what the Government is trying to achieve through renewables. However, there are concerns—sometimes fuelled by less responsible people in positions of influence—particularly around planning, cost and the employment opportunities that will be created. The debate addresses those issues specifically.

There is a role for the Scottish Government to play, as has been mentioned. There are examples of how, by providing small pockets of funding, it can facilitate change and make things happen. I will give an example from my area. The Fife works project is about giving vocational training opportunities to people in the workplace. As well as receiving funding from the Scottish Government, the project has been supported by the council and the housing association. Because of the Scottish Government’s facilitation, it is delivering and meeting local needs.

Another example is the union learning fund projects, which have been going for about 10 years. Small bits of Government funding are bringing together partners from the public and private sectors and the trade unions, which enables them to go to colleges, to come to collective arrangements and to drive down costs. There is a role for Government to play in that regard. It is not always about throwing money at something; it is about ensuring that the structures exist to get the best out of what is there.

We will not always be where we are now. There are good projects that are looking at where the opportunities might lie in the future. The University of Edinburgh is taking forward the heat and the city project, which is a good example of scanning the horizon and seeing what we can do on district heating. Patrick Harvie mentioned a great number of initiatives across the country. I would like to mention the Ecology Centre in Kinghorn in Fife, which educates young people on the needs of the environment. The centre has brought forward a proposal for wind turbines so that it can be sustainable and continue to provide opportunities.

I am happy to support the motion.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In my opening speech, I highlighted good and bad experience. Caithness Heat and Power could have benefited from the advice that is now available from Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which set up the Highlands and Islands Community Energy Company in 2004. That expertise and experience should help more local communities to develop clean energy. Last week, for example, it helped the Light House community cafe in the Hilton district of Inverness to benefit from solar installations to reduce its energy bills. As the cafe has fridges and freezers on all the time, those installations will reduce the charity’s overheads enormously.

There are undoubtedly benefits and merits in local energy companies. Given the experience of Highland Council, I am pleased that Westminster has introduced enabling legislation—the Sale of Electricity by Local Authorities (Scotland) Regulations 2010—that permits local authorities in Scotland to sell electricity that is generated from specific renewable sources. The partnership between COSLA and the Scottish Futures Trust confirms that the regulations have promoted significant interest in how such projects can be taken forward.

The first project to take advantage of the enabling legislation was a wind farm in Bristol. However, the Forestry Commission is establishing six development partnerships across Scotland, and Scottish Water is progressing a number of renewables initiatives.

The “Report on the Commercial Aspects of Local Authority Renewable Energy Production”, which was produced in August 2011 by COSLA and the Scottish Futures Trust, gives a raft of advice on the appropriate commercial structure for a project, procurement contracts and tendering, as well as the use of frameworks for the design, installation, operation and maintenance of renewables facilities. When I read the report, I felt that if that advice and support had been available at the time of the Caithness Heat and Power project, the end result might have been quite different.

The report highlights further themes for exploration and research. It would appear that we are building up expertise and experience in the development and management of community energy projects, which, in future, will surely overcome the problems that, unfortunately, were experienced in Caithness.

I could not help but link community energy to the big society idea. As was stated about a month ago in Scotland on Sunday, Philip Blond, the director of ResPublica and the man behind David Cameron’s big society idea, has cited examples of community energy projects in a new paper by his think tank. The paper, “Re-energising Our Communities: Transforming the energy market through local energy production”, is excellent in showing how communities can work together to produce energy for the common good. Blond argues that community enterprises utilising renewable energy sources are the best way in which to tackle the problem. He highlights in that regard, as I have done, the Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust in the Hebrides.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will do so in a second.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The member is in her last minute.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Also highlighted is the Fintry Renewable Energy Enterprise, which the minister highlighted.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Okay.

I agree with Patrick Harvie that leadership is required, and I thank him for the debate.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

This has been an excellent debate. The motion captures the spirit of where a lot of our constituents are at the moment and reflects the change in the world that we live in. Energy supply and energy costs are absolutely fundamental for our communities and our society as we go forward. Where people have a stake in renewables, the attitudes are very positive. Members from across the chamber have talked with pride about communities that they know and understand. Whether in Eigg, Fintry, Gigha or Aberdeen, people understand the power of local energy production and the benefits that can come from it. That understanding transforms attitudes, and we should use that.

The problem is that energy costs are huge and are not going to get cheaper. The six big companies hold sway over the costs that we all pay. We can see the appetite for change expressed in the Which? magazine campaign to get a better energy deal for people, with more than 200,000 people signing up to the switch campaign.

We can act on the issue too. It would be a great pity if that community element of Patrick Harvie’s motion was rejected, because there is a potential role for local authorities and Dundee Labour is campaigning on that aspect. Taking a decision on the risk involved would be up to local authorities, but it would be good to help them with the process, because fuel poverty scars far too many households in this country. A third of our households live in fuel poverty, and we all know that that is a disgrace. The motion gives us an agenda for tackling that situation—which I believe is a crisis, as does Citizens Advice Scotland.

The situation needs political action, because 80 per cent of the houses that will be there in 2050, which is when we need to have met our 80 per cent carbon reduction target, have already been built. The agenda is therefore difficult because it is about not just new houses but existing houses. What the motion proposes is a transformative agenda, but it needs leadership because it is hard to achieve. It is about communities collectivising and pulling people together. I believe that if the Scottish Government put the same effort into promoting community, city-based and town-wide schemes as it puts into the big-scale renewables, it could make a huge difference. Over the past 12 years, successive Governments have put massive energy into community renewables and we can see the fantastic results in our communities in the Highlands and Islands. However, we need to ensure that that happens across the whole country, which is when we will see results.

I propose that the minister holds a summit with local authorities to talk about the agenda after the dust has settled following the local council elections. We will have a raft of new councillors and there may be changes in local authority administrations. We should give them a bit of time to settle down, but we should use the time between now and then to do some work so that we kick the process up a gear, to pick up on something that was said in the previous debate today.

The Energy Saving Trust has done a huge amount of work, but there is expertise across the UK. Local authorities need to be given support, but I would be the last person to be prescriptive about what they should do. In that regard, I want to pick up on the point that Jamie Hepburn made, because it is not about telling them what to do. The motion in front of us talks about a variety of models. We should let each local authority choose what is right for it but give it the expertise. We have given local authorities legislation on climate change and they are now meant to be working towards targets on carbon reductions. We have given them renewables targets, so we should let them be part of the process and give them assistance.

There are great examples of schemes and we need to know what has worked and why. Claudia Beamish has just told me of a scheme in the Borders and there are examples in Aberdeen, Glasgow and in Highlands and Islands communities. There is a lot out there to learn from. The bit that we have not cracked in Scotland is the city-wide level. In that regard, work has been done in Birmingham that we could learn from.

So, let us move forward together. This is an agenda where we are missing a trick.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Jobs could be created. Mark Griffin and John Park mentioned that. Let us work with the further education sector and the building sector and look at trades and skills, because there is something for everyone in the agenda.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I hope that the minister will take a lead on the agenda.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The debate has been excellent, and I am grateful to the Scottish Green Party for bringing the topic to the Parliament.

Many members of all parties made useful and informative speeches, and the debate has been revelatory of just how much activity there is in the field in communities throughout Scotland. We have heard from members about schemes from Orkney, Finzean, Aboyne, Glasgow, Eigg and Caithness. That is a sign of the success of such schemes and the growing interest of communities throughout Scotland in them.

As minister, I want to work with all parties in pursuing the objectives that the Government has set out. I am especially keen to continue to work with the Green party. The principal reason why we could not accept the motion, although we approached it from the standpoint of wishing to work as closely as possible with the Greens, is the statement that local authorities should

“buy energy on the wholesale market to become a domestic supplier in the local community”.

We do not rule that out—there is no regulatory barrier to it; it is possible, legal and permissible. However, it is important to separate the two issues.

We all recognise that locally owned generation projects, projects that provide local community benefit and projects that local authorities lead and drive forward through ownership or working with local communities are all good things. Where I differ from Patrick Harvie—it is a genuine difference—is that I think that it is extremely risky for local authorities to enter into the retail and wholesale markets and I am not convinced that it would be wise and prudent for them to do that.

However, if Mr Harvie wishes to discuss the details of the proposal with my officials, I would be delighted for him to do so. I make that offer to him and hope that he takes it up because we are most sincerely determined to continue to work with him and his colleagues—and all parties—on matters on which we are fundamentally in agreement.

I have lots more technical stuff, but I will leave it because, were I to go into that territory, I would not have time to deal with anything else. I put it to one side.

