Scottish Parliament, 21 June 2012

326 contributions from 83 members. The official report.

Families

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-03394, in the name of Nanette Milne, on families. I remind all members that time is extremely tight for the two debates this morning, so I will hold you very firmly to the time that has been allocated to you.

Nanette Milne has no more than 10 minutes.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I begin by indicating that we are happy to accept both amendments.

It is well recognised that Scotland still has an enormous problem with drug addiction, which puts a significant strain on local authority, health and police services. On top of that, members of the public and—most important—members of addicts’ families are widely and directly affected by our country’s drug problem. They may be faced with trying to rescue sons, daughters or grandchildren from the chaotic lifestyle of the addict—indeed, many kinship carers are in that role because of family drug addiction—or they may have to cope with bereavement as a result of overdose. Sadly, that is not uncommon and is proof of the tragic consequences of Scotland’s drugs epidemic. As Annabel Goldie has stated:

“Each death represents not just a life needlessly lost, but a family devastated and a community scarred.”

People may try to support a relative along the long and hard road to recovery, as family support is a hugely important aspect of an addict’s recovery. Sadly, those who give such support often suffer considerable distress and face stigma and discrimination, which put barriers in the way of recovery. When Sheila McKay of the Grampian Family Support Forum addressed the Parliament at time for reflection on 7 March, she said:

“Knowing that a family member has a drug problem is a painful and lonely experience.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2012; c 6921.]

It is therefore only right that family members who give their unconditional support to their loved ones are given support themselves. That is where family support groups, which are formed to help families that are affected by drug misuse and addiction, play a vital role. They enable families to communicate with others in similar situations, to learn from one another’s experiences and to build relationships that are imperative to their wellbeing in an environment of mutual understanding.

The Scottish Families Affected by Drugs national forum started as a grass-roots organisation in 2003 that involved families who expressed their desire to become a united force in raising awareness of the difficulties that they faced. It is a membership organisation, and family members account for two thirds of the membership. It is governed by a voluntary board of directors, describes itself as

“the hub of a network of family support groups across Scotland”

and has the vision of a Scotland that recognises and supports the needs of families that are affected by the drug misuse of a loved one and the crucial role that is played by families. Its mission is to support families in Scotland that are affected by drug misuse and to raise awareness of the issues that affect them. To achieve that, it facilitates a network of family support groups, runs a national helpline and lobbies for the recognition of families in both national and local drug treatment policies. Importantly, families are at the heart of the organisation, providing information on local networks and access to funding, and supporting around 40 local groups, with just over 200 individual members.

I have no doubt that other members will tell us about support groups in their own parts of Scotland, but I want to focus on the Grampian Family Support Forum in my region, which was set up as recently as 2010 by family members and Scottish Families Affected by Drugs, and is funded by the Aberdeenshire alcohol and drug partnership. It is part of the achieving community empowerment programme, and has already made great progress towards facilitating a network of local support groups. It acts as an umbrella organisation within which local family support groups throughout Grampian can effectively communicate with one other, and was a successful participant in the third phase of the Parliament’s community partnership project. It reported back to Parliament on its work over the past year at the outcome ceremony that was held in the chamber at the end of March.

Under the leadership of its tireless chairman, Sheila McKay, the Grampian Family Support Forum is an excellent example of what can be achieved. It could lead the way for peer support right across Scotland. The Grampian model has shown that, given the right forum, families are more than willing to use their own experiences to help other families in the same position, but families need to be made aware of the existence of such fora. Perhaps general practitioners have a role in signposting them to a local support group.

I first met Sheila McKay when I sponsored an event for her, entitled “recovery happens”. It was a highly successful event, which was well attended by north-east MSPs from all parties and helped to increase our awareness that recovery from addiction can and does happen and that family members have an important role during recovery. Members of the Grampian forum were present, as were other groups that play a significant and essential role in recovery, such as Scottish Families Affected by Drugs and the Scottish Recovery Consortium. Local groups of affected families and people who were recovering from drug addiction were also present.

We heard the remarkable and inspiring story of Jane and her journey from addiction to alcohol and heroin to recovery, such that she now works for a voluntary organisation and counsels victims of similar addictions. We heard Betty’s story—the story of an amazing mother and grandmother who has held her family together despite several tragic events and who continues to help a loved one who is recovering from drug addiction. We heard from Daniel, who is converting his grief at losing his brother to addiction into films that are aimed at raising awareness of the issues that he and others have faced. The personal stories were extremely moving and the stresses that the people who told them had experienced were clear to see.

The contribution from families is continuous, arduous and critically important. Groups such as the Grampian forum try to highlight that families can and do learn from one another, that there needs to be a focus on recovery for families as well as for addicts, that families want to use and draw on their experience to help other families, and that families want to secure better services for people who are trying to recover from addiction and regain their lives.

Like us, the forum thinks that the ultimate goal for recovering addicts is total abstinence from addictive drugs, and that peer support is vital if recovering addicts are to achieve that. The forum thinks that we need more resources in place, such as easier and speedier access to residential rehabilitation, coupled with better follow-up support. It thinks that there needs to be an exit strategy for people who take methadone or other such harm-reduction treatment, which should not be for the long term.

The Grampian Family Support Forum has strong views on what is necessary to aid recovery, which my party shares. First, simply returning addicts to the community without support is ineffective; proper aftercare is required if any model of rehabilitation is to be effective. Secondly, it should be acknowledged that relapse is part of recovery. That should be taken account of in recovery programmes, and support should be available when relapse occurs. Thirdly, even after recovery from addiction it takes time to rebuild a life, and support for recovering addicts and families is vital at that stage. There is a gap in provision in that regard.

The United Kingdom Drug Policy Commission said in a report in 2009 that at that time 134,000 adults in Scotland were significantly affected by problematic drug use in their families. Family members reported feeling isolated, stressed, stigmatised and guilty. Stigma is a particular problem that must be tackled because it not only affects the people who are using drugs but spreads to family members. The media’s use of words such as “junkies” only adds to the stigma. Organisations such as the Grampian forum are fighting an on-going battle to get the media to be more careful about what they say.

We are still far from eradicating drug addiction in Scotland, and many people who want to be free of addiction still have to wait far too long for appropriate rehabilitation. There is much that we could say about that. However, today’s debate is about support for families. I acknowledge the Scottish Government’s commitment to investing in national organisations such as Scottish Families Affected by Drugs and the Scottish Recovery Consortium, which help families and communities to support “sustained recovery across Scotland”, as the amendment in Roseanna Cunningham’s name says.

I can do no better than conclude by quoting again from Sheila McKay’s time for reflection speech:

“Our core aim is to encourage the formation of new peer-support groups and increase the membership of those that already exist ... Since the project started, our numbers have increased from three to 21 throughout the north-east of Scotland. Our profile has been raised, our opinions have been valued and our voice has been heard ... we are making an impact and planting the seeds of change.

We want to use our lived expedience to make positive changes within our communities. Why? Because, when you are qualified to speak, people listen ... Built into every trial that we go through in life—every trial that forces us to grow—are the answers that other people need.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2012; c 6921-2.]

Those are wise words from the heart, from a mother who has successfully travelled along the road of family addiction.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the importance of family members recovering in their own right from the effects that their loved-ones’ drug misuse has on them; notes that family support groups provide a vital resource for families to get support for their own needs and to build relationships with others in similar circumstances; recognises the continuing challenges that small peer-led family support groups across Scotland face to sustain themselves; congratulates the Grampian Family Support Forum on its successful participation in the third phase of the Parliament’s Community Partnership Project and notes the success of the forum’s Recovery Happens event held in the Parliament on 1 March 2012 enabling the forum to further its support base on its campaign; further recognises the importance of these groups in breaking down barriers around stigma and discrimination related to substance misuse and addiction; understands that substance misuse and addiction do not discriminate in relation to who they affect and are important and destructive issues for families and Scottish society as a whole, and encourages that the forum’s vision is rolled out throughout Scotland so that communities across the country can learn from its example.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I welcome the motion and the Labour amendment. Nanette Milne is absolutely right—the role of families is key to the success of our national drug strategy “The Road to Recovery: A New Approach to Tackling Scotland’s Drug Problem”.

To set the context for the debate, it is important to consider the considerable amount of information that we have on drug use and its impact on families. Recently published reports show us that illegal drug use in the general adult population in Scotland has declined by more than a fifth since 2006. We also know that reported drug use among our young people is falling steadily. That said, 59,600 individuals use opiates in Scotland. There were 485 drug-related deaths in 2010, of which many—but not necessarily all—can be attributed to opiates. Although fewer and fewer young people contribute to that tragic statistic, we have an ageing cohort of drug users who have experienced poorer health over the past decade. We can see that group moving through the population.

It is important that in the debate we recognise not only the support that is given by families, but the support that is needed by families. Those are two different things—they are not exactly the same. In Scotland, we recognise that recovery is a long-term process that involves patience and the potential for relapse. By its nature, it requires a person-centred approach and yet it must be supported by a wider recovery community.

The role of families in recovery and the impact of drug use on families were eloquently explained to me when I first met the chair and director of Scottish Families Affected by Drugs last year. I then attended the organisation’s national conference to make clear the commitment of the Scottish Government to support our families and communities across Scotland on their own road to recovery. Nanette Milne used a word that I have used frequently after meeting those people: “inspiring”. Their experience and their commitment are an inspiration to all of us. Such is our commitment as a Government to Scottish Families Affected by Drugs that I provided additional funding in 2012-13 to support it through a challenging period of transition and reorganisation.

Nanette Milne also mentioned the Scottish Recovery Consortium, which is another key organisation in the recovery movement. The consortium has set in motion an innovative and ambitious programme for 2012-13 and beyond. The work programme, which is directly funded by the Scottish Government, outlines proactive steps to accelerate the growth of recovery communities across Scotland—communities that start with peer and family support and grow into a network of peers, families, services and advocacy, making recovery a reality.

The consortium also plays a leading role in tackling stigma in the context of recovery. It is clear that stigma is a significant barrier to people accessing help. It is a further and unjust pressure on families and is not tolerable in the 21st century, when—more than ever before—altruism and our sense of community will underpin success in bringing about recovery. The battle against stigma is one that has been long fought on behalf of vulnerable individuals by the Scottish Drugs Forum. The SDF has an important role in developing peer support, advocacy services and family support across Scotland.

Together with the Scottish Recovery Consortium, individuals across Scotland in recovery are being supported to give something back to their families and their communities. I meet people who are in the process of doing precisely that on a regular basis. The stories that they have to tell—and sometimes the length of time that it has taken them to get there—are astonishing. That work requires patience on the part of communities and families as well.

The Scottish Government provided the Scottish Drugs Forum with a package of funding to help us jointly to implement our world-leading naloxone programme. The programme empowers not only individuals but families to save a life. The reality of drug misuse is that individuals put their lives at risk. To lose a family member is a terrible tragedy, which is why I committed a further £400,000 in 2012-13 to the national naloxone programme, to ensure that naloxone is widely available throughout Scotland. As naloxone is not an antidote that can be self-administered, the programme has proactively engaged families, peers and communities in training and awareness programmes. At its best, the programme encourages an early discussion within the family about drug use and the risk of overdose. From there, it is but a small step to recovery.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I have listened carefully to the minister’s comments about the recovery programmes, which I fully support, and I support everything that Nanette Milne said, but I have not heard anything about psychological support for the many underlying mental health issues that can often result from drug taking and alcoholism.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The member will accept that, in a speech of seven minutes, I cannot touch on every issue, but I am aware of the mental health problems that go along with drug use, which are beginning to be particularly evident in the older group of drug users. That is a big challenge for mental health services.