To respond to Sarah Boyack’s point, we are, and have been, giving a lead. I will spell out the facts, because facts speak louder than words. Since May 2007, more than 800 grants for community renewables, worth some £16 million, have been allocated through the community and renewable energy scheme—CARES—and its predecessor. I acknowledge the work that Sarah Boyack did in her time. She gave a lead; we are following that up and giving an equal lead.

In 2011, we launched the CARES loan scheme. Grants are no longer permitted under the feed-in tariff—FIT—rules, so loans it has to be. They are for pre-planning costs and the scheme has a budget of £7.75 million. I inform members that 42 projects producing 56MW of renewable energy have been offered loans totalling £4 million.

From April—next month—there will be a public register of community benefits, which will provide transparency about the community benefits that companies offer. That will move us into a new era. The public estate is giving the lead and offering a higher financial response—£5,000 a megawatt for the Forestry Commission and, from next month, community-owned schemes in which the public sector is involved will require a much higher contribution than that.

We are driving up the tariff and companies are following. From meetings and discussions that I have had with companies, and not just big companies, I can report that many—probably not all, but many—desire to move away from paying as little as possible and want communities to feel that they are involved and valued, not exploited and abused. That is a very good thing and I strongly welcome it.

I agree entirely with Mary Scanlon’s comment that we must analyse these things very carefully. Of course, the Eigg scheme has been very successful; however, the problem with the scheme in Caithness was that it was a bit too sophisticated. We must have an honest and open recognition of the need to proceed with great care. As many members have pointed out, the Scottish Government can play an important leadership role; however, it also has an important role in ensuring that advice is given. Indeed, we have provided substantial support to the Carbon Trust and other bodies to provide advice on all manner of schemes, including schemes for energy efficiency and reduction, which I believe are coming more to the fore partly because of the work that the Greens have been doing over the years and to which I pay tribute. Many people are talking about this. It is just not enough to say, “We’ll reduce carbon emissions and have more renewable energy”; we need to focus on the two different but related issues of cutting energy use and ensuring more energy efficiency. We are giving advice on these matters to people throughout the country and it is vital that we continue that work.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Will the minister give way?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I am very sorry; I would have taken the intervention but I have only 20 seconds left.

I am looking forward to the time when, with the will of all members, the Parliament might have more time—perhaps another day in the week—to debate these issues. I felt that time was constrained this morning and that members wanted to say more. I strongly believe that if Parliament had another day to discuss these issues it would be an excellent thing. Indeed, even Mr Harvie would have more time to speak, which is something that I am sure we would all thoroughly enjoy.

In that spirit of good will and consensus, I am happy to contribute to the debate.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I thank all members for their speeches. I began by indicating that I would try to be a bit less spiky than I sometimes am but I am afraid that I am simply not willing to swap my morning coffee for camomile tea, so we will just have to settle for the standard that I manage to achieve. I have to say that I found it hardest to contain myself when Mary Scanlon suggested that we see this in the context of the big society, just as in the previous debate we were urged to see fans of cycling as fans of Boris Johnson. As members will understand, if we had thought that, we would have put it in the motion—but we don’t, so we didn’t.

Nevertheless, Mary Scanlon also mentioned certain successes and failures and talked about the need to learn lessons. I recognise and value that view, but we should also remember that lessons are only worth learning if we intend to put them into practice and I am glad that there is general cross-party support for the principle behind the motion that we need to be doing a great deal more of this activity in Scotland.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Patrick, do you agree that it would be very helpful if the big society extended to Scotland’s islands with regard to fair transmission charges?

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I remind members not to refer to each other by their first names.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I certainly agree with the point about transmission charges, although I continue to be sceptical about the big society concept.

Sarah Boyack talked about the benefits of collective action on procurement of, for example, solar panels and other renewables and also emphasised the need for leadership. It is for Government not to impose but to empower, but that is still a proactive action that Government needs to take. Sarah Boyack was also open to local government having a role in buying and selling energy.

Mark Griffin said that even having a debate on local energy companies was enough to make him smile. I am delighted to have spread a little joy around the chamber this morning.

Liam McArthur highlighted the importance of demonstrating not only new technologies but how the industry can be turned to the common good and mentioned the community benefits that have flowed from the 14MW of projects in Orkney. I very much hope that, as part of its inquiry into the renewable energy targets, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee will be able to visit Orkney and learn not only about the exciting marine developments on the islands but about equally important work focusing on the role of the community.

Fergus Ewing mentioned the 500MW target for community and local ownership and said that, instead of communities simply being the recipients of cheques, the best model was community ownership. However, the term “local ownership” is still a wee bit ambiguous. Local ownership by small businesses is not a bad thing. It is a good thing, but it is different from what we call for in the motion, which is community and public ownership. The minister said that he is uncomfortable with some of our arguments about local energy companies becoming suppliers. I am grateful for the offer to discuss the details with him or with officials—I will certainly take that up—but he placed a great deal of emphasis on the barriers. What we need is the will to overcome those barriers. I do not pretend that doing so will be easy or that we can do it with a snap of the fingers, but the political will needs to be there to do it.

Let us talk about something that we could do that might take us halfway in that direction. I give as an example a project in the Netherlands that I did not have time to mention in my opening speech. It is called—I know that I am going to mispronounce it—met de stroom mee. Apparently, the rough translation is “go with the flow”. It involves the registration of 10,000 households who have agreed to let the project negotiate on their behalf directly with the energy companies. Using the bulk purchasing power of that many households, the project went on to secure bids from energy companies at a much lower cost per household than the average that they had been paying before. Such a project in Scotland would not go all the way towards what I am talking about, but it would certainly have a role to play, whether it took place in the private sector, the public sector or under a social enterprise model.

I restate the perception that I had when I visited Laurieston in Glasgow, which I mentioned in my opening speech. The investment that could be put in from either community or public sources to enable local energy generation or district heating is only going to be there if there is some means for the people who make that investment to get it back, and if they were able to become the supplier of energy to the community, that would enable them to do that. I am sure that there will be financial risks—the minister emphasised those—but we are also passing on a massive financial gain from the industry, and the private sector is surely not the only game in town. I hope that we will not be sceptical about the basic proposition of local energy companies and that we will move forward with the proposal.

Many members mentioned projects in their communities, more in the sense of community ownership than public ownership, whether that is Dennis Robertson bringing Finzean to the chamber or Mike MacKenzie speaking poetically about Gigha. Mike MacKenzie also suggested that I have an implied antipathy to business. Not at all. I was clear in my opening speech that we recognise the central role of the private sector, but if the renewables agenda is a common endeavour, as Mike MacKenzie described it, we need a sense that the benefits are shared for the common good. I want a renewable future for Scotland, but it would be a shallow victory if it led to yet another generation of increasing economic inequality in our society.

I am grateful for the general sense that we can do much more to progress the agenda. I am sorry to say that there is a growing perception that support for renewables is a matter of supporting big business on one side or big egos on the other. It does not need to be that way. The renewables transformation will fail to secure real social benefits and a fair share of the economic benefits throughout our society, as well as the vital achievements on climate change, if we do not question the ownership structure and not just consider how quickly we can achieve the targets.

I am grateful to members for their contributions to the debate, and I look forward to further discussions with the minister on the issues.

Skills Development Scotland (Meetings)

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met Skills Development Scotland and what issues were discussed. (S4O-00849)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I last met the chair and the chief executive of Skills Development Scotland on 29 February, and I have continued to have regular phone contact with them since then. We discussed a wide range of issues relating to the training and employability of young people.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In my region of Mid Scotland and Fife, careers advisers are being removed from secondary schools and replaced with an online service. Does the minister agree that, as 102,000 young people in Scotland are without employment, it is important that any changes to the careers advisory service are evidence based and will improve employability? Will she agree to place in the Scottish Parliament information centre the evidence for such a radical change?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I am disappointed that Mr Simpson sees the change as somewhat radical. He is talking about the introduction of myworldofwork.co.uk. We all know that our young people are in many ways far in advance of members in their use of technology. It is absolutely imperative to see myworldofwork.co.uk as an addition to face-to-face services. In a global sense, the reform and modernisation of the careers information and advice service seek to enable talented front-line staff to spend more time face to face with the young people who need the services most. If I can provide Mr Simpson with any information, I am happy to do so.

Planning System

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

2. Members have not heard enough from me today.

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to make changes to the planning system. (S4O-00850)

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

Yesterday I made a statement to Parliament outlining a package of proposals to support the continuing modernisation of the planning system.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

There is a perception among some that changes to the planning system will further emphasise that it simply supports development as a matter of priority. I want to ask about the democratisation of the planning system. How will projects that are included in the national planning framework be removed from it? We have already seen the example of the proposed Hunterston coal-fired power plant, to which the local council and the Parliament objected. What is the democratic process for removing projects from the NPF?

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

As I said yesterday, the national planning framework 2 monitoring report has been launched, and I am sure that Mr Harvie will welcome the 115 environmental references in that document. Work will begin on NPF 3 this year, and I will take all matters under consideration.

On democratising the system, I am sure that, having now read the consultation document, Mr Harvie will welcome the consultation on the proposal to enhance community participation through democratising the system with a plan-led approach in which local councils are empowered to make decisions through their local plan. That is important in a place and plan-led system. I hope that that will build confidence in the planning system and ensure that local communities’ voices are heard.

Libraries and Museums

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to increase the usage of local libraries and museums. (S4O-00851)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Local museums and libraries services are provided by local authorities, which have statutory responsibility for the library service. I am pleased that, for Scotland as a whole, figures for library visitors and internet provision are rising, while our museums and galleries have an estimated 23.5 million visitors each year. The Scottish Government provides funding to support local libraries and museums and I have maintained existing levels of funding despite the pressures on public finances. I will launch a new strategy for museums and galleries at the end of this week.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The cabinet secretary might be aware that visits to libraries in West Dunbartonshire have increased by 20 per cent as a result of a variety of measures that centre on linking with community groups and learners and which allow libraries to be the one-stop shop for information. Can I encourage the Government to look at the West Dunbartonshire model to see whether there is scope for similar plans that will lead to libraries across Scotland becoming once again nationally recognised as the first place for people to go for a variety of information?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The member makes an important point and I congratulate West Dunbartonshire on the increase in library usage.

The Scottish Government has managed to maintain the £500,000 funding to the Scottish Library and Information Council to help local authorities with improvement. I would be delighted to hear more about West Dunbartonshire’s efforts, so that good practice can be shared elsewhere.

Aviation Industry

Colin Keir (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Western)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what impact the sale of BMI to International Airlines Group would have on Scottish air links, competition and consumer services. (S4O-00852)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We are very aware of concerns about the potential elimination of competition on Scotland’s services to Heathrow and the unwelcome impact that that could have on existing access and fare levels. Any deal must fully recognise those concerns.

Colin Keir (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Western)

Giving IAG a monopoly position in Edinburgh would inevitably lead to higher prices, lower frequencies, reduced services and reduced consumer choice for onward connecting travel. Has the minister made any representations, as I have done, to the European Commission, which is reviewing the case?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Through representations from the member and others, the European Commission is fully aware of our concerns about the potential negative impacts of a monopoly situation. On 8 March, the First Minister wrote to the European Commissioner for Competition, Mr Almunia, to record our concerns, and I followed that up with a further letter ahead of the Commission’s first-phase investigation deadline, which is tomorrow.

Last week in Brussels, I raised the issue in more general terms with the European Commission’s transport directorate-general. We are aware that the Commission is considering monopoly remedies. Those need to be sufficiently robust to offer protection to passengers, as the member suggests, although we do not want a sale to be delayed unnecessarily. The member raises important issues, but there are also issues to do with the current jobs and services.

New Businesses (Environmentally Sound Practices)

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

5. To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to change the law to ensure that new businesses, particularly those in recycling and renewables, maintain environmentally sound practices from start-up. (S4O-00853)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

We do not currently plan to do that, but I encourage all businesses to adopt environmentally sound practices, not only to help our environment, but because it can make good business sense. As the member might be aware, the Government laid the draft zero waste regulations before Parliament on 15 March, which will support businesses and householders in helping us to deliver a zero waste Scotland.

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

In my constituency of Midlothian North and Musselburgh, there have been incidents in which, for newly established recycling businesses, adequate monitoring has not been put in place over a lengthy period because of timing conflicts between planning conditions and Scottish Environment Protection Agency licensing. Does the cabinet secretary agree that planning legislation needs to be updated to ensure that standards relating to health and safety and antisocial behaviour are maintained at all times?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am keen to learn more about the member’s concerns. We have a planning regime in place, which in turn must deliver the recycling and other facilities that are required on the road to a zero waste Scotland.

If specific concerns have come to the member’s attention, I ask him to raise them with me. I am unaware of any plans to change the law in regard to the issue that he raises. The new zero waste regulations will place obligations on us all, including businesses, to recycle more, reduce food waste and take other measures to help to achieve a zero waste Scotland.

Youth Unemployment (Greenock and Inverclyde)

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to tackle youth unemployment in Greenock and Inverclyde. (S4O-00854)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Through the opportunities for all initiative, we will ensure that every 16 to 19-year-old in Scotland who is not in work, a modern apprenticeship or education is offered a place in learning or training. On top of the £1.8 billion that has already been invested in post-16 education and training, we are providing a further £30 million over the next three years specifically for youth employment.

That investment has been bolstered yet further with £5 million to support young people into the opportunities that are linked to major cultural and sporting events that will be hosted in Scotland in the coming years. That will be part of the Scotland-wide legacy of the 2014 Commonwealth games. Greenock and Inverclyde will benefit from that investment and will receive about £105,000 specifically to further support the delivery of the opportunities for all initiative, including its delivery through 16-plus learning choices and activity agreements.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The minister will surely recognise the disappointment that none of the £9 million balance from the initial funding allocation of £30 million to the youth employment strategy reached the Inverclyde area, which, according to the Scottish Government’s figures, has the sixth-highest claimant count in Scotland and currently has 905 young people aged 18 to 24 in receipt of jobseekers allowance. It is unacceptable that that clear unmet need failed to gain recognition in the recent funding allocation. Will the minister agree to come to Inverclyde to meet local interests and to ensure that we address the significant issue of youth unemployment in the area?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I assure Mr McNeil that no one in the Government underestimates the plight of young unemployed Scots in Inverclyde or elsewhere in Scotland and that we are determined to improve the life chances of all Scots. There was a transparent rationale for allocating that particular strand of funding, which was based on the number of young unemployed Scots and the unemployment rate among young Scots, with a correlation to long-term unemployment. The six local authorities concerned are national hot spots for unemployment.

I hear what Mr McNeil says about the 905 young people in Inverclyde. However, North Ayrshire has a claimant rate of 14.8 per cent and more than 1,700 young unemployed people, and Glasgow has 6,865 young unemployed people. In my role, with national responsibilities, I have to look at the whole of Scotland. It is not unreasonable of me to target resources where we have not only the highest number of young unemployed people but the highest claimant count. I have no doubt that I will have an opportunity to engage with Mr McNeil in Parliament and in Inverclyde to discuss issues relating to his area.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Does the minister agree that it is short-sighted of the Labour and Tory-led Inverclyde Council to reduce the number of welfare rights officers from 18 full-time officers and one part-time officer to 13 when unemployment issues are affecting all age groups and especially when there is increased demand for the services provided by welfare rights officers?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Some local authorities have retained their welfare rights services. It is for Mr McMillan to make his point about that.

On the overall support that we provide to young people the length and breadth of Scotland, in the forthcoming financial year, £18 million of additional funding is available to support young unemployed Scots, £9 million of which is nationwide and £9 million of which is targeted geographically. That is on top of a more universal provision, such as the £60 million that we spend on attaining 25,000 modern apprenticeships—a target that we have reached and which I am sure we all welcome.

Crown Estate

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland following the publication of the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Select Committee report, “The Crown Estate in Scotland”. (S4O-00855)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scottish Government welcomes all support for our long-held view that the Crown Estate’s rights and responsibilities should be devolved to Scotland. I have written to the Secretary of State for Scotland seeking a meeting to make the case for change for the benefit of Scotland’s communities.

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

While the growing consensus on devolving the Crown Estate’s functions is to be welcomed, does the cabinet secretary agree that it should be for the Scottish Parliament and not the secretary of state to decide the precise scheme for devolving those functions, so that we can put the Crown Estate’s resources to work for the benefit of local people and local communities? Will the cabinet secretary outline the timeframe for that transfer?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I agree that that should be for the Scottish Parliament to decide. That view underpins the Scottish Government’s campaign for the devolution of the Crown estate. We want the Crown estate to become much more accountable and democratised.