Scotland’s 30 alcohol and drug partnerships have the role of delivering on the agreed commitments that are articulated in “The Road to Recovery”. Through our investment in front-line care, treatment and recovery services and the commitment of our local partners, we are beginning to see some green shoots of that recovery across Scotland.

We are witnessing the growth of family support organisations throughout Scotland, some of which are funded jointly by us and the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland’s partnership drugs initiative. Those include First Step in East Lothian; the family matters project in Fife; North United Communities in Glasgow; the Children 1st supporting families project in Aberdeen; the carer support service in Moray; the Armadale community families project in West Lothian; the kith ‘n’ kin service in Tayside; the lifeshaper project in the Western Isles; and, of course, the inspiration for this debate, the Grampian Family Support Forum, which in its own words is an example of using

“‘lived experience’ to make positive changes within our communities.”

I welcome the Parliament’s commitment to this area and the consensus on the importance not only of family support, but of support for families on the road to recovery, which means recovery for the individuals and their families. In turn, that will mean recovery for communities and for Scotland.

I move amendment S4M-03394.1, to insert at end:

“; further supports the direct investment of the Scottish Government in national organisations such as Scottish Families Affected by Drugs, the Scottish Recovery Consortium and the Scottish Drugs Forum, which support families in playing their vital role in building recovery communities across Scotland, and endorses the role of the Road to Recovery in putting the individual at the centre of care, treatment and recovery services and, in doing so, promoting the essential role of families and communities in supporting sustained recovery across Scotland.”

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I thank Nanette Milne for bringing forward this debate on supporting families who are affected by drugs. It is an important and challenging debate on an issue that we need to deal with on a cross-party basis and with consensus.

Drug misuse is not an easy problem to deal with. As we know, there are about 60,000 problem drug users in Scotland and, on average, for every known problem drug user, four other people—often family members—are directly affected. Therefore, there is no doubt that drug misuse affects a significant number of people in Scotland. Many of them will be children who, through no fault of their own, are neglected because of their parents’ drug addiction. The Scottish Government estimates that 40,000 to 60,000 children are affected by parental drug misuse, but more recent studies suggest that the figure could be even greater.

Parental drug and alcohol misuse can have a serious impact on all aspects of children’s and young people’s lives. For some children, basic needs might not be met and there is a heightened risk of maltreatment and abuse. Audits of child protection registers have found that a significant proportion of children live with parental drug and alcohol misuse. Parents with drug problems are often physically and emotionally unable to meet children’s needs, which can result in children taking greater responsibility in the household and can affect their education.

We must recognise that the secrecy and stigma surrounding the issue are likely to affect parents and children when they consider seeking support. In some cases, children might feel frightened about the consequences of telling someone outside the family. Children want somebody to talk to whom they can trust, who does not judge them, who listens and who is reliable. Meeting other children who have similar experiences can often prove to be helpful.

Family support groups provide an opportunity for relatives, partners and friends to meet others who are experiencing or have experienced similar circumstances. As Nanette Milne pointed out, surveys have shown that family members of addicts often feel isolated, depressed and stressed. It is widely accepted that addicts need support to recover but so, too, do family members.

Given that responses to surveys have made it clear that family support groups offer the type of supportive, non-judgmental environment that helps recovery, we should welcome the work being done by the Grampian Family Support Forum and Scottish Families Affected by Drugs to bring families affected by drugs together. The dedication and commitment of staff and volunteers in such projects provide much-needed support to families affected by drug misuse. As families benefit from working together, developing bonds and relationships and helping one another to get through challenging periods in their lives, we must ensure that not only information but the best advice are properly shared with them and that they are given the practical support they need.

I am sure that other members will highlight examples of good practice from across Scotland. However, I believe that we should acknowledge the contribution made by grandparents and recognise the pressure felt by kinship carers who step in to look after children of drug-addicted parents. Not only do many kinship carers not get the financial support that they need, but they are not well equipped physically and emotionally; after all, they often have to look after young grandchildren as well as deal with their own child’s drug addiction. The financial support for kinship carers that the Scottish Government promised has still not arrived, and I ask it to bring forward that support as soon as possible.

Although it is vital that families are supported, Scottish Families Affected by Drugs has found that, despite the pressures that they face, most family members wait for at least two years before seeking help for themselves. I know that people are keen to change that situation but, in order to do so, we must tackle the stigma surrounding drug misuse. Indeed, 41 per cent of respondents to the Scottish Families Affected by Drugs survey said that stigma had been a barrier to their seeking help for a relative. The truth is that we all have a duty to tackle stigma, as it can have very serious consequences. We must also ensure that the proper facilities and treatments are available to those who decide that they want to come off drugs because, if they are not, we will see a long-term decline in their chances of recovery.

The problem of drugs is not easy to deal with. As I said, we need to approach the issue on a cross-party basis and build a consensus about how we move forward on it.

I move amendment S4M-03394.2, to insert at end:

“; recognises the contribution of Scottish Families Affected by Drugs, and believes that family support groups need to be given the support required to help their members and relatives through challenging periods in their lives.”

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I thank Nanette Milne for raising an important issue that, such is the scale of substance misuse in our nation, is—I am sorry to say—relevant to every member in the chamber.

Given that substance abuse can impact severely on individuals and families and that the family can play a huge role in helping those who are struggling with an addiction, it is important that we support the small family-led groups that help not only those suffering from substance misuse but people living with someone who abuses drugs or alcohol. It is startling to note research from 2000 that estimated that between 40,000 and 60,000—or 1 in 20—Scottish children were affected by the drug problem of one or more parent. Sadly, such situations have a negative impact on the subsequent health, employability and educational attainment of those children and put them at greater risk of emotional or physical abuse.

In an ideal world, we would not have to confront such issues, and we must always do everything within our power to prevent people from falling into the grasp of addiction. Of course, such preventative work has many facets, including seizing drugs before they enter the country; effective policing to prevent distribution; and providing effective education to alert young people in particular to the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse.

I am pleased that, since 2006, illegal drug use in the general adult population has declined by more than a fifth. However, as the minister has made clear, we still have a long, long way to go. I am also confident that minimum pricing will have a positive impact on Scotland’s dangerous relationship with alcohol and the harm that it causes.

However, it is an unfortunate reality that people will continue to fall victim to substance misuse and that many will form addictions, harming themselves and others around them. It is therefore the Government’s moral responsibility to offer support to help people break the cycle of addiction, to allow sufferers to regain control of their lives, lessen the impact on wider society—I refer to costs relating to the national health service and law and order—and reduce the emotional torment of people who live with them.

Therefore, I am proud that this Government has invested 20 per cent more in front-line care, treatment and recovery since 2007 and that it has launched the road to recovery strategy, which firmly recognises the importance of the family unit in addressing these matters. It is due to the strategy and the continued investment in tackling addiction that family support organisations, such as the Grampian Family Support Forum, which Nanette Milne cited, are growing in number and importance.

Tackling Scotland’s drink and drug problem requires a multi-agency approach that employs a variety of tactics, treatments and support mechanisms. As members will know, drug treatment, including opiate substitutes such as methadone, often removes only the criminal element of addiction. Although such treatments have a role to play, it is far more difficult for someone to kick the habit without the support and encouragement of friends and family.

It is important that family members have the correct advice and information at their disposal, in order to recognise the signs of substance misuse and to help people through difficult times. That is why the Scottish Government increased core funding this year for Scottish Families Affected by Drugs, which supports a network of local family support groups and individual families through training, information provision and a dedicated helpline. Through that work, the SFAD gives family members not only the confidence to intervene when their relative’s drug or alcohol use becomes problematic, but the knowledge and ability to offer them support and help.

The scourge of alcohol and drug misuse in Scotland remains a persistent threat to the establishment of a safe, healthy and prosperous society. Many of my constituents—particularly in Saltcoats, where we discussed this very issue on Tuesday night—have great concern that not enough is being done and that more should be done to reduce long-term methadone dependency, in particular. Although the figures that I cited show that we are moving in the right direction, communities on the ground do not see progress happening as fast as they would like it to happen.

I believe that the Parliament and the Government will continue to rise to the challenge, through ground-breaking legislation such as the smoking ban and minimum pricing for alcohol but also through our continued commitment—despite tough financial times—to support individuals and families who have fallen victim to drug or alcohol abuse.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The debate is likely to be consensual, which reflects the fact that under the previous minister in the previous parliamentary session agreement on the recovery programme and policies on drugs was reached by cross-party consensus. That approach should be adopted in a number of areas, but particularly that of substance misuse.

In 2001, when I was the justice minister in charge of the drug aspects of the Government’s work, I was very happy to support the predecessor organisation to Scottish Families Affected by Drugs, which began a process that has continued to develop. The work of Scottish Families Affected by Drugs to develop a growing network of local family support groups is very welcome.

At the beginning of the Parliament’s first session, I was involved with local group called locals against drug abuse in Alloa, which was formed by parents whose children were involved in drug use. That group had a major effect on the development of policy and services in the area. Out of LADA grew an organisation called Signpost Recovery, to which many addicts who are beginning to seek treatment turn.

I ask the minister to provide some further information, either now, or, preferably, through the Scottish Parliament information centre. First, how many family support groups are there? I would like those to be listed so that we can see how many there are. An equally important question is what their sources of funding are. In the current climate of austerity, like many voluntary groups, they are under considerable pressure. Are alcohol and drug partnerships funding those groups? If so, is the funding being maintained? What funding is being provided by the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland? The foundation often provides initial funding, which leads to pressure on ADPs to provide further funding.

I would also like the minister to give us information about the criminal assets cashback scheme. The scheme—the introduction of which I was involved in as a minister—has been one of the Parliament’s great successes. It should be noted that out of the £45 million that has been handed back to communities, only £2.25 million—in all that time—has been used to support community assets, including family support groups. I would like the minister to provide to SPICe a list of the groups that have been given community cashback scheme funding. That scheme should be used to a far greater extent to provide support for family support groups.

The minister mentioned drugs deaths. When I was justice minister, the number of drugs deaths was 332, and the year after I left office, it had dropped slightly to 317. That was still too high in comparison with the 250 or so deaths in 1997, but by 2008, the figure had risen to 574. As the minister reminded us, the numbers have come down since then, and now stand at 485. That is partly due to the very welcome naloxone programme. We need to involve families in that, but not just by providing them with the naloxone equipment, because they are often not involved when their child or relation takes an overdose. We need families to help us to identify those who are closest to the user and who are most likely to be in a position to use the naloxone. I hope that that will happen.

I call on the Government to do further work on bereavement counselling and support for the 485 affected families, because each death is a tragedy. The guilt that families sometimes feel—often wrongly—that they have not supported their loved ones adequately through the process is a problem.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We should praise Scottish Families Affected by Drugs, welcome the work that is done by the Scottish Drugs Forum and call on the Government to continue its co-operative approach in this field.

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

I am glad that Nanette Milne managed to bring the topic to the chamber as a Conservative business debate this morning; it was originally going to be a members’ business debate. It is an opportunity for us to discuss and consider how we can best support the organisations in our communities that are on the front line of supporting people who have addictions, and their families.

In her motion, Nanette Milne cites the Grampian Family Support Forum and in her speech she mentioned Sheila McKay. I first met Sheila McKay when I was a regional member. For Sheila, one meeting was not, as a woman from Banffshire, enough, of course. As the minister knows, we Banffshire women can be thrawn and persistent. We had several meetings in Aberdeen and—as Nanette Milne mentioned—in Parliament, not just with the Grampian forum but with other groups in the north-east that are involved in such work. Sheila McKay is still working—as Dr Simpson mentioned—on extending the pool of people who are allowed to administer naloxone.

Although levels of illegal drug use are at their lowest for several years and are still in decline, we cannot underestimate the devastating effects that drugs still have on individuals, families and communities. Virtually every family in the country is now affected in some way or another by drug misuse; my family has certainly not escaped it.

The Grampian Family Support Forum has benefited from administrative and communications assistance from the alcohol and drugs partnership that covers Moray, Aberdeen city and Aberdeenshire. The Scottish Government’s recovery-focused approach to tackling drug use has helped thousands, and that progress is supported by the funding that is provided by many organisations that facilitate recovery, such as the Scottish Drugs Forum, the Scottish Recovery Consortium and the Grampian Family Support Forum. All those organisations deserve praise for their efforts, not only in helping and advising those who have addiction problems and their families, but in assisting in community action, education programmes and—as other members have mentioned—combating the stigma that attaches to addiction issues. Those organisations have been feeding back to Government and parliamentarians their information and experiences, and their opinions on the effectiveness of the current strategy and how progress can be continued. That highlights the invaluable work that they do, which is carried out as much in private as it is in public.

Worryingly, several of those organisations have heavily criticised the United Kingdom Government’s welfare cuts which, they tell us, threaten the support systems that exist and the delicate balance in many families and communities that are in sensitive situations regarding addiction and drugs.

The Scottish Drugs Forum and Scottish Families Affected by Drugs have spoken out against the UK Government’s proposed changes to how claimants with drug or alcohol problems can receive benefits, which threaten to undermine the progress that has been made. Both organisations have highlighted how Westminster’s proposals to hold claimants hostage over their benefits, pending their drug and alcohol addiction treatment, threaten to have serious knock-on effects on families and children.

The recovery happens event was a great example of how the expertise that such groups provide is fed back into the development of national and Government strategy. Neil Bibby mentioned kinship carers. I am assisting a number of grannies who are, as a result of the drug abuse of their child or their child’s partner, caring for their small grandchildren. One of the main messages that came from the recovery happens event was on the importance of a family-focused approach to recovery and addiction support. Families from across Scotland are keen to support one another and to share their experiences and knowledge. I welcome the debate as a way of thanking them.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The debate has already shown that there is not an MSP in the chamber or anyone who is involved in making policy on children who does not believe that good-quality family support is the most important building block in our society. Although there may be many divisions between us as we respond to the current debates about what constitute appropriate definitions of family and marriage, there is no dispute at all about the need to do more to help groups that provide crucial support when families—of whatever shape or form—find themselves in difficulty. We have cross-party agreement on that but, as was the case in the drugs debate, the next stage will be the real test. Can we lift the debate, as Nanette Milne said, away from just warm words, and on to a level that involves meaningful action, however difficult and challenging that may have to be?

As with the drugs debate, we are talking about an issue that is hugely complex and pervasive, and no party can ever pretend that it has all the answers. It would be grossly naive and arrogant for anyone to assume that they had all the answers, but we can say that we must have the courage of our convictions and not just stand by and do nothing but, instead, take a lead from groups such as the Grampian Family Support Forum.

As several colleagues have said, the effects of addiction can make family life lonely and emotionally draining. The families who are affected need help; most often, they need it from within their most immediate communities. That is what makes the Grampian Family Support Forum so special. The same is true of the Fife alcohol and drug partnership and, in the case of kinship care, of family group conferencing. Such groups are crucial in opening up avenues of discussion and breaking down barriers of discrimination or ignorance among some sections of society.

As the Parliament knows, the forthcoming children’s services bill will be a major piece of legislation that will provide us all with an opportunity to do things differently and to tackle head on the complexities that we face. Members of the Education and Culture Committee have already faced some challenging questions as we have taken preliminary evidence from many experts who work on the front line of helping children and struggling families. That comes on the back of the hugely important debate about kinship care, on which, to be frank—as Neil Bibby said—none of us can take credit for progress, which has been slow. That is doubly alarming, given the promises that Parliament made on kinship care some years back. We have failed to make things much better, so it is essential that we start by understanding the exact nature of the problem, given the extent of the cross-party support and the political will to help.

In two recent Education and Culture Committee meetings, we have been challenged on the inherent problems in defining and measuring outcomes, and we have been challenged to appreciate the real barriers that prevent better progress. Perhaps most difficult of all is that we have been told that the evidence base is patchy and inconsistent. How can we deal with a problem when we cannot put our hands on all the necessary data? That question needs the most careful attention, and groups such as the Grampian Family Support Forum can be instrumental in ensuring that families—who might well be extremely reluctant to come forward in any other forum—can first be rediscovered, and secondly be helped confidentially.

We need to be clear that Parliament is setting out on a difficult and probably tortuous journey, during which it will be not just politicians who can make a difference, but the volunteers and professionals on the ground who have the first-hand experience that we have not. Debates such as this are so important because it is immensely encouraging to see that we have the necessary political will and cross-party support. I have great pleasure in supporting the motion in Nanette Milne’s name.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I congratulate Nanette Milne on bringing this important debate to the chamber. I know that her original intention was to have a members’ business debate on the motion, but the seriousness of the issue is such that it is appropriate that it has been chosen for Conservative Party business. I am pleased, given that there appears to be consensus, that we are able to unite around the motion and amendments.

I met Sheila McKay of the Grampian Family Support Forum not long after I was elected, at the community partnerships programme event that was held in the Parliament. As Nanette Milne did, I attended the recovery happens event in the Parliament. It is fair to say that one would need to have had a heart of stone not to be moved by the testimonies of the individuals who spoke at that meeting. The clear message came out that families have a key role and that they want it to be further embedded.

There were three main messages from the event. First, families have a lot to contribute and want to be involved in supporting the people whom they love, and in helping to find solutions to the wider problems. Secondly, people who are recovering from addiction want to give something back. Thirdly, we as a Parliament and as a society, need to work together to help to tackle the stigma that people with addictions and their families face.

Important work is being done by networks such as the Grampian Family Support Forum and the other forums that have been mentioned and which will, I am sure, continue to be mentioned by members. The key role that they play is to ensure that families that are affected by substance misuse do not feel isolated within their communities. One thing that was highlighted at the recovery happens event—Nanette Milne mentioned it in her speech—is that, whether we like it or not, a societal stigma remains around substance misuse, and especially around families in which a member has a substance misuse problem. Stigma is felt by those families when, instead of taking what might be seen as the easy option and casting the family member away, they choose to support and help them. As Nanette Milne said, one aspect of that stigma is the language that is used in society.

At the recovery happens event, I made the point that we politicians have a key role to play in shaping the public debate about substance misuse and how individuals and families who are affected by it are viewed through the prism of the public debate. We must all take caution and reflect on how we respond to calls from journalists to comment on issues relating to substance misuse, particularly where an individual has committed an offence that relates to their substance misuse. The language that is used often stigmatises the family of the individual, which adds to the isolation that they feel—isolation that is being tackled by groups such as the Grampian Family Support Forum.

We also need to reflect on our own situations, which I certainly did during the recovery happens event. Within my community, my peer group and the people I went to school with, there are those who have gone down the road of substance misuse, and I reflected on the different ways in which our lives have gone. Some of the people whom I played with in the playground at primary school now find themselves involved in substance misuse. We must recognise that substance misuse is not the preserve of certain communities in society. It happens to people who have the same life chances as those who go on to very different outcomes and destinations. It can happen to anyone, and it can affect anyone. We need to reflect on that when we look at how we shape the debate going forward.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Not long after my election, I took on the role of co-convener of the cross-party group on drug and alcohol misuse, and through it I have learned a tremendous amount about the issues that we are discussing today. Recently, I hosted an event in the Parliament with Scottish Families Affected by Drugs; it is nice to see some of the people from that organisation in the gallery this morning. Also, I congratulate Sheila McKay on a lifetime of work on the agenda.

I have travelled across Edinburgh and across Scotland to speak to different organisations and groups that work in the field. I went with John Finnie to visit NHS Highland’s harm reduction unit, which is doing groundbreaking work on naloxone. I ask all members to look at that fantastic work, which should be happening throughout Scotland. I reiterate Richard Simpson’s point about naloxone and the situations that people find themselves in when they overdose. It does not tend to happen in a family environment; people tend not to overdose in front of their mum, dad, brother or sister. They are more likely to do it in front of somebody with whom they are taking drugs, or perhaps on their own, in which case they might be found by somebody else, in a coma or otherwise.

As important as it is that we help families to understand what naloxone is, and that we train them in using it—which is relevant to a conversation about drug and substance misuse—we also need to consider “family” in the widest possible sense. “Family” does not have to mean a relation or a blood relative; what matters is who a drug user or substance misuser defines as family. That is why community development is important, because services should be provided to the people whom somebody defines as their community on a day-to-day basis.

For some people whom I have met or worked with in the past year, family members are not the most helpful people for the recovery journey. Families might be at the heart of underlying problems or might have unhealthy relationships. Getting back into positive relationships with their families requires people to be at a stable point of recovery and to feel strong in their recovery. That cannot happen instantly—getting to the point at which people want to tackle underlying issues with their families takes a lot of time on the journey of recovery. That goes back to community development and the recovery communities that we can build.

I pay tribute to the Serenity cafe, of which some members might be aware. It has recently moved to new premises at the Tun, which is just around the corner from the Parliament. It is a fantastic organisation that is linked to Comas. I encourage members to use that open cafe, which is run by people in recovery for people in recovery and for the nearby community. More than 40 people in recovery provide the services—they are involved in food preparation and in making and serving coffees, for example. For those people, that is part of learning how to play a part in society again and learning skills that will equip them to get back into work. We parliamentarians are based close to that organisation; perhaps we all have a role and a responsibility to encourage people in that environment to do the best that they can.

I will conclude, because I appreciate that time is tight. I have learned from the recovery community that the Government could do a couple of simple things that would not cost much but could make all the difference. One suggestion relates to the support that we offer families when a family member is in recovery. Often, the person who is recovering gets concessions for leisure activities or bus journeys, but the family gets no such concessions. If we extended to the children of recovering addicts free swimming and free bus travel to and from appointments, we would alleviate somewhat the financial pressure.

Another simple point relates to the appointments process. People in recovery being told that they must make a 3 o’clock appointment with their consultant, which is the time when they are picking up their kid from school—perhaps for the first time in a decade—creates stress that addicts really struggle with. That applies particularly to those who have had a lifetime of using benzodiazepines, which means that their stress hormone receptors are suppressed and they cannot deal with stress in the way that other people can.

Simple things could make all the difference. I would like to hear the minister’s response to these simple ideas.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I thank Kezia Dugdale for her informative speech—I will certainly visit the cafe that is just around the corner from here. I also thank Nanette Milne for initiating the debate. As many members have said, the problem affects many families throughout Scotland. Neil Bibby and other members were correct to mention the consensus in the debate. We all feel exactly the same way—we want to do something positive and work together.

I will expand on the benefits changes that the Westminster Government has proposed, and which Maureen Watt touched on. Under those changes, claimants who have drug and alcohol problems will be forced into accepting treatment. Otherwise, their benefits will be cut. Kezia Dugdale has talked about people with chaotic lifestyles being forced into treatment. It is difficult for such people to cope with bureaucracy. Conservative members should let their counterparts in Westminster know what we are doing in Scotland and tell them that the proposals will be counterproductive to the work that is being undertaken in Parliament and throughout Scotland. The changes are the worst thing that could happen to drug users. The demands that will be made on them will do more harm than good.

Christine Duncan of Scottish Families Affected by Drugs said:

“Proposals from the UK Government to link benefits with accessing drug and alcohol treatment are quite worrying as this would have the impact of adding pressure to someone’s personal attempts at recovery which can only impact even more on families and carers. We support the Scottish Drugs Forum call to the Scottish Government to maintain the thrust of the Road to Recovery.”

I accept what Nanette Milne said about recovery and relapse, but we need to look at the benefits system, because the changes will do more harm than good.