The administration of the Crown estate is currently reserved to the United Kingdom Government, so the timescale for change, in the short term at least, is in its hands. I hope that the secretary of state, Michael Moore, will abide by the campaign of his party in Scotland to secure the devolution of the Crown estate. Given that that is the message that his party has been giving to the people—particularly those of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland—this is his opportunity to fulfil his party’s promises.

Gaelic-medium Education (Teaching Staff)

John Finnie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made in recruiting appropriately qualified teaching staff for Gaelic-medium education. (S4O-00856)

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

The recruitment of Gaelic teachers is a priority. The Scottish Government is aware of the on-going need to recruit appropriately qualified teaching staff for Gaelic-medium education. A range of measures is in place to ensure that good progress is made with that and that sufficient teachers are available to allow Gaelic-medium education to expand.

John Finnie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To what extent does the minister believe that the on-going recruitment difficulties facing Gaelic-medium education are discouraging parents from choosing bilingual education, particularly at secondary level?

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

I acknowledge the need for more Gaelic-medium secondary teachers in particular. It is positive that, this summer, 24 newly trained Gaelic teachers will enter the profession, which is double the number that came through the system last year. Eight of them will go into secondary teaching. The Government is fully committed to ensuring that a wider range of subjects is available in a wider range of schools through the medium of Gaelic.

National 4 Qualification (Grading Standards)

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

9. To ask the Scottish Government how the new national 4 qualification will be monitored to ensure consistent grading standards nationally. (S4O-00857)

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I call the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Michael Russell, who is on his iPad.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I do not think that one is allowed to advertise, Presiding Officer—though if I were, I would.

The national 4 qualification will be monitored through Scottish Qualifications Authority benchmarking activities and the on-going monitoring of standards as the new qualifications are implemented. The SQA’s quality assurance processes for the new national 4 qualifications will support schools and colleges in achieving and maintaining national standards. The new arrangements will build on the quality assurance and moderation that are already in place locally and nationally and will draw on best practice.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

It is good that there will be local control over the curriculum for excellence, but how will it work if, say, a pupil moves from one local authority area to another? Can we be assured that there will be consistency for that pupil?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Absolutely. It is a necessity in our education system that there is a national standard. However, there must also be—as there always has been in Scottish education—flexibility from place to place and, indeed, from school to school.

Teachers will be able to find assessment material and exemplars for the new national 4 qualifications in the national assessment resource. That is an online resource and the second phase is being delivered. Draft documents have been provided and the model for national benchmarking will be similar to that for other qualifications. All those things will ensure that there is strong national quality but that education will be enriched, as it always is in Scotland, by the localisation that exists.

Marine Estate

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

10. To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on devolving the marine estate to local authorities and harbour boards. (S4O-00858)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am answering from a piece of paper, Presiding Officer.

As I indicated in my earlier response to Jim Eadie, the Scottish Government has for some time called for the Crown estate to be devolved to Scotland so that its revenues can benefit Scotland and our communities directly. We have proposed a two-phase approach to its devolution. The first phase would be to devolve responsibility to the Parliament; the second phase would be wide-ranging stakeholder consultation and discussion on the most appropriate way to manage the assets.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I urge the cabinet secretary to take a one-phase approach rather than a two-phase approach. Businesses in my constituency do not want a tax grab by the Crown Estate in London to be replaced by a tax grab by the Scottish Government. Does he accept the argument that the decommissioning industry, which will be significant for Shetland and for Scotland in the coming years, should be helped by the marine estate powers being held locally by local authorities and harbour boards instead of being held by the Scottish Government?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

It would perhaps help if Tavish Scott’s colleague Michael Moore were to devolve the Crown estate to the Scottish Parliament in the first place and stick to the pledge that his party made when campaigning in the Highlands and Islands. Michael Moore now has an opportunity to fulfil his party’s pledge to the electorate.

I said that the Government envisages a two-phase approach. First, the Scottish Parliament must have the Crown estate devolved to it. There would then be a second stage when, of course, local powers would be devolved to local communities.

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

Should the Scottish Parliament be given the powers to agree appropriate rules for community benefit from marine estate before each area is given the possibility of raising that community benefit?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

As part of the discussions on devolution of the Crown estate in Scotland, we would review the arrangements under the coastal communities fund, to ensure that there were appropriate rules for community benefit. As I said in answer to a previous question, I have requested a meeting with Michael Moore to discuss how we can get the Crown estate devolved to Scotland, where it belongs, as soon as possible.

Engagements

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00591)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will be meeting Fergus Ewing, the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism. I am delighted to tell the chamber that figures this morning show that we have smashed the Government’s target to meet 31 per cent of Scotland’s electricity demand from renewables in 2011 by reaching a figure of no less than 35 per cent, which is an extraordinary achievement for Scotland.

I should also inform the chamber that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, is participating in this morning’s United Kingdom Government COBRA meeting to discuss the tanker drivers’ dispute. We will hold our own Scottish Government resilience meeting this afternoon to ensure that sensible contingencies are in place to deal with any eventuality. I reinforce support for those who are calling for cool heads in the situation. I welcome the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service talks that are taking place tomorrow. I urge both sides to resolve a dispute for which no strike dates have yet been called. The priority is surely to prevent a strike, not to issue unwise advice about jerry cans. More Government preparation is what is required to promote calm and orderly behaviour in the population at large.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

It was reported this week that seven out of 10 primary school pupils are succeeding in numeracy but, two years later at secondary school, nearly six out of ten of them are failing. Why is it that so many of our secondary school children do not have basic counting skills?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

There are two aspects to the statistics that have been released that I think we should stress as a chamber. First, the statistics show the dramatic, extraordinary effect of curriculum for excellence in our primary schools. The teachers, pupils and parents of Scotland should be celebrating these incredible, very substantial statistics—where curriculum for excellence has been introduced, it is showing marvellous results.

Secondly, as far as the secondary school statistics are concerned, the figure of 40 per cent that has been widely reported is a measurement that relates to where pupils are expected to be at the end of secondary 3, not just where they are in S2. The statistics surely indicate that we are on the right track in introducing curriculum for excellence—I hope that we can all welcome that.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I do not think that the statistics indicate any such thing. Indeed, both the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association and Lindsay Paterson have said that Mike Russell’s claim that the improvement in primary school numeracy skills is due to the curriculum for excellence is wrong, as it is far too early for the curriculum for excellence to have had any impact. He may wish to reflect on that.

Perhaps I can explain this serious issue in a way that the First Minister might understand. The odds of a second-year pupil in Scotland hitting the required numeracy standards are 3-2 against. Those might be good odds if someone wants to win a few bob at Musselburgh, but they are not so good for those of us who are parents sending our children to school under the Scottish National Party.

In 2003, Labour introduced a cap of 20 pupils for every S1 and S2 English and maths class to raise literacy and numeracy standards. The First Minister dropped that pledge. Does he agree that Scottish pupils are now paying the price for that mistake?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

That is really not the way to treat this extraordinarily serious subject. First, we should not downgrade the achievements at primary school level. The survey itself is an indication of national performance in numeracy. We never had these statistics before—in all the years of Labour and Liberal administration, we did not even choose to measure numeracy. Having measured it, let us at least have the grace to congratulate our teachers, in particular, and our pupils. The survey shows that 99 per cent of primary 4 pupils and 98 per cent of primary 7 pupils were performing within or above the expected levels. In anyone’s terms, however it is calculated, that is an exceptional result.

I will just correct Johann Lamont about the secondary school figures. Forty-two per cent of S2 pupils were performing very well or well at the level that must be met by the end of S3, and a further 26 per cent were performing within that level. I know that that is not necessarily the shortened version that was reported, but that is what the statistics show.

I will say three things. First, it is right to take a measurement, because if we do not have a measurement, how on earth can we have a baseline against which to measure standards? Secondly, we have substantial indications that curriculum for excellence is producing extraordinary results through the work and dedication of teachers in our primary schools. Thirdly, although we have had challenges in secondary schools, let us not exaggerate what the statistics mean. Let us continue on the path of introducing curriculum for excellence throughout Scottish education, so that the exceptional performance in our primary schools can soon be replicated in our secondary schools.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The First Minister says that I should take this question seriously; it is about time that he took his job seriously and answered the question. The thing about statistics is that we cannot select the ones that make us feel good about ourselves—which the First Minister has done. Government has to respond to what the statistics say. The statistics tell us that there is a two in five chance of being numerate in secondary school in Scotland. That should be a spur to action, not to a scurrying about for some justification. As I have indicated, that is a nonsense.