I pay tribute to the many groups and individuals who face every day the reality of drug abuse and its tragic consequences. For example, Glasgow North United Communities provides fantastic support to families and individuals whose lives have been affected and, in many cases, completely destroyed by drug abuse. As Neil Bibby and other members have, I have visited many such groups and individuals in the Glasgow area and know of situations in which grandparents look after their grandchildren, sometimes while still looking after their grown-up children who have drug problems. There are individuals who have reached rock-bottom and if it was not for the support of families and support groups, they simply would not be here today. I take my hat off to those grandparents. I will not recount individual constituents’ stories, but some of those stories would have you on your knees. They are people who are just trying to get through life.

Kezia Dugdale and others have referred to the stigma of drug abuse. We talk about families in terms of grandparents, mothers, brothers, sisters and fathers, but there is a bigger family out there and people with drugs problems have to spend a long while in recovery mode before they can get back into the family group as a mother or father, for example. I pay tribute to the effort that such people make. They sometimes do not have support at the start, but they tend to find it. However, it can still take them many years to recover.

Members may think that I am not being consensual in terms of the debate, but I believe that we need to look at the UK Government’s benefits changes. I hope that we are trying to ensure that people with drug problems are on the road to recovery and will not relapse, but if they are forced into getting treatment that may not be suitable for them, they probably will relapse and all the good work will be wasted.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I, too, thank the Conservatives for using their debating time this morning to highlight the role of families who are in recovery from drug abuse and—in particular—to highlight the work of the Grampian Family Support Forum. Nanette Milne has been steadfast in her support of its work and she has put its case well this morning. As another North East Scotland MSP, I am pleased to be able to speak in support of her motion, and will also support both amendments.

The Grampian Family Support Forum was established only a couple of years ago, but has already proved its worth. We all recognise that recovery from drug addiction is possible. We need to develop end-to-end support for people who face drug and alcohol problems by building closer links between community, in-patient and residential treatment and rehabilitation providers. Crucially, there must be close working between addiction services and aftercare providers so that individuals are not cast adrift when their treatment ends. Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that local people know best, and we would give local areas and organisations, including family support groups, the freedom to design and jointly commission drug and alcohol services to ensure that they meet local needs.

On-going support in the community is essential for the recovery journey and often includes mutual aid and other peer support. Those who have conquered their own addictions can contribute a huge amount of experience and support to those who are still battling addiction. We would like to see those who are in recovery being given the opportunity to give something back. We think that there would be a significant benefit in there being local networks of recovery champions. Such peer networks would involve those who are in recovery mentoring and providing support to individuals who are making their way through the recovery process.

We would like the Government to encourage local areas to develop and promote a whole-family approach to the delivery of recovery services, and to consider greater provision of support services for families and carers in their own right. That is where the work of the Grampian Families Support Forum can lead the way. The forum works closely with Scottish Families Affected by Drugs, which estimates that 24,000 family members are affected by loved ones’ drugs misuse in the Grampian region alone. Our families are, in so many circumstances, the lifeline that we rely on when we face difficulties. The particular tensions that drugs misuse brings to families can stretch that lifeline to breaking point, but there are still many barriers that prevent family members from seeking support for themselves, so the primary challenge is in breaking down those barriers.

Learning to cope with a loved one’s dependency, finding space to take care of oneself and the rest of the family, and overcoming the stigma that is associated with drug misuse, which other members have spoken about, can be overwhelmingly difficult. That is why support for families is vital and should not be an afterthought. I have no doubt that mutual support from local people with first-hand experience can be an immense support. There is much that we can learn from the Grampian Family Support Forum, and I hope that other parts of Scotland will benefit from their experience.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

The debate has been very good, and it is timely and worth while. I thank Nanette Milne and the Conservatives for bringing the topic to the chamber. In the past year, since I was elected, many people in Dundee have told me that the Parliament should make drug misuse one of its biggest priorities as they see the devastating effects that it has on the community, so I am very pleased to speak in the debate.

Labour’s amendment highlights—in addition to the Grampian Family Support Forum, which does such good work—the work of organisations such as Scottish Families Affected by Drugs that do similar work throughout the country. I know that SFAD has, in Dundee, been particularly active and successful in integrating the needs of families who are affected by drugs into the recovery process.

I will touch on a few speeches. Dr Simpson—as always—made a good contribution, and his call for further work on bereavement counselling for families who lose loved ones to drugs is, I hope, an issue that the minister will pick up on in her closing remarks.

Kezia Dugdale called for more naloxone programmes across the country. Mary Scanlon’s intervention about the mental health issues underlying many people’s addictions was pertinent and is, I hope, an issue that we might debate in the future.

Neil Bibby made a good opening speech on the effects on children. That is certainly the drugs issue that is closest to my heart, and I hear so many stories about it in my home city. He also raised the Scottish Government’s commitment to provide financial support for kinship carers. I hope that that, too, is an issue that the minister will address.

Kenneth Gibson made a good contribution on the further work that should be done to reduce long-term methadone dependency. I know that there are a number of projects across the country that are seeking to do that, but it is an area that the Government should examine more closely.

I was struck by the focus on families. I know the importance of that network, but it would be remiss of members to forget the drug addicts who do not have family support and, who, as a result of poverty, joblessness and homelessness, are alone and struggling with their addictions. I hope that that is also a subject that we can bring back to the chamber.

We should not forget the causes of drug addiction in our communities: the poverty and unemployment that lead to a cycle of hopelessness and no options, and then to desperation for a way out that can lead to dependence on drugs. Neither should we forget the lost generation of young parents and the children—some of whom also fall victim to drugs—who are living with grandparents, or the constituents who, as I said, see the devastating effects on their communities and plead with me to make the fight on drugs the priority of the Parliament.

I commend, on behalf of Labour, the work of people all over the country who work with the excellent family support services that were referred to by Nanette Milne. The selfless nature of the work is what sustains affected families and the projects. I commend Nanette Milne’s motion, and I lend Labour’s support to it.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I thank members for the many thoughtful contributions on a significant issue affecting families in Scotland. One of the essential values of the Scottish Parliament is its capacity to educate and to highlight important issues and, on occasions, genuinely to speak with one voice. This is an issue on which we are doing that.

However, we also need to highlight some of the work that Parliament is doing through the education and community partnerships team and its community partnerships project. That is a strong example of the Parliament giving a voice to people who might otherwise be underrepresented. I want to say to those families that we have heard what they have said to us, that we will not forget about them, and that we will continue to listen and to work to support them.

We can do that through our commitment to bringing down waiting times—access to services for drug users has changed overwhelmingly compared with what it was a few years ago—through our record funding of front-line drug treatment services, which is being preserved against the backdrop of difficult economic circumstances; through our direct funding for voluntary organisations such as SFAD; and through our commitment to tackling stigma and supporting the growth of recovery in communities the length and breadth of Scotland.

No one who has participated in today’s debate, or who has been involved in the community partnerships project, has not been moved by the challenging daily experience of families who are struggling with drug or alcohol problems. As Maureen Watt and Sandra White reminded us, decisions that are made elsewhere, such as in welfare reform, and which are designed for a very different approach to the drugs problem, can put those partnerships at risk. At the moment, we are still struggling with what looks to be a rule that says that no benefits can be given until the first substantive appointment, which does not include the first conversation with the GP. Even the three-week waiting time that we are getting down to will be a challenge for people who will have to face three weeks without benefits. There is no clarity about the way in which relapses will be treated, but in our system, we accept that relapses can sometimes be part of recovery.

Those are outstanding issues that we cannot get to the bottom of and are a worry for us, which is why welfare reform is an important part of the debate. I am proud of the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to support strong professional services and more rapid access to specialist care and support. However, we must remember that it is the families who are coping with their family member’s addiction 24/7 and who are supporting them in their recovery. I have met many such families in different parts of Scotland and I am always impressed and inspired by their resilience and commitment to the individual whom they love, and their capacity to forgive and to keep going, never giving up on their family and never losing sight of the potential of an individual to recover from addiction.

The value to those families of the organisations and local support groups that we have heard about this morning is immeasurable. Across Scotland, such organisations and groups are all punching above their weight and working from the strongest motivations of care and support. Organisations such as Scottish Families Affected by Drugs offer access to advice and support, bring people together to share and learn from their experience, and continue to raise awareness of the needs of families.

As Richard Simpson suggested, we should also remember the families who have experienced bereavement as a consequence of addiction, and we should continue to build our awareness of the needs of families who are in recovery. We can learn a good deal from families on that aspect of what happens to them. The recovery happens event that was held in Parliament on 1 March was a great example of how politicians can learn from the lived experience of those who are directly affected.

At local level, ADPs across Scotland play their part in supporting community groups as part of local packages of action to tackle drug and alcohol problems. They make local decisions on the basis of local needs. I continue to be grateful to the partnership drugs initiative for its wise stewardship of Government funding while working locally across Scotland. Funds are being distributed, but we are also building capacity in local organisations to describe the impact and value of their work, and to share learning across the country. To answer Neil Bibby’s point, I say that that includes the looked after children regulations which, for the first time, empower local authorities to pay an allowance to kinship carers. In agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, funding for that has been put in place. In March 2011, we also launched a national advice and support service for all kinship carers.

Liz Smith rightly reminded us of the major challenges that remain, and that evidence gathering and measuring outcomes are huge issues. That is correct, particularly when we want to empower local groups and not overwhelm them with bureaucratic demands. Kezia Dugdale and Alison McInnes also reminded us of how complex that can be.

Today, we can recommit to continue to listen to the families who need our support; to ensure that valuable examples of good work continue to be shared as a source of inspiration and example to others; and—as Mark MacDonald reminded us—to take care how we, as politicians, contribute to the debate in the comments that we are sometimes called upon to make.

To return to the specific point of Nanette Milne’s original speech, I say personally to Sheila McKay and the Grampian Family Support Forum that they have my thanks for the commitment that they have shown. I thank Sheila, for being, as a mother, a source of support and inspiration in the community; and I thank the forum for the work that it has done to raise Parliament’s awareness of this important issue.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank Nanette Milne for moving the motion and allowing a debate on one of the biggest issues that Scotland faces today. As Richard Simpson said, the debate has been largely consensual. We even had sight of one of the rarest creatures to be seen in the chamber—a consensual and non-partisan speech from Kenneth Gibson. However, I dare say that those who, like me, pine for more party-political knockabout will have to wait only a few moments until the next debate, when I am sure that normal service will be resumed.

Unfortunately, drugs are widespread throughout Scotland. People in all age groups take drugs, and they are in our cities and our rural communities. Some people take drugs recreationally; some people, sadly, are addicts and have their lives consumed as a result. Drugs can and do ruin lives, leading to isolation and cutting people off from their family and friends. As we have heard, addiction to drugs can lead to a rise in crime levels as individuals resort to theft in order to pay for their habit, thus having an impact on the law-abiding citizens who are victims as a result. Drugs impact on the whole of the victim’s family and on the wider community. We could take up a whole week’s debating time in debating drugs, the problems that they create for society and how we should combat them better, but today we are concentrating on rehabilitation and support for the families that are affected by drugs.

I was impressed to hear from Nanette Milne of the life-changing work that is done by the Grampian Family Support Forum in her parliamentary region. It is clear from the speeches of other members from the north-east who have come across that group just how much its work is valued. I join other members in congratulating the forum on its successful participation in the third phase of the Parliament’s community partnership project.

We can learn lessons from the good work that is being done in Grampian. There is a groundswell of excellent work being done throughout the country, involving voluntary groups in collaboration with local authorities and health boards. In Mid Scotland and Fife, we have groups such as the Drug and Alcohol Project Limited, which offers one-to-one counselling, support, information and advice to individuals and families who are affected by substance abuse and who live in Fife. The Drug and Alcohol Project Limited has experienced workers who provide an essential service to families that are affected by drugs, which is free and confidential. There is also the community alcohol and drug service for the Forth valley, which offers services, help and advice, and the Perth drug and alcohol service, which is run jointly by Perth and Kinross Council and the national health service, does a great deal of vital work in the local area and provides support to families. Those are just some of the tremendous groups in my area that carry out vital work for individuals who are addicted to drugs and give personal support to families who can otherwise feel helpless as they see a loved one consumed by addiction.

The message is clear: support for families who are affected by drug abuse is crucial in a national drugs strategy. We need a national drugs strategy that works and makes a real difference for individuals who want to stop taking drugs, and I welcome the minister’s comments, which show that the Scottish Government recognises that.

Roseanna Cunningham touched on the question of waiting times. Each year, the Scottish Government agrees a number of national NHS performance targets that are known as health improvement, efficiency, access and treatment targets. NHS boards and the Scottish Government monitor boards’ progress against the national HEAT targets and the progress is published on the Scottish Government’s Scotland performs website. I welcome the openness of the targets, as it is important that we all have the opportunity to measure how well individual health boards are doing.

On drug recovery services that are delivered by the NHS, the HEAT target states:

“By March 2013, 90 per cent of clients will wait no longer than 3 weeks from referral received to appropriate drug or alcohol treatment that supports their recovery.”

Between October and December 2011, the Scotland average for meeting the HEAT target was 84.9 per cent of individuals waiting no longer than three weeks from referral to receive treatment. That is impressively close to meeting the target fully. However, the picture in different parts of the country is not so good. In NHS Tayside, in the area that I represent and where Roseanna Cunningham is based, only 65.9 per cent of patients wait no longer than three weeks from referral to receive

“appropriate drug or alcohol treatment that supports their recovery.”

Only NHS Lothian has a worse record. It is important that all health boards put in place the necessary resources and expertise that will bring about improvements in waiting times. If we are serious about pursuing this agenda, it is essential that individuals who seek or need help should not have to wait any longer than three weeks from referral to receive treatment. One of the first acts towards recovery is wanting to recover. However, when people make that decision and that choice, the necessary services to help them and their families must be available.

To the one or two SNP members who raised the issue of welfare reform and its consequences, I gently make the point that they should perhaps look first at the areas in which the Scottish Government has control and responsibility before looking at areas that are outside its remit.

Neil Bibby and Mark McDonald raised the important issue of tackling stigma. Too much stigma is attached to drug addicts, and that has an impact on their families. We must work much harder to address that, because that can often be a barrier to people coming forward and seeking help.

Neil Bibby and Liz Smith raised the important issue of kinship care. Liz Smith was clear that we have failed to deliver on the promises that have been made to kinship carers. We must all work harder to make better progress on that issue.

We must assist families who are affected by drug abuse, and we must ensure that children who are affected by a parent or parents who have a drug problem are properly supported.

Drug addiction is a social ill, but it is also a complicated and a serious issue. It is easy for us to stand up in this chamber and say that we must help individuals to get off drugs and provide support to their families. It is much harder to ensure that that happens in practice. Groups such as the forum in Grampian are on the ground and are doing some of the hardest, most rewarding and most important work in Scotland. That is why I commend the motion and the amendments to the chamber.

Local Government (Empty Property Relief)

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-03397, in the name of Gavin Brown, on local government. Mr Brown, you have up to 10 minutes.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

I bring to the chamber our deep concern with a part of the Local Government Finance (Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill. Our particular concern involves the changes to empty property relief under the non-domestic rates regime. Although the changes will protect industrial property and listed buildings, they will almost extinguish the discount for empty commercial property, taking it from the—broadly accepted, to be fair—50 per cent down to 10 per cent.

We have three main concerns about the policy. First, it will not make any positive difference, it will not achieve the policy objective and it will not get empty properties back into use. Everyone in the chamber and most people across Scotland wish empty properties to be brought back into use. However, the prescription from the Scottish Government simply will not work and will not have any impact.

Secondly, not only will the policy not make a positive impact, but it is fairly clear that it will damage our economy and make it more difficult for it to grow when the upturn begins.

Thirdly, the policy has a cost to the public sector—something that was missed by the Scottish Government when it introduced the proposal. The bill suggested that the cost to the Scottish Government would be minimal because it has only 12 properties to be concerned about. That idea was knocked on the head the first time that the Finance Committee considered the bill, when it was gently pointed out that Scottish Enterprise has several hundred empty properties, and the cost to that agency alone could be pushing £500,000.

Underpinning all that—it is the reason for a lot of the negativity and the bad ideas—is the fact that the Government undertook no formal consultation on the measure. It consulted formally on all other parts of the bill, including a part that will cost only £750,000 a year and affect only one council. That part of the bill was deemed worthy of consultation, but a proposal that will affect thousands of properties, will affect every public sector agency in Scotland and will cost the business community millions of pounds a year was not deemed worthy of consultation by the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government has to explain to us clearly why the proposal was specifically excluded from the consultation on the bill. This has all happened when sales of commercial property in Scotland have slumped by 40 per cent in the first quarter of 2012.

My first substantive point is why I do not think the measure will achieve the policy objective. Paragraph 4 of the policy memorandum states that

“Reform of empty property relief will provide incentives to bring vacant commercial premises back into use and raise additional revenue for the Scottish Government.”

That is a fairly loose definition of the word “incentive”. Clobbering them with a tax does not sound to me like an incentive to bring properties back into use.

The policy has two objectives: to bring vacant properties back into use and to raise additional revenue. Most people—even people who are not sceptical—feel that most of the Scottish Government’s emphasis is on the latter; it is about the money.

However, helpfully, Derek Mackay, the minister in charge of bringing forward this part of the bill, gave evidence to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee a short while ago. When I read the Official Report of the meeting, I was interested to see that Derek Mackay had stated:

“If it were just about income generation at the expense of the business community, we would not be progressing it.” —[Official Report, Local Government and Regeneration Committee, 30 May 2012; c 1070.]

The Scottish Government and the minister in charge of the bill therefore accept that, if all that the measure does is raise additional revenue, it should not be taken forward. To win the argument today, and in the coming weeks and months, the Scottish Government therefore has to demonstrate clearly how the measure will bring vacant commercial property back into use, because, by its own admission, the measure should not be only about additional revenue; indeed, the Government would not introduce the measure if that was all that it was about.

We have asked repeatedly how many properties would be brought back into the fold. It turns out that the Government has made no attempt to model that. The bill team stated:

“we cannot say that we have seen any evidence in Scotland on whether the incentive works”.—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 2 May 2012; c 1070.]

In addition, having observed four years of evidence in England and Wales, the bill team was unable to present any evidence that the measure might have had any impact south of the border.

To correct the record, when the First Minister answered my question on the matter at First Minister’s question time, he said that 5,500 properties would be brought back into use as a consequence of the bill. I put the question to him very specifically. However, the 5,500 properties are the number of commercial premises that would immediately be hit by the tax. That does not mean that a single property will be brought back into use. The figure of 5,500 properties is the number that would be clobbered by the tax.

There is a basic misunderstanding on the part of the Scottish Government about why the properties are empty. They are empty because of market conditions and lack of demand. I accept that there will be exceptions, and during the evidence sessions individual members pointed to examples in their constituencies, but the vast majority of landlords want to let their properties. That is the meat and drink of what they do. If they are not letting out a property, they are not generating an income. Landlords want tenants, but the market is weak. The measure punishes landlords who have been unlucky and who have been hit by the downturn and the recession, without doing anything positive to bring the properties back into use.

The direction of travel in Wales seems to be the opposite to that in Scotland. The Welsh Government, which has had such a measure in place since 2008, has had a business rates review undertaken by an independent group. The independent report, which was published last week by the Wales business minister, said:

“We have not come across any examples in Wales where property owners have intentionally left property vacant; indeed pressure from insurers and the risk of holding vacant property are ample enough incentive to re-let.”

There we have it. The measure will not bring empty properties back into use. There is no evidence whatsoever that that will be the case, and there is a fundamental misunderstanding by the Scottish Government about why those properties are empty.

That is bad enough, but on top of that, the measure is quite likely to cause damage to the economy. Various properties have been demolished in other parts of the United Kingdom. In some cases, it was cheaper to demolish the property—no rates were paid at all as a result of that—than to pay the additional tax. A report by Lambert Smith Hampton on behalf of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said:

“there has been an increase in the demolition of perfectly sound properties ... largely as a result of their liability to Empty Property Rates”.

Therefore, there could be demolitions.

A reduction in speculative activity is also likely. If we want more premises, including commercial properties, to be built, there must be speculative activity, but the Scottish Government’s measure will choke off the development of new business space because substantially more will have to be paid for vacant rates. That is a big deterrent for speculative commercial development. It has an impact on the viability appraisals and is an extra contingency to be built in at a time when the sector is finding things extremely difficult. Our view and the view of industry is that the industry does not need extra punishment, and certainly not at this time.

The measure sends out a signal to the world and the business community at large that the Scottish Government will impose new taxes on a whim without consultation. I think that I am correct in saying that empty property relief was not mentioned in the Scottish National Party’s manifesto, which was published not that long ago and on which, admittedly, it won a fairly healthy majority. I stand to be corrected on that, but I had a good look through the manifesto. Why was the measure not mentioned in that manifesto if the SNP intended to introduce it? I am pretty sure that the First Minister will not mention it to the business community in the United States as something that the Government is proud of bringing forward. I am sure that that will be deeply hidden from everyone everywhere.

The measure will damage the economy and will not do anything to bring empty properties back into use. That is the key for the Scottish Government. Can the Government demonstrate at all that the measure will put properties back on to the market? There will also be costs to the public sector; we can return to that later.

I am very happy to move,

That the Parliament is concerned by the Scottish Government’s plans to substantially reduce empty property relief for non-domestic rates through the proposals in the Local Government Finance (Unoccupied Properties etc.) (Scotland) Bill; is deeply concerned that the Scottish Government has introduced this proposal with no formal consultation and without making a business and regulatory impact assessment; notes the Finance Committee’s report on the Bill’s financial memorandum, which concluded that, “the Committee finds it surprising that the [Financial Memorandum] makes no attempt to estimate the number of commercial properties that will be brought back into use as a result of the Bill’s empty property relief proposals”; believes that reducing the tax relief for empty properties will have a detrimental effect on business and the economy; notes that there will be significant costs to the public sector, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to abandon its proposed changes to empty property relief for non-domestic rates.

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

I welcome the opportunity to debate the Government’s proposed reform of empty property relief for commercial properties, as set out in the Local Government Finance (Unoccupied Properties etc) (Scotland) Bill, which also includes a provision to allow for increases in council tax charges on certain long-term empty homes to help councils in encouraging more owners to bring their empty properties and houses back into use.

In itself, the Government’s proposal in the bill will not change commercial empty property relief. The bill will simply create the enabling power to increase or, indeed, decrease the rates discount for empty commercial properties by future regulations.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Does the minister accept that the policy memorandum quite clearly states why the Government is doing that, and that the Government immediately intends to reduce the discount to 10 per cent across Scotland?

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

I am happy to discuss that further as I continue, but the fundamental power that we are seeking in the bill is the enabling power to vary those reliefs. The member referred to a decision being made “immediately”. We are not immediately making a decision. There will be further consideration of the bill and specific regulations in due course by the Parliament. The regulations will be considered by the Parliament in the same way as the small business bonus scheme and the United Kingdom’s first and only renewable energy relief regulations have been considered. The process is accepted by all parties in the Parliament.

Empty premises currently receive a 100 per cent discount for the first three months and a 50 per cent discount for an indefinite period thereafter. Industrial and listed properties receive a 100 per cent discount for the duration of the period in which they are empty.