The First Minister and I might not agree on education policy generally, but I am sure that we can agree that there is nothing as negative in politics as a promise not kept. Let us look at the promises that he made to Scotland’s parents and pupils: a nursery teacher for every child, promised but not delivered; a maintaining of teacher numbers, promised but not delivered; class sizes of 18 or fewer for primary 1 to 3, promised but not delivered; the curriculum for excellence that he talks about, promised but not delivered; and today, two guaranteed hours of physical education every day, promised, now repromised, and still not delivered. I make that zero out of five—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order. We will hear the member.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The First Minister should understand what he promised and his failure to deliver—if he wants to make a difference for the people of this country. I make the First Minister’s record zero out of five. I could go on. Let me explain to him that education is a priority for every parent in Scotland. Does he not understand that there is nothing crueller than making promises to children that he has no intention of keeping?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

And there is nothing dafter than making things up, if I may say so.

In her question, Johann Lamont managed to say that we had made a pledge for two hours of PE every day. I am afraid that Johann Lamont should read her papers out better. She also said that we had made a pledge for a nursery teacher for every child, but not even the Scottish National Party has made such pledges. This all indicates that both numeracy and literacy are probably very important in the chamber as well as in Scottish classrooms.

The pledges of the SNP Government were judged by the Scottish people at last year’s election, and Labour deputy leader Johann Lamont and her party were found sadly wanting.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

A lot of young people will be sitting exams in the near future and, as teachers, we always knew to advise them, “Answer the question.” Again, the First Minister fails to do that.

Last week, the First Minister’s health secretary was bottom of the class, and—despite his protestations—his education secretary, Mike Russell, has the dunce’s cap this week. We found out last Thursday that the First Minister will deny the truth until he is confronted by it. What a shame that the public gallery is not big enough to seat the 30,000 second-year pupils his Government is failing in numeracy alone. While he waits for Scotland’s future to be decided in his referendum in 1,000 days, the future of young Scots is being determined today. In the spirit of being helpful, if the First Minister cannot keep his own promises, may I offer him one of ours? Will he, as a matter of urgency, bring specialist teams into our schools to help our children to learn how to count?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

It would be helpful to Scottish education and to the chamber if Johann Lamont would try to take a balanced view and consider the statistics, the details of which I have given to the chamber. Also, somebody who made two such elementary and appalling blunders when asking her questions should not start talking about dunce’s caps. I am answering Johann Lamont’s questions having interpreted them as best as anybody possibly could. I am not responsible if she cannot think of the right questions.

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00589)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

Johann Lamont has just rightly raised a string of Scottish National Party Government failures on education, which will result by the end of the current session of Parliament in a generation of schoolchildren who have been failed by the SNP. The Government’s answer—apart from attacking the critic—is that curriculum for excellence will solve all the problems. That claim was directly attacked by teaching unions yesterday as “not credible”. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning was even more blasé, dismissing the worrying maths failures as

“the same as they have been for the last few generations”.

What a depressing lack of ambition. Is the First Minister satisfied that Mike Russell’s answer is good enough?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As I mentioned to Johann Lamont, this is the first time that such a survey has been conducted in Scottish education. Conducting the survey is a sign of our commitment to drive up standards of literacy and numeracy in Scottish schools. I repeat to Ruth Davidson what I said to Johann Lamont: she should consider the exceptional figures in primary education, where curriculum for excellence has been introduced. I will repeat them: 99 per cent of primary 4 pupils and 98 per cent of primary 7 pupils are performing within or above expected levels. That strikes me as substantially good and an excellent performance.

The survey indicates that we have challenges to meet in secondary education, but it allows us the hope and belief that curriculum for excellence will help in that process. That view is supported by Scotland’s teaching union, the Educational Institute of Scotland, which is a strong supporter of curriculum for excellence and sees its value, perhaps because it has so many members in primary schools.

I was struck, at the Conservative Party conference—

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

You were not there—Chic Brodie was.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The member says that I was not there; neither was anyone else by the look of it.

I was struck by Ruth Davidson’s pledge to the Labour Party that

“Scotland expects us to work together, and we are.”

That is the truth of it: the two anti-independence parties are united in their negativity and nihilism.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

Chic Brodie tried to get into the conference, for a start.

There was no attempt in that answer to address the massive drop-off in standards that is failing our secondary school pupils. That is why the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association said that using curriculum for excellence as a sticking plaster is not a credible position. Last week, the education secretary was forced into a U-turn because teachers know that their schools are simply not ready to deliver the new exams. He had been turning a deaf ear to them for months.

It is not just teachers: chairs of university courts are deeply unhappy about the Government’s plans for university governance, and college students are worried about cut courses. One of our most respected educationists, Professor Lindsay Paterson, is warning that teachers are being failed in their training and that many are not competent enough to teach maths. That comes 15 months after the Government’s own report, by Graham Donaldson, said the same thing.

Amid that growing chorus of criticism, we have an education secretary who is arrogant enough to think that he knows better than the educational experts, the universities and the college students, and who is magisterially dismissive of schoolteachers. Is it not time for the First Minister to get on top of the education secretary, call him into his office and demand that he stops failing Scotland’s young people?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will have to decline that invitation. I did not think that it was Chic Brodie who was trying to get into the Tory conference—I thought that it was Brian Donohoe, who was then turned away.

On the serious issue of the survey, as Ruth Davidson seems to regard my and Mike Russell’s answers with some scepticism—although the Tories do not have a single idea on Scottish education—I will quote Professor Gordon Stobart from the Institute of Education at the University of London. He said:

“Scotland has, in the SSLN, a national resource that other countries can only envy. National surveys are a trusted way of assessing national standards ... When the SSLN findings are then used to develop resources and support for teachers they also offer a powerful formative contribution to teaching and learning.”

The survey, which indicates the excellence of the results in primary schools, which not even Ruth Davidson can deny, is part of a process of driving up standards in Scottish education. The ability to do that, against extraordinary funding cuts from Westminster—the greatest in living memory—is a singular achievement of this Government.

Finally—this will be the first and last time that I quote the Daily Mail in the chamber—on the day on which the front page of the Daily Mail’s front page says of the Westminster Government, “Pasties, Petrol and the Politics of Panic”, I hardly think that it behoves any Tory to lecture this Government about competence.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The First Minister will be aware of the on-going situation on the Elgin platform that is operated by Total in the North Sea. What input has the Scottish Government had into the on-going monitoring, and what discussions has it had with United Kingdom ministers and industry representatives regarding contingencies for gas supply? Will he join me in welcoming the speedy evacuation of the platform, which ensured that the safety of hundreds of offshore workers was not placed at risk?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am glad that Mark McDonald included the last part of his question, as all of us should welcome the safe evacuation of personnel from the Elgin offshore platform.

Members will also wish to be aware that Richard Lochhead and Scottish Government officials have been in regular contact with Total and the UK Government about the on-going incident. Yesterday, a governmental interest group met to monitor the Elgin incident. The meeting was attended by Marine Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Government, alongside the Department of Energy and Climate Change, a representative of the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the Health and Safety Executive and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. That group will now meet on an on-going basis.

Through Marine Scotland, the Scottish Government is responsible for the marine environment. Marine Scotland’s scientists are, therefore, continuing to review any environmental implications. Thus far, they are minimal but, nonetheless, we should not underestimate the serious of the incident.

We will remain in close contact with the primary responders about the incident. We have made it clear to Total and others that the Scottish Government will continue to assist in any way that we can and that we insist on total transparency in terms of the release of information.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Cowdenbeath)

Speaking of working together and protecting our people, will the First Minister join me in condemning the change in the approach of the Ministry of Defence under the Tory-led coalition? It is now saying that it will not accept liability for the radiation in Dalgety Bay, whereas the previous Labour Government said that it would. Will the First Minister request an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister and demand that the polluter-pays principle be urgently applied and honoured in Dalgety Bay in order to address the concerns that have been put to me by my constituents? It is important that the First Minister personally meets the Prime Minister to add his voice to the many from across my constituency and right along the coast. Indeed, Roderick Campbell has even written on the matter.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I do not underestimate the seriousness of this issue. I am not sure that the MOD has ever acted with any great alacrity on the issue in the recent past. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is insisting on the application of the regulations on environmental clean-up and on a proper reflection of the polluter-pays principle. We should allow those processes to take their course, and discussions are not at an end yet. With regard to Helen Eadie’s suggestion of personal intervention with the Prime Minister, I think that we might well reach the stage at which that will be required. I do not by any means rule that out.