It is our intention to vary the 50 per cent discount that empty properties receive after the first three months to 10 per cent from April 2013. We have no plans to change the discount for industrial and listed properties. Gavin Brown made fair points about experience in England, and lessons have been learned from the policy that was deployed there.

There are two driving forces behind the policy. First, we think that it will incentivise some landlords and property owners and managers to bring commercial properties back into use. There is evidence that rents remain stubbornly high even when there is demand to occupy properties.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

I do not want to preach, but I have personal experience, which perhaps the minister does not have. I have been the owner of office property that was unoccupied for the simple reason that companies had amalgamated. I was desperate to find a purchaser for the property, as were my partners. We did not leave it empty out of choice; we could not find a purchaser. We still had to pay rates. Mr Brown talked about property owners who are in such a position.

What message is the policy sending about the Scottish Government’s understanding of business or its desire for Scotland to be regarded as a business-friendly location?

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

I do not deny that Annabel Goldie has experience in the area. I have experience in leading a public-private partnership in Paisley, in Renfrewshire, to try to regenerate the largest town in Scotland. I am sorry to say that landlord support and engagement was part of the issue—and is an issue in trying to regenerate town centres throughout Scotland.

Scotland will still have the most generous package of reliefs in the United Kingdom. That is partly due to the help of the Conservatives under the previous Administration, when we introduced the small business bonus scheme, which has been successful. The Government has continued the scheme, but the Conservatives opposed the most recent budget, which featured the scheme.

The second driving force behind the policy is to raise income—that is absolutely the case. In the face of swingeing UK cuts, we have had to balance the books and reflect on the contribution that £18 million will make to local government, to help with funding in the public sector. Gavin Brown asked why there was no assessment, which is a fair question. It was deemed that such an approach would not be proportionate, given that the policy will bring in £18 million in revenue in the context of the £2.4 billion that is generated through business rates income.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Will the minister give way?

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

I am four and a half minutes into my speech and I should make progress.

Over the five-year period before revaluation, £750 million will still be dedicated to empty property relief—indeed, even after the reduction in relief the figure will be only marginally lower that it currently is. The small business bonus scheme and other reliefs, which amount to £0.5 billion every year, will continue.

If members think that a reduction in rates relief is the wrong policy, I wonder why Labour introduced such a policy in 2008 and why the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats—the Liberal Democrats are again not in the chamber—retained the policy objective. If there is evidence that the policy has failed in England and Wales, why has not the policy been reversed?

We want to learn lessons from what has happened in England and Wales and ensure that the policy can be deployed in a way that supports sustainable economic growth. However, we cannot disentangle the evidence, because the policy was introduced in England in 2008, at the time of the bank lending issue, changes in shopping patterns and the recession. The VAT rise that the UK Government introduced—with a £1 billion price tag for Scotland, of course—also affected the commercial world. It is fair to say that it is difficult to draw conclusions from the experience in England. However, the policy has been sustained in challenging financial times.

By working through our regeneration and town centres strategies, we can ensure that there are incentives to use empty properties. Empty property relief is part of the rating system, on which we will consult during the summer. It is a property tax. Many would ask why it is just the active premises that pay that tax and subsidise closed premises in the overall tax take.

We are not dismissing the concerns of the private sector. I am listening to a wide range of stakeholders on the proposed reforms to empty property relief. I emphasise that there is flexibility in our approach, which the Parliament and the committee can consider when it comes to looking at the regulations. The assessment of the policy will continue. There is no rush to make a decision. We have outlined a flexible approach and we will continue to listen to people. We will also use agencies such as Scottish Enterprise to promote properties, with the new property database that was announced recently, to give maximum possible exposure to the empty properties that exist.

Whatever we do, the Scottish Government will ensure that we have a competitive edge over our counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom.

I move amendment S4M-03397.1, to leave out from “is concerned” to end and insert:

“welcomes the measures that the Scottish Government is taking to help tackle the prevalence of empty properties afflicting Scotland’s high streets by creating a new incentive, which links to the Scottish Government’s regeneration strategy and future town centre review, to bring these premises back into economic use; notes that, even after reform, empty property relief will remain significantly more generous than that available in England and, in particular, that Scotland will retain 100% relief for industrial properties; notes the considerably greater impact on Scottish business of the UK Government’s VAT rise, which is expected to cost Scottish business £1 billion, and congratulates the Scottish Government on the wider package of business rate relief measures, worth over £500 million per annum, that has ensured that Scotland remains the most competitive place to do business in the UK.”

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I welcome the debate that the Conservatives have stimulated. I also agree with most of the motion. However, I want to give the Scottish National Party the chance to do the right thing and to give us the proper evidence.

We have before us a proposal that is at best not proven. There are huge concerns about its potential impact—particularly on our business community—and huge uncertainty surrounding the SNP Government’s projected costs. The figure of £18 million has been completely rubbished by so many commentators that it needs to be explored.

We understand the principle behind the proposal, but we are in tough times and it is our job in this chamber to ask whether the proposal will help or hinder our town centres. It is simply not good enough to be given Government assertions. We need evidence—robust evidence—and that is simply not on offer from the SNP Government.

The Finance Committee, having explored the evidence presented to it, produced a damning report. It asked questions, it interrogated the evidence and it concluded that the proposal had not been properly considered or justified. That matters. The Parliament should not pass legislation without rigorous scrutiny and proper justification. I have read a series of explanations from ministers as to why they did not conduct a business and regulatory impact assessment. The explanations are simply not credible.

When the SNP Government was elected last year, it said that it would govern as if it was a minority Government. We all know that if it was a minority Government, it would sit down and talk to members across the chamber and it would listen to the business community. A minority Government would be more focused on ensuring that the proper evidence was in front of us all when we debate this legislation.

There is still time. My amendment acknowledges the Finance Committee’s disappointment in the lack of an assessment.

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

I make the point again that the Government is taking a flexible approach. We will listen to stakeholders, to the committee and to the Parliament. We are listening—we have not set in stone what we propose to do. We have outline proposals. We will continue to listen if there are any constructive suggestions.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Without a business and regulatory impact assessment, the Government is listening without having properly considered the evidence. That is the key issue.

The Government amendment is an act of self-congratulation; if there were a prize for that, the minister would surely be in the top three. However, this is a serious issue. It is simply not acceptable for members to be asked to support the bill without proper scrutiny, given the major concerns that have been submitted to the Parliament.

Evidence from England has to be considered. The number of unoccupied properties has risen as the economic downturn has gripped. Properties have been demolished rather than let. That means that when the economy picks up, those properties will not be available. It has been suggested that companies are becoming insolvent rather than being stuck with higher business rates.

In Wales, as has been mentioned, our Labour colleagues have gone for a completely different approach. They have commissioned a detailed independent expert report. It acknowledges that although business rates are a major source of taxation, the changes to the current business rates regime would not be a panacea for wider economic challenges. Crucially, it highlights the complexity of the property sector. We are not getting that sense of understanding from the minister.

There is also the impact on the public sector. For all the minister’s supposed assurances to the committee, he cannot be definitive about the impact on the public sector either.

The figure of £18 million is illusory. We know from the evidence to the Finance Committee and the Local Government and Regeneration Committee that the business community is deeply worried about the proposals. Yesterday’s comments by the Scottish Chambers of Commerce testify to that. The Federation of Small Businesses has called for an investigation into whether property rates relief acts as a block to or a driver of economic activity. There are too many unanswered questions.

The reassurance that we have heard again this morning—that nobody need worry because the Scottish Government is consulting on the detail of the rates—is arrogant and worrying. That approach completely prejudges the outcome of parliamentary scrutiny. We have not yet had the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s report or the stage 1 debate on the bill. There is no transparency in the process, which is run by ministers. The SNP has a working majority, but it should still treat the Parliament with respect. There should be full consultation on the proposals, followed by parliamentary scrutiny, not the other way round. When we deal with the regulations, the SNP’s overall majority will mean that they are simply nodded through, so there will be no opportunity to change the proposals.

Good government demands effective parliamentary scrutiny. The Finance Committee considered that there should be a business and regulatory impact assessment, and we agree. The SNP Government is incurring costs for businesses and local councils without proper consideration.

Our amendment is constructive. The Crofting Reform etc Bill was delayed to enable the Labour-led Scottish Government to consider major objections to part of it. That Government took its time and brought that bill back. More recently, the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill was delayed for proper consideration.

We are in hard times and there are tough decisions to be made. There is too much at stake for us not to get it right.

I move amendment S4M-03397.2, to leave out from “, and therefore calls” to end and insert:

“; welcomes efforts to regenerate local economies and encourage occupancy in town centres but is concerned that the Scottish Government’s plans to reduce empty property relief through the Local Government Finance (Unoccupied Properties etc.) (Scotland) Bill may not achieve its stated aim, may have a detrimental effect on business and the economy and may, in fact, cost the public sector considerable sums of money; calls on the Scottish Government to conduct a business and regulatory impact assessment (BRIA) immediately and to provide the Parliament with detailed information on how many commercial properties will be brought back into use as a result of these proposals; also calls on the Scottish Government to delay further consideration of the bill until the Parliament can consider the findings of the BRIA and other evidence, and urges the Scottish Government to consider other measures to incentivise local government to invest in economic development, such as allowing councils to keep a proportion of business rates raised through increased economic activity.”

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

We now move to the open debate. Time is tight, so speeches should be a strict four minutes.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

How I yearn for the days when the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats had a functioning majority in the Parliament. They used to listen to Parliament at every opportunity and never, ever used their majority to just nod things through or to ignore criticism or suggestions from the Opposition. Selective rewriting of history has just taken another bold step forward, although not quite as bold a step as the Conservatives appear to have taken. It is always good to hear Conservatives advocating U-turns on budgets, as they have made that something of an art form at Westminster of late. Whether on pasties, grannies, caravans, regional pay or the oil and gas exploration tax, you name it, the Conservative Party announces it in a rush and then U-turns the moment it realises that it has bungled.

The Conservatives talk about proposals not being in manifestos and damage to business, but it was the Conservative Party that hiked VAT to 20 per cent, a measure that I do not recall seeing in the Conservative Party manifesto and which has caused damage to businesses the length and breadth of Scotland. Frankly, if there is a prize in this Parliament for a brass neck, Gavin Brown has certainly earned it—and then some—today.

Sarah Boyack referred to the Finance Committee, of which I am a member. Her comment that the committee’s report on the bill is damning does not reflect the constructive approach that committee members took, with notable exceptions. The Government and the bill team have made it clear throughout that the approach is not set in stone and that they are willing to engage with stakeholders throughout the process. Marianne Cook from the bill team said in evidence that ministers had indicated that they will be “flexible” over the reform and will listen to stakeholders, including those from the business community.

The minister has said that he is listening, but the Opposition parties have not made a lot of constructive alternative suggestions.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Gavin Brown or his colleagues can deal with that point later. He will not impinge on my time, when he had 10 minutes to talk about that earlier.

At present, the cost of empty property relief over a five-year period is £0.75 billion. When that figure is highlighted to people in my area, they question whether the money is being used appropriately. As for the claim that properties are being demolished, it rather contradicts the point about people wanting to let or sell them. It also suggests that the buildings in question are brand spanking new business centres; I know that individuals in my region are sitting on a number of properties in a significant state of disrepair simply because they are receiving rates relief.

As the minister is seeking constructive suggestions, I will offer him one. At the moment, Northern Ireland is looking to offer 50 per cent relief to businesses that occupy long-term empty properties. Perhaps the minister and the Government could consider that constructive proposal as a further incentive to let these properties.

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

I declare at the outset that I am a member of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, which is in the latter stages of producing its report on the Local Government Finance (Unoccupied Properties etc) (Scotland) Bill—to give it its Sunday title.