It is necessary—Helen Eadie could reflect on this—that we approach the issue in a way that reflects its seriousness for the residents of the area and for the Scottish environment, and that we, as a Parliament, insist that the polluter-pays principle is reflected in the action to come.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00576)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister’s Government previously described proposals in the Scotland Bill as a “dog’s breakfast”, “a poison pill” and “dangerous”. The First Minister had six red lines. Last week, he decided to support the Scotland Bill. What has been the major change to it that we have missed? What has changed?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have always been struck by some of the comments that I have heard from the Liberal Democrats. I understood that the six things that we suggested as improvements to the Scotland Bill either were or have been at some time Liberal Democrat policy. I can understand the political debate but, as far as I understand the Liberal Democrats’ position, they are celebrating the fact that they have not managed to implement their own policy. Perhaps that is the nasty effect of their senior partners in the coalition, who must be an increasing and daily embarrassment for Willie Rennie and his colleagues. That is, of course, the principal reason why Willie Rennie has so few colleagues in the Parliament.

The Scotland Bill has been overtaken by events. Very shortly, the people of Scotland will have the opportunity to transform our circumstances, and I very much believe that we will seize that opportunity.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I can understand why the First Minister might be a wee bit reluctant to tell us that he was satisfied with two reviews over three years and a major concession on—listen to this—dental hygienists. He is some negotiator. If he tears up his red lines like that on devolution, how will he manage on independence, when he has to negotiate with the rest of the world?

The Scotland Bill is a major step forward, and the powers in it are coming soon. How does the First Minister plan to use the stamp duty power and what will be the first capital projects that will benefit from the new borrowing powers?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I do not think that capital budgets are a particularly strong point for the Liberal Democrats at the moment, given that the Westminster Government cut Scotland’s capital budget by 30 per cent. Methods of increasing the capital budget have been found only through John Swinney’s ingenuity and strength.

Let me return to where Willie Rennie stands. [Interruption.] I know that he stands over there—he just does not ask the questions very well. Only a few seconds ago, Tavish Scott was electrifying the chamber with a demand for the double devolution of the Crown estate. That was one thing that we suggested should be in the Scotland Bill—incidentally, the Scottish Parliament voted overwhelming for that policy. As far as I understand it, Willie Rennie’s position is that not putting that in the Scotland Bill is not an embarrassment for the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is meant to believe in it, or a comment on the Westminster Government for not accepting the verdict of its own parliamentary committee that the Crown estate should be devolved, but a comment on the Scottish National Party Government, which wants it there. That is exactly why, when it comes to the referendum, people will vote to take the future of our country into our own hands so that we are not dependent on Tories and Liberals at Westminster.

Alcohol Pricing

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

4. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government on alcohol pricing. (S4F-00594)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

There are continuing discussions. We have had extensive discussions at both ministerial and official level with the UK Government. Scotland is somewhat ahead of the game in taking bold action to tackle alcohol misuse, and last week’s news that the UK Government is moving on to that ground is extremely welcome.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I welcome the Scottish Government’s leadership on the issue.

As the First Minister will be aware, Scots drink nearly a quarter more than their counterparts in England and Wales, and that fuels the much higher levels of alcohol-related harm here. Indeed, it has been estimated that the total cost of alcohol misuse to Scotland averages £3.6 billion every year. Does he agree that it is important to find consensus on such an important cause? Does he, as I do, find it difficult to understand and, frankly, pathetic that the only party that continues to oppose minimum pricing is the Scottish Labour Party?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

That is a perfectly legitimate question, but Gil Paterson should be fully accurate. As I understand the position, not all of the Scottish Labour Party opposes minimum pricing. I am not talking about just Malcolm Chisholm, who has been an honourable supporter of that policy. Johann Lamont leads the Scottish Labour Party as a whole, but the Scottish Labour Party’s representatives at Westminster are in favour of minimum pricing, as I understand it from last Friday’s statement. We have a situation in which the Scottish Labour Party at Westminster is in favour of minimum pricing for England, but the Scottish Labour Party in Scotland, by majority, is against it for Scotland, where our difficulties with alcohol are even greater than England’s. It will require all Johann Lamont’s numerical and literary skills to resolve that dilemma.

I welcome the fact that, in the space of only a few months, we have managed to convince UK Government ministers that the hitherto unbreakable legal obstacles that they thought prevented the introduction of minimum pricing have somehow magically disappeared. I suspect that a few other legal obstacles will magically disappear when the people of Scotland indicate their determination on a variety of matters.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

May I add to Gil Paterson’s comments by saying that although Scots drink 23 per cent more than people in England, they do so at exactly the same price as people in England pay for their drinks? The position of the Scottish Labour Party is that we remain very sceptical of minimum unit pricing.

Does the First Minister accept that there is validity to our greatest concern, which is the windfall profits of more than £100 million—in UK terms, the figure is likely to be more than £1 billion—which will go mainly to the supermarkets? Does he accept that the unintended consequences of such a windfall, the dangers of which have been pointed out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, are important? Will he look again at the fact that the Scottish Labour Party, despite its scepticism, is offering to make the policy one that has unanimous support, provided that the Government agrees to claw back the entire windfall profits?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As I understood the Labour Party’s position, it was against the health-related levy on major supermarkets, too. If this is another change of policy, I welcome it, of course. It would be far better if Richard Simpson gracefully accepted that Labour is going to have to get on board the minimum pricing argument. In the context of Labour’s embarrassment, I suspect that the sooner the party gets to that position, the better.

College Courses

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to recent reports of reductions in the number of college courses across the country. (S4F-00595)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Hugh Henry is aware that the Scottish Government is committed to maintaining student college places in 2012-13. Many colleges are moving their provision away from short-term courses that do not lead to qualifications, to give greater focus to longer-term courses that lead to recognised qualifications, which improve students’ employment prospects.

The shift to high-quality full-time places is reaping benefits. The most recent figures show a 9 per cent increase in the number of full-time students on advanced courses and a 1 per cent increase for full-time non-advanced courses. Even better, students are achieving more. Completion rates have increased from 64 per cent to 67 per cent for advanced courses and from 60 per cent to 62 per cent for non-advanced courses. I hope that Hugh Henry can find it in himself to welcome those encouraging indications.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

What is actually happening in Scotland’s colleges is completely different from what the First Minister is saying in the Parliament. Recent figures show that 592 academic staff have been made redundant and at least 23 colleges have cut courses, with more cuts to come. Reid Kerr College, in Paisley, which is an excellent college, is having to cut an additional 800 student places. Does he think that that is acceptable?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The statistics are as I gave them, so if Hugh Henry does not believe me, perhaps I should give him the absolute detail. The number of full-time enrolments on further education courses has gone from 42,745 in 2007-08 to 48,683 last year, and the figure for higher education courses has gone from 24,900 to 30,947. Hugh Henry should accept that the figures show an encouraging trend. The completion rates on the courses are a tribute to lecturers and students and the hard work that they are putting in.

Cities and Towns (Economic Performance)

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the recent UHY Hacker Young report on the economic performance of cities and towns. (S4F-00597)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The report is encouraging, because it indicates the outstanding economic strength of Scotland’s cities. In terms of gross value added per head, three of the top five United Kingdom cities are in Scotland. Aberdeen was the fastest-growing city in the year to 2010, and gross value added per head in Edinburgh was the highest of any UK city. It is recognised that cities can be an engine of growth in the economy. The Scottish Government’s agenda for cities strategy will build on that success and deliver benefits, not just for cities but for the whole of Scotland.

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

I welcome the First Minister’s recognition that, despite the tough economic climate, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh are all ranked in the top five in that report, with the people of Edinburgh being the biggest contributors to the UK economy. What further steps is the Scottish Government taking to build on that success and to encourage more jobs and more investment into and across Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Scottish Government, in partnership with our agencies Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International, continues to encourage domestic and international companies to make significant investment in our cities. Just last week, Gamesa announced that it plans to create 800 jobs in the city of Edinburgh, as it locates its new manufacturing plant for wind turbine blades in Leith. That is further to recent announcements by companies such as Global Energy in Nigg, Michelin in Dundee and Amazon in Dunfermline, which, together, will create thousands of new jobs across Scotland.

Today, the Scottish Enterprise plan and programme was announced, which has an ambition to create 35,000 jobs by 2015 through foreign direct investment. In contrast to the lack of a plan for coherent growth in Westminster—that is Vince Cable’s assessment of George Osborne’s strategy—regions in Scotland continue to lead the way. Last month’s fDi Magazine “European Cities and Regions of the Future 2012/13” report ranked Edinburgh and Glasgow as numbers 1 and 2 in the top 10 of European cities with a population of between 500,000 and 1 million. There is a great deal to welcome in the economic performance of Scotland’s cities and the wider benefits that that will bring to the Scottish community as a whole.