We all want our towns and city centres to thrive, to be full of businesses and to provide jobs and opportunities for local people. However, there are serious concerns that these proposals will not help us to achieve that and, in some cases, might make the situation worse. Concerns of that nature should be reflected in the work on any piece of legislation and, indeed, preparations for such legislation should be comprehensive. However, as Gavin Brown’s motion makes clear, that has not been the case with regard to this bill. I am primarily concerned about the lack of a full and proper consultation process and believe that a BRIA or even a pilot study should have been carried out. It is only right to expect such preparations to be made—as is customary—but that has not happened in this case.

The lack of consultation is clearly noted in the Finance Committee’s report and has been highlighted in the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s work on the bill. Indeed, the Finance Committee’s report also notes that

“no attempt”

has been made

“to estimate the number of commercial properties that will be brought back into use”

under these proposals, a situation that the report rather diplomatically describes as “surprising”. Moreover, the figures given to the Finance Committee were based on limited information about Scottish Government properties, with no account taken of Scottish Enterprise or national health service properties.

As Sarah Boyack has pointed out, some of the evidence comes from England, where such a scheme has already been put in place. As the economy has struggled, the number of unoccupied properties has risen; indeed, some properties have even been demolished and people in Glasgow whom I represent have suggested that the same might be a consequence in that city.

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

Given that this point might well be reiterated again and again by Opposition speakers, I must point out that the issue of demolitions in England refers specifically to industrial properties. Under our proposals, such properties would still be exempt.

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

People in town centres are worried about this issue.

Despite the fact that groups such as the Confederation of British Industry and Scottish Chambers of Commerce have indicated that, for the most part, commercial properties are not left empty deliberately, no account has been taken of the current economic climate, which has put further barriers in the way of filling such properties. Indeed, Annabel Goldie mentioned that point earlier.

I know of a number of potential start-up businesses that have not received support from banks to allow them to look for new properties, and the Government should be actively pushing banks to do everything they can to support businesses in finding and funding properties. The banks are happy to take advantage of low interest rates, and the liquidity trap is allowing them to fill their vaults while properties stay empty. We should provide support to allow other properties to be modernised and redeveloped as well as penalising those who are intentionally and for their own personal gain not letting out their premises.

We all want our towns and city centres to be regenerated and to flourish. However, to achieve that, we need tried and tested legislation that is built on proper preparation. Let us begin that process by getting detailed information on the number of commercial properties that will be brought back into use by these proposals.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Today we heard a first: Gavin Brown and the Conservatives have concerns. After that I stopped listening, of course, as there was not much else in his speech. However, that alone was something—that they have concerns about something in their communities other than themselves and their cronies.

My own deep concerns are about our town centres, and one particular town centre. I want the opportunities that this reform offers them. Mr Brown said that it will not make a difference or bring empty properties back into use, but just because he said it does not make it so. After gloom and doom, he offered nothing, even though the Conservative-led Westminster Government has a similar scheme down south.

Mr Brown also stated that landlords will not want to let properties. He clearly does not live in the real world.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the member give way?

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I will after I have finished this point.

Mr Brown clearly does not live in the real world, because in high streets across the country there are shops that have multiple sub-lets. Some people with no interest in town centre regeneration have property portfolios and do not actually want to fill their properties. Mr Brown may come in now.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

George Adam is a remarkable man. He did not listen to a word I said—he switched off—but he has spent the past minute quoting me, which is quite impressive. Can he offer any evidence that this Government policy will bring empty properties back into use?

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

There is potential to bring 5,500 properties back into use. The alternative is that, as Mr Brown suggested, we do nothing and leave our town centres the way they are, with no hope or vision for the future. That is what the Tories constantly come up with. If we continue to do nothing, the cost and impact will be that, in 2012-13, £152 million will be used to subsidise empty shops. We will spend £152 million to keep shops and businesses closed. That is not right or correct in a modern and dynamic Scotland. What incentive does that give faceless absentee landlords on our high streets, who sit on properties while having no interest in town centre regeneration? Reform of empty property rates will revitalise our town centres and provide that incentive. It will work alongside other regeneration strategies and groups in our communities. It is important to our town centres and to our local economies, which work locally with the authorities and partner organisations to ensure that we can have vibrant and sustainable town centres.

Derek Mackay has much experience of this in Paisley town centre, as he mentioned. He knows, only too well, the challenges that this issue holds, and he has worked on it as a councillor and now as the Minister for Local Government and Planning. In Paisley town centre, from Paisley Cross to New Street we have more than 65 different landlords, which makes things extremely difficult. The public constantly ask how we will get people into the shops. It is a difficulty, but this measure alone will ensure that people have to keep their eye on the ball and do something with their properties, instead of sitting and waiting for things to get better.

The public pride themselves on their town centres and they want to make a difference. Recently, we had an event in Paisley to commemorate the Renfrewshire witch hunt of 1697—not 1979 as The Herald said. During that witch hunt, seven unfortunate souls were tried and put to death for witchcraft. The event, whose organisers I brought to the Parliament, took place in the town centre and was extremely busy. It made a difference, but what a difference it would have made had the high street been full of shops.

Every decision that I make here is based on what good it can do for Paisley. I believe that the bill passes that test. The status quo is not an option and, like the Tories, offers nothing.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Throughout Scotland, town centres that were once the vibrant and thriving hubs of local communities are increasingly in decline. Closed-down notices and boarded-up shops and office units are now sadly an all-too-familiar sight, as town centres grapple with a potentially lethal cocktail of challenges that range from the economic downturn and competition from out-of-town retail units to online shopping and town centre parking charges. Those factors have all contributed to a decrease in footfall that threatens the viability of our town centres.

It beggars belief that the Scottish Government should compound those challenges by proposing to levy what is in effect an additional business and town centre tax in the form of the reduced rates relief on empty properties, and, in doing so, become the principal architect of the potential demise of our town centres. If the Minister for Local Government and Planning and the SNP Government have their way, this measure could be the last nail in the coffin for our town centres. It is totally unsustainable for the minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth to continue their rhetoric about having an ambition to reinvigorate our town centres and to reduce the number of vacant properties on our high streets while they ignore the clear and unambiguous message from Liz Cameron of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and a host of others who represent business and retail, which is a highly property-intensive sector.

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

Margaret Mitchell paints a pretty grim picture of town centres in Scotland. If that is the case under the current regime, why is the status quo so acceptable?

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

If we let the business rates incentivisation scheme and the bonus scheme—our ideas—kick in, the status quo has a chance of survival. However, the Government is setting such a high bar for businesses that are trying to be economically viable that it is economic madness.

The message is simple. The reason why we have so many empty properties at present is more due to a lack of demand than to prohibitively high rents. If we are to address the problem, the solution must involve stimulating demand. The Scottish Government’s plan to slash the value of empty property relief will do nothing to stimulate demand, and will serve only to increase the financial burden on property owners at a time when we should be working with them to ensure that the supply of property is appropriate for modern town centres. That should be simple enough to understand even for this Government, which on this issue is gaining a reputation for its failure to grasp even basic abacus economics.

The Government has been rumbled. If it thought that an empty property cash grab on business could be slipped through without business and retail being able to mount effective opposition, the minister and his colleagues must now realise that they have got it badly wrong. The policy is poorly judged and should be abandoned.

I suggest that instead, at the very least, the minister should seek through the forthcoming national review of town centres to engage in a constructive dialogue with local businesses and property owners in an effort to identify a credible solution to the plight of empty properties in our town centres.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I welcome this debate on reducing empty property relief for non-domestic rates. I remind members that we subsidise vacant properties by more than £150 million per year. I believe that the empty property rates reform will revitalise town centres and bring more than 5,000 properties back into use.

In Bellshill, in my area, we have revitalised the town centre and brought properties back into use. However, there have still been instances in which we have gone to owners and asked them to let their shops, and they have said, “No—we want to keep them empty because it suits us.” That has to change.

As the minister said, the Government will listen to stakeholders, who will have many opportunities to engage in the process prior to the regulations being brought in. I remind Tory members that the Con-Dem Government in England has failed to reverse similar changes that were made in 2008. Tory members up here are saying, “Don’t do it!”, but down in England they have failed to reverse those changes.

Empty property relief will remain more advantageous in Scotland than in England and Wales, and Scotland will still remain the most competitive place in which to do business in the UK. The small business bonus scheme has reduced taxation for two in five commercial properties.

There are several provisions in the bill. It allows the Government to make regulations to alter the non-domestic rates regime by varying the reliefs that are available for certain empty commercial properties. It also allows the Government to make regulations to alter the level of council tax relief that is available or increase the level of council tax that is payable on long-term empty homes. No one has spoken about that.

In his speech, which I listened to, Gavin Brown failed to mention the subject of long-term empty homes. The proposed change will allow many houses to be brought back on to the market. There are many houses lying empty that could be used to reduce waiting lists. The extra income could be used by councils to build more houses. I compliment the Government on giving extra money to North Lanarkshire Council that will ensure that more than 1,000 council houses are built over the next number of years; I am sure that John Pentland will mention that. For 30 years, no such houses were built. I am surprised that no one has mentioned the issue.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Is it possible that that has not been mentioned because it is not in the motion, which is about non-domestic rates?

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is still in the bill.

The Tories have been rumbled. Despite the rhetoric of the Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament, the Con-Dem Government has failed to reverse similar changes that were made in England in 2008. I am aghast at the point that the Tories have gone on about.

John Pentland (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It had been my intention to start by saying that I was sure that everyone would agree that long-term empty properties are a waste of resources, but I will now proceed by saying that that is my opinion. Let me take the example of a pigeon-infested property in Craigneuk in my constituency, the continued deterioration of which is unacceptable. When I wrote to one of the well-known banks that has a branch on nearly every high street the length and breadth of Scotland, it defended its inaction by saying that it was not the sole owner. At least it did not use a lack of funds as an excuse.

I believe that something needs to be done, and I give the Scottish Government credit for trying. Although there are problems with the approach that it has taken, I do not agree with the conclusion of the Tory motion. As is so often the case, it is a matter of getting the right balance between the carrot and the stick. The bill, as far as it goes, is about wielding a big stick. It does not say much about providing help to bring properties back into use. In fact, it is all very woolly and vague. We are being asked to vote on a skeleton of a bill, and to trust ministers to put flesh on the bones by issuing regulations. Is it not ironic that a Government that argues for maximum devolution keeps asking this Parliament’s elected members to concentrate power in the hands of ministers?

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

I am sorry to interrupt the member’s speech, which is very enlightening, but I must clarify that we are not seeking power for ministers; we are seeking the power to vary by regulation. The regulations will be presented to Parliament for consideration. Members will still be able to scrutinise and, indeed, object to the regulations.

John Pentland (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The other issue with the bill is that it seems to be about income generation at least as much as it is about tackling empty properties. Those two purposes can be at odds with each other. Doing well at one means doing less well at the other. We have heard that the proposed scheme could raise £18 million. That figure is admitted to be a maximum, which is one way of saying that it is a fantasy figure.

How many properties will be exempted? Some of the properties in question are very difficult to let or need significant renovation. If they are included in the scheme, it might not be for long. The English experience is that, in such circumstances, demolition—which has happened in one of the town centres in my constituency—can be a cheaper option.

If money is needed for renovation and the banks are not lending, will support be given? When properties are council owned, we will be robbing Peter to pay Paul. The bringing back into use of properties will reduce income. The scheme will involve the spending of significant amounts on administration, adjudication, monitoring and, perhaps, assistance. How much of the £18 million will be left?