12:31 Meeting suspended.

14:15 On resuming—

NHS Lothian (Meetings)

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive when the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy last met NHS Lothian and what issues were discussed. (S4O-00859)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I last met the chair and, separately, the chief executive of NHS Lothian on 21 March to discuss the findings of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report into NHS Lothian’s waiting times management and processes. I made clear to them, as I did to the Parliament last week, my expectations of NHS Lothian in responding to the findings of the report.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Following the waiting times scandal at NHS Lothian, a number of Lothian members have been contacted by staff complaining about a culture of bullying, pressure from management and understaffing, which has impacted on patient care. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that we cannot ignore those issues. She has already told me that she will not conduct a fully independent and comprehensive review of NHS Lothian. What, then, will she do to look into those serious matters?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am pretty sure that the member was in the chamber last week when I made a statement on the issue. I made it clear that I have tasked the chair of NHS Lothian with carrying out a comprehensive review of the suggestion in the PWC report that there was a cultural problem in NHS Lothian that prevented staff from bringing concerns to light. That review will be carried out. As I said last week, I made it clear to the chair that I expect to see the outcome of that work by the end of April. I am sure that the Parliament will pay close attention to that and will ensure, as I will, that any further action that needs to be taken is taken.

As I think I said last week, a senior expert team of my officials is working with NHS Lothian to ensure that some of the underlying issues that were identified in the PWC report—on capacity planning and what must be done to ensure that all patients are treated within the guaranteed time, as they have a right to expect—are resolved and addressed. The team will continue to work with NHS Lothian for as long as is required. If Neil Findlay or any other member has specific issues or concerns that they want to bring to my attention at any time, I would welcome that, and he has my assurance that they will be treated extremely seriously.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

My question follows on from the cabinet secretary’s final point. Many patients throughout Lothian who have had issues with their appointments might be concerned that those issues could point to wider problems additional to the ones that were identified by the PWC report. Will the cabinet secretary say how individuals who suspect that they have fallen victim to appointment irregularities can best bring their experiences to the attention of the officials at NHS Lothian who are investigating the issue?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

That is an important question, which I will answer as quickly as I can and with a number of key points. The patients who were given offers of appointments in England at unduly short notice—we should remember that that was the issue that brought the whole episode to light—have now all been treated. The patients who surfaced on to the waiting list at the end of last year as having already reached the waiting time in the guarantee are in the process of being treated. We are working with NHS Lothian. I have made clear to it the expectation that those patients must be treated as quickly as possible.

Marco Biagi raises a legitimate question about other patients who are concerned that their appointment time or waiting time might have been affected. Any patient who is in that position should make those concerns known to the health board. All health boards have a well-established complaints procedure. I say to Marco Biagi, as I said to Neil Findlay, that any member who wants to bring constituents’ concerns to my attention is perfectly free to do so, and those will be given due consideration.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In June 2008, I raised my concerns about the level of deletion of patients from waiting lists for social reasons under the new system. As we know, since then, the level has tripled. In October last year, I suggested that there was manipulation of the data, but I was told that I was exaggerating. However, we now know that, for Lothian, the situation was actually worse than I originally thought.

Why does the cabinet secretary not accept that a broader look across all health boards is required? Has the Information Services Division not warned, or at least advised, her of the concerns—other than those about information technology in Glasgow and Grampian—of variation in other boards?

The retrospective changes measure was supposed to be exceptional. In some boards, the number of those changes is in only single digits. In others, it is in the hundreds. Within boards, there is a variation from single digits or tens to hundreds—indeed, sometimes 400 or 500. That level of variation does not smack of an exceptional measure. We still think that a full independent investigation is required. Will the cabinet secretary agree to that?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I will take those points in turn, because they are all serious and I think that they all deserve serious consideration and serious answers.

The ISD has not brought specific concerns to our attention. Had it done so on any occasion, the concerns would have been treated as seriously as Richard Simpson would expect.

Patients who are socially unavailable are not deleted from anywhere. One of the key differences between the new ways waiting time system and the old system, which the previous Administration presided over, is that patients who are unavailable do not lose their waiting time guarantee; instead, they have a period of unavailability.

I understand why Richard Simpson talks about the rise in unavailability, although in recent quarters, unavailability has been coming down again. As he is a clinician, I am sure that he will understand the point that unavailability has increased as waiting times have reduced because as waiting times reduce, the notice that patients get for appointments also reduces. Therefore, there is an understandable increase in the number of patients who have short-term unavailability.

I think that I quoted in the chamber last week a statistic that I will quote again, because it is important: three quarters of all patients with a period of social unavailability have a period of unavailability of less than three weeks. That suggests that that statistic is in line with the phenomenon that I have just described.

I assure Richard Simpson and other members that we are looking very carefully at all those things. As I said last week, all chief executives have assured me of the appropriate use of new ways and unavailability.

I consider those things carefully on an on-going basis. In 2010, Audit Scotland carried out a review of new ways. It updated that review in the middle of last year and said that it did not consider that any further investigation was required. However, as I said last week, I have asked all boards to carry out an internal audit. We will seek Audit Scotland’s advice on the terms of that audit, because it is important that we ask boards to audit the right things.

Members should be under no illusion about how seriously I take this issue. Staff in our health service have worked incredibly hard to get waiting times to their lowest level ever. I will not allow any health board to compromise the integrity of that record through any misuse of the system. I will take any action that is required of me.

PIP Breast Implants

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency regarding PIP breast implants. (S4O-00860)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Scottish Government officials have been in regular contact with colleagues in the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority and the Department of Health about PIP silicone breast implants.

I take this opportunity to inform members that we have recently been advised that one patient from NHS Highland received PIP implants at St John’s hospital in 2006. Our extensive checks have not identified any further patients who had PIP implants on the NHS. Therefore, with that one exception, the position remains that no NHS patients were affected.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

There are many issues and anxieties for the women affected. I will raise a couple on behalf of a constituent who has contents of a ruptured PIP implant inside her body. First, will the cabinet secretary put pressure on the MHRA to analyse the contents of my constituent’s implants, which were removed by the NHS? Failing that, will she ensure that the contents are tested in Scotland? Secondly, given that the MHRA put out an alert two years ago this month, is it not reprehensible that the women affected heard nothing about the problem until December 2011?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Malcolm Chisholm will appreciate that two reviews are on-going just now. The one into the more recent incidents around notification and how the matter was handled is due to report soon. It is appropriate for all of us to wait and see what that review has to say about whether all the correct information was given at the correct time.

I understand the reason for Malcolm Chisholm’s first question and the desire to ensure not only that all the women affected get the clinical care, treatment and support that they need and deserve, but that the right testing and data audit are carried out so that lessons can be learned. The MHRA is responsible for collecting all the evidence, but that does not require it to retrieve every PIP implant, although it needs sufficient evidence to carry out the checks.

I will pass the concerns that Malcolm Chisholm has raised on behalf of his constituent to the MHRA, and I will be happy to share its response with him.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the report that was published this week by the House of Commons Health Committee, which criticised as

“flying in the face of common sense”

the situation whereby women who are entitled to the removal of PIP implants on the national health service for clinical reasons, because their private provider refuses treatment or because the provider no longer exists, must have any replacement surgery done separately, outside the NHS, even if they are prepared to pay for the replacement as part of the same surgery. In those limited circumstances, will the cabinet secretary give consideration to how a single removal and replacement surgery might be possible, particularly in view of the risk for women of undergoing two surgeries in rapid succession?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am more than happy to give consideration to that. We will give careful consideration to the House of Commons committee report, which was published this week. I have made clear on previous occasions our position on removal and replacement: any woman whose private provider has not delivered the level of service that I would expect it to deliver will be cared for appropriately within the NHS. The NHS will not routinely replace implants unless there is a clinical reason to do so. When there is a clinical reason, I expect the decision whether there should be one or two operations to be a clinical decision as well. There is guidance on co-payment arrangements in the NHS, which I expect would apply. Many of the issues require clinical decisions, and I expect clinicians in the NHS who are dealing with any women in that situation to put the clinical needs of the women first. That is our clear expectation of the NHS.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

We have been dealing with extraordinarily important matters, but if we can have succinct questions and answers we might get to the end of the questions.

Child Poverty

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

3. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made with its child poverty strategy. (S4O-00861)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Last Thursday, we laid in the Parliament our first annual report for the child poverty strategy for Scotland. It highlights a range of measures that we have taken since the publication of the strategy, such as the inception of a £270 million early years change fund. The actions that are highlighted in the report are extremely important, and it is crucial that we continue our efforts to tackle poverty in Scotland. However, the reality is that, without the Parliament having control of the tax and benefits systems, our ability to make real progress on the headline figures is severely restricted.

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

I welcome the range of work that the Scottish Government is undertaking, within the powers that are available to it, to lift children and families out of poverty and to reduce the pressure on household budgets through the social wage. The social wage is, once again, under attack from the opponents of universal benefits, who argue that measures such as the council tax freeze and free prescriptions benefit only the well-off. Does the minister agree that it is struggling households and the working poor for whom such benefits are of particular importance and that, without the relief on household incomes that the social wage provides, many more children and families would be left vulnerable?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The Government is very much committed to the social wage for Scots in order to protect their incomes, especially in the face of the welfare spending cuts that are being imposed by the United Kingdom Government.

The implementation of the social wage has involved a range of different matters to ensure that we protect Scottish families, particularly those who are most vulnerable and who have young children.

We have met a number of our commitments in implementing the social wage, from free concessionary travel through to abolishing prescription charges, and we are implementing the living wage in the areas of public sector responsibility that we have direct control over.

We recognise that to assist us in continuing to make significant progress in tackling issues around child poverty, we need to deal with two of the most fundamental factors—taxation and welfare. Until we are in a position to have control over those areas, we will have to continue to try to mitigate the actions that are taken by UK Governments.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

I join Christina McKelvie in welcoming the publication of the report and many of the actions identified in it. However, it was my understanding that the child poverty figures were also due to be published towards the end of the month. If that is now not the case, will the minister advise why, and will he indicate whether he expects that the latest figures will show a decrease, an increase or no change?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

All the detail is provided in the annual report. It is the first annual report and we are listening to different stakeholders on how they might wish future reports to be formulated.

The most recent statistics on child poverty—which have been published independently—are from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It carried out an analysis of the impact that the UK Government’s taxation and benefit changes will have on the UK as a whole. It indicated that, by 2021, almost 700,000 more young children in the UK will find themselves in poverty as a result of that policy.

As a Government, we will do what we can to try to mitigate some of the measures, but the two key factors that continue to drive child poverty in this country are taxation and benefits. We can talk as loudly as we want in demanding that the UK Government does different things on this agenda, but until we have the powers to deal with those factors ourselves, we will continue to struggle to tackle the scourge of child poverty in Scotland.

Attendance Allowance (Care Home Residents)

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the withdrawal of attendance allowance for residents in care homes in Scotland who are supported by free personal and nursing care contributions. (S4O-00862)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The removal of the attendance allowance to self-funders in care homes in Scotland was estimated to have saved the Department for Work and Pensions £23 million in 2002. Current estimates of the saving to DWP sit at around £300 million over the past 10 years. Despite repeated attempts to resolve the matter, we have been unable to reach a successful conclusion. However, we continue to raise the matter on appropriate occasions with the UK Government.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her response and also for her efforts on the attendance allowance. I was going to ask her for an estimate, but I understand from her answer that £300 million has been taken out of the pockets of older people in Scotland as a result of the petty “you’re no havin it” attitude of the UK Government. Will she advise how we could repatriate the powers to Scotland to ensure that that no longer happens? [Interruption.]

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

If Jackie Baillie wants to answer the question and say that the best future for the people of Scotland is as an independent country, I would be the first to welcome her to her feet. For once, that would be something that we could agree on.

The issue is serious and I hope that it is one on which we can all agree. I gave Fiona McLeod the estimated figure in my initial answer. The saving is closer to £320 million. Let me put that as a cost to individuals—it breaks down to almost £4,000 a year from the potential income of each individual who self-funds their care. I hope that we can all unite to put pressure on the UK Government to change its position and repatriate the funds but, if, as I suspect, it continues to take the same approach, that is just one more of many, many reasons why getting the powers to this Parliament would be the best outcome.

Medical Negligence Complaints (Guidelines)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what good practice guidelines are given to national health service boards for handling medical negligence complaints. (S4O-00863)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The NHS complaints procedure good practice guidance was recently reviewed to reflect the provisions in the Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011. The revised guidance will be available shortly and I will ask my officials to provide the member with a copy.

Legal actions for medical negligence are not dealt with under the NHS complaints procedure. When a patient indicates that they wish to pursue a damages claim against an NHS board, Scottish Government advice to the patient and the board is to seek the advice of legal professionals. The central legal office handles individual legal actions and provides advice to NHS boards on them.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Will the cabinet secretary acknowledge the sometimes difficult distinction between medical negligence and negligence in care? I receive many complaints from elderly people and their families about care beyond the medical. Dignity and care for the elderly at Hairmyres hospital were discussed yesterday by the board of NHS Lanarkshire. Unfortunately, the report was verbal; I am not able to access it and am waiting for information. By giving an assurance that she is keeping a watching eye on care for the elderly, can the cabinet secretary offer any comfort to people who may have formed a perception about hospital care for the elderly beyond their medical treatment?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Linda Fabiani raises an important issue. Without wanting to generalise—although I may be a little anecdotal—I hear many complaints about the issue of dignity and care, as opposed to medical treatment. That is especially true for the elderly. The complaints procedure in the NHS has been strengthened by the Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011. I feel strongly that, if patients have a complaint, they should exercise their right to complain. That will allow lessons to be learned.

Not only will I keep a watching eye on care for the elderly, but I have instructed that inspections of care for the elderly be carried out by Healthcare Improvement Scotland. The first of those inspections has been conducted, and the first inspection reports will appear soon. I am sure that issues for improvement will be highlighted, which is as it should be. Every older person deserves the best possible standard of care, which is what the inspections are designed to help to deliver.

Methadone Detoxification

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive what structures the national health service has in place to assist people detoxing from methadone. (S4O-00864)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

All NHS boards adhere to “Drug misuse and dependence: UK guidelines on clinical management”, which is also known as the orange book. The guidelines were jointly drafted and agreed by all four United Kingdom Administrations. They are based on current evidence and professional consensus on how to provide drug treatment, and they describe how and when to safely introduce methadone as a treatment and how and when to detoxify from it when it is safe to do so.

With an investment of more than £162 million over the past five years in front-line drug services, almost 40,000 new clients have been referred to care and treatment services for specialist assessment in relation to their drug use. More than 80 per cent of those individuals were seen within three weeks.

We also know from the most recent data, from October 2011 to December 2011, that substitute prescribing—such as methadone prescribing—accounted for around 20 per cent of treatments offered.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

In Scotland, methadone prescriptions have been rising relentlessly over the past few years. In 2010-11, well over half a million prescriptions were issued, costing more than £28 million, yet neither the Scottish Government nor anyone else holds any reliable data on how many methadone patients either reduce their prescriptions or come off methadone altogether. How can such an uninformed and unmeasured approach be fair to the methadone patient, and how can it be justified to the taxpayer?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

In “The Road to Recovery”, we set out clearly the range of measures that are necessary when an individual’s drug problem is being addressed as effectively as possible. There are certain individuals for whom methadone is clearly the appropriate route to take. As I suggested, around 20 per cent of NHS treatments in this area involve methadone. It is extremely important that we recognise that the increasing number of people on methadone also require support to allow them to exit, and recover from, the use of methadone.

The Government is committed to continuing to make progress on this issue. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has stated that he feels that too many people are on methadone; we are considering what further measures we can take to address that. Annabel Goldie should be in no doubt that the Government is committed to continuing to tackle Scotland’s drug problem, and “The Road To Recovery” gives us a good framework for doing so effectively. Clearly, we have more to do. We will continue to do what can be done to continue to make improvements in this area.

Cardiac Assessment of Young Athletes Programme

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what its plans are for the cardiac assessment of young athletes programme. (S4O-00865)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Sudden cardiac death is thankfully very rare, but for those who have lost a child, friend or colleague to sudden cardiac death there can be no greater tragedy.

Since 2010, we have invested more than £150,000 in Scotland’s cardiac assessment of young athletes programme, which has enabled more than 1,500 young people from numerous sports—including football, basketball, swimming, gymnastics, cycling, hockey and rugby—to be tested. We further extended the scheme in 2010 to include satellite assessment in rural areas.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

The programme has been running for some years now, as the cabinet secretary said. Can she tell me what satellite assessment units have been created? She mentioned the ones in rural areas, but I would like some detail on that. How many young people have been assessed in each year in those units? What have the outcomes from the programme been so far?