We must also take into account other adverse consequences. For example, demolition might hinder economic recovery; there is evidence that rate rises result in job losses, as the National Assembly for Wales has highlighted; and hard-pressed firms might be forced out of business. Will the adverse consequences outweigh the benefits? We simply do not know, because we do not have studies to answer the questions and we do not know what the minister is planning to introduce by way of regulations.

I urge the SNP to support our amendment, to undertake a business and regulatory impact assessment, and to take time to reflect before pushing ahead with the bill.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I welcome the debate and thank the Conservatives for bringing it to the chamber. Like many other members, I am concerned about the many empty shops in my constituency. It is a particular problem in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. In that regard, I welcome the fact that there has been Scottish Government support to help to revitalise the town centres in my constituency. There has been town centre regeneration fund support for Kilsyth, and other support such as the small business bonus scheme, which has seen 63 per cent of shops pay zero or reduced rates. That practical support for small businesses is keeping them alive and open, and it suggests that the inference in the Tory motion that the Scottish Government is anti-business is something of a nonsense.

However, despite that support, there are still far too many empty properties. I see that clearly in my constituency. The much-maligned Cumbernauld town centre needs investment but, above all, it needs more amenities. I question where the incentive lies to achieve that in the current scheme for non-domestic rates relief. I question the logic of providing an incentive to keep business premises empty, and I question whether such a position is pro-enterprise or pro-business. We need to do more to try to bring such premises back into use. That is why I welcome the efforts that the Scottish Government is making. It is engaged in considering how to take the matter forward.

As far as changes to the non-domestic rates relief scheme are concerned, we have seen support for those efforts. Andy Willox of the Federation of Small Businesses stated:

“We also welcome the review of empty property rate relief and its effect on local high streets. We need a system which encourages vacant town centre business properties to be filled”.

That organisation, which represents small businesses on the high street, is calling for the current scheme to be looked at.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Does the Federation of Small Businesses support the bill?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The Federation of Small Businesses has said quite clearly that it supports our looking at the issue of empty property rates relief. However, I recognise that the proposal has not been welcomed across the business sector.

That paragon of progressiveness, the CBI Scotland, has also come out and commented. It made a fair point, which was also made by Annabel Goldie. David Lonsdale said:

“companies rarely leave premises empty by choice”.

I accept that that is the case; I am sure that they do not choose to leave properties empty. However, I question whether enough is done to get properties filled again. How many businesses reassess the rent that they are looking to charge for such properties and how many wait it out on the current scheme of rates relief? All too often, businesses do the latter.

I return to the fundamental point that I made earlier. I do not think that such a position is pro-enterprise or pro-business. I would have thought that the Conservative Party, as the pro-enterprise party that it says it is, would agree with that proposition, not least because the scheme that the Scottish Government is looking to take forward is largely similar to the scheme that is administered by the Conservatives in government south of the border. That point has been well made, so I will not reiterate it too much.

To that end, I will not be supporting the Conservative position. I look forward to the Government taking the matter forward, and I will support the amendment in the name of the minister.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

The debate has been interesting. It was not exactly “Through the Looking-glass”, but it was a bit topsy-turvy at times. I will come to that later.

No one would seriously argue against regenerating local economies and encouraging occupancy of empty premises in our town centres. However, Gavin Brown, Sarah Boyack and others have argued effectively that the Scottish Government’s plan to reduce empty property relief through the Local Government Finance (Unoccupied Properties etc) (Scotland) Bill is fundamentally flawed. The proposal will not achieve its stated aim. In my view, and in that of organisations such as the Scottish Property Federation and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, it will have a detrimental effect on business and the economy.

The evidence that we have heard from various sources is that the proposal will cost the public sector considerable sums rather than save money for the public purse. If the Scottish Government disagrees with that analysis, it must do more than simply assert that it is right and everyone else is wrong. It must prove its case.

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

Michael McMahon asks how the proposal will support the public sector. He is right to identify that elements of the public sector would pay more if relief was reduced, but all the funds that will be saved—the £18 million—will go, through non-domestic rates, to public sector projects.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

In the evidence to the Finance Committee, there was no basis for bringing the figure of £18 million to the table. It was not assessed properly and will not stand scrutiny.

In recent weeks, the Finance Committee has taken a lot of evidence that has called for more robust verification and statistical analysis of the effects of public spending in Scotland. There is concern that we cannot prove that the money that we spend has the impacts that we hope for.

So to a more bizarre aspect of the debate—and I do not mean Mr Adam’s reference to witch hunts. An oft-heard refrain from the nationalists in the Parliament—if there are any nationalists left in the Parliament, given what Angus Robertson has said—is that everything that Scottish Labour does results from its having to dance to the tune of London Labour. Once that old tripe has been dished out, we are often challenged to be like Labour in Wales, which has done this or done that differently from Labour in London. It is therefore ironic that the SNP demands that we copy a misguided but well-intentioned policy that was introduced by a Labour Government in London and which the minister has confirmed he wants to emulate. It is strange that, on this occasion, the SNP wants us to ignore the fact that Labour in Wales has looked at England’s situation and taken the same view as Scottish Labour, which is that the policy will not achieve the intention.

As has been clearly exposed in evidence to the Finance Committee and in this morning’s debate, such legislation has been tried and has failed and should not be copied in Scotland. In the light of that, it beggars belief that the Scottish Government should reject calls for a business and regulatory impact assessment to provide Parliament with detailed information on the bill’s potential impact on business and to give us an indication not of the number of commercial properties that we can expect to be brought back into use, but of the number that will be brought back into use.

It is not enough for the Government to continue to assert that, because it is doing something, it will work. We must see the evidence. As it stands, the evidence is not there. It is regrettable that the Government continues to assert that it is right and expects everyone to accept that proclamation without question. It is clear from the debate that SNP members accept that, but that is simply not good enough. Parliament and the business community must be listened to. So far, that has not occurred.

Too many questions have been asked about the bill’s efficacy for us just to accept that the Government should follow England’s lead. The sounds that are heard from Westminster do not beckon us like the pied piper; they are a siren warning us to head away from the rocks. The Government should learn lessons from England and drop the proposal now.

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

The Scottish Government is trying to show that it is an internationalist Government that is willing to learn lessons from across the United Kingdom.

Michael McMahon rose—

Oh, come on. I have only just started.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Will the minister give way?

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

Okay.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

The point is that the Government is not learning the lessons or listening.

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

When members kept referring to the demolition of buildings in England, I had to say that those buildings were industrial properties. The fact that industrial properties will continue to be exempt in Scotland shows that we have listened and learned and that it is the other parties that have not moved on. It appears that unionism is alive and kicking in the chamber, although policies of unionism that are deployed and implemented by the Labour Party and continued by the Conservatives and the ever-absent Liberal Democrats hold true except for viewers in Scotland, where there is—in those parties—denial on introducing and deploying such policies.

The issue is serious, and I have tried to be consensual in my approach in the debate and to make it clear that the Government will continue to listen to—and to learn from—the private sector, partners and parliamentarians.

I have been asked specific questions, which I have tried to answer. The debate has moved on from the debate in the Finance Committee, although I admit that a number of probing questions were asked there and that specific information was sought, much of which was provided in due course to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, including how the formula and figures were arrived at, how the policy would be deployed and how it would affect different parts of the public sector. We were able to explain that the impact of the proposed changes to rates relief would be a maximum of £300,000 for the NHS, £400,000 for Scottish Enterprise and £1.7 million for councils. However, we should bear it mind that there will be a saving of £18 million of revenue, which will all be retained for the public sector in the face of savage UK cuts to the Scottish Government budget.

The Government’s flexibility and willingness to listen is very much on the record. I have had a number of meetings with stakeholders and I will continue to have such meetings as we approach the bill’s enactment and the subsequent regulations that Parliament will consider.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the minister taken an intervention?

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

Certainly, I will—but after I have made my next point.

Margaret Mitchell asked earlier whether we would ensure that our policy and the rates review would not be implemented in isolation, would tie in with the town centre regeneration strategy and would be worked up in partnership with the private sector. I will, of course, commit to that, because it makes sense for the rates system to be tied in to whatever incentives or town centre regeneration proposals we produce.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I merely put it to the minister that he really cannot have it both ways. Either the bill will be passed to achieve the £18 million saving, or he will delay it because it sends out the wrong message. Which is it? Can we have a definitive answer now?

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

That is not the case at all. We are saying that the bill will give us the power to introduce regulations to vary rates relief as we do for the small business bonus scheme, so the same kind of approach would be taken. However, we must balance the budget. The figure in the budget was £18 million, but we are trying to be flexible in asking whether there are different ways in which to deploy the policy to achieve the objective of incentivisation while sustaining us against the budget pressures that we encounter. Mark McDonald made a helpful suggestion in that regard around what is happening in Northern Ireland. Despite the rhetoric, the Westminster Government and the Welsh Assembly Government have not yet changed their policies on empty property rates relief, although they may be considering doing so.

The power that we seek through the bill will give us the ability and adeptness to change the policy that applies in Scotland.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

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

I want to make progress.

Northern Ireland has been able to develop an incentivisation scheme—which Gavin Brown may be interested in—to bring properties back into use. If properties that have been empty for a time are brought back into use, they may be eligible for rates relief at that point. The Scottish Government is interested in that proposal and in how it could be applied here, which shows that we are prepared to be flexible about the details when the regulations are introduced.

We want to implement the policy with a partnership approach. I do not dismiss the concerns that have been expressed, but I am mindful of budget debates in the chamber in which Opposition politicians have often simply cried out for more.

I come to the Conservatives’ position. At least the Labour Party supported the public health supplement, which is a radical tax that will contribute to preventative spend. The Conservatives said that the bill is the wrong prescription at the wrong time. It says a lot that they would, to fund some of their pledges, re-introduce prescription charges. Their solution to some of the budget pressures in Scotland says a lot about where in Scotland they think the burden of taxation should rest.

Of course, we are judged by our deeds and not just by our words. The £18 million that would be saved or generated through reduced rates relief pales into insignificance compared with the £1 billion VAT bill that was landed on Scotland as a consequence of a UK Government decision. Through our policies and their application, the full package of rates relief that is over £0.5 billion a year, including empty property rates relief, will still be at a very generous £721 million after the reform, which will ensure that Scotland has an advantage in the competition to be the best place in the United Kingdom in which to do business. We will continue to work in partnership with the private sector and others and we will maintain our “listening Government” approach in order to achieve that objective.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

One is left with the impression that John Swinney fired the bullets but poor Derek Mackay is left holding the gun. Derek Mackay does not appear to be terribly passionate about the policy and if there were thought bubbles coming out the side of his head, they would quite clearly contain bad things about Mr Swinney, questioning why he was left to defend the policy. He did his best, but when he came down to it, he was about as convincing as the “The dog ate my homework” excuse that one used to use in school.

Derek Mackay completely ignored—as did every SNP member—the fundamental point and question: will the bill increase the number of empty properties that are brought back into use. Everybody in the chamber wants to see more empty properties being brought back into use. No village, town or city wants the blight of empty properties. All parties across the chamber want to see things done, but let us not conflate the two issues. To want something to be done and to decide that what has been chosen will do anything are two entirely separate issues. I have to say that every SNP speaker either intentionally—or unintentionally—conflated the two issues.

SNP members again stated that the bill will bring 5,500 empty properties back into use. No, it will not. The Scottish Government bill team are not saying that and the minister did not say that. There is no evidence that the bill will bring a single property back into use. That is what the bill ought to be about and that is our objection to it. It is a burden on the public and private sectors and it could potentially damage the economy via demolitions. There is no evidence at all, and no attempt has been made to answer whether the bill will solve the problem that the Government says exists and that we all believe exists.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

How credible did Gavin Brown find the minister’s assertions about why we were not going to get a BRIA?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

I think that that question is what is called friendly fire. Of course the minister’s assertions were not credible. I do not think that even the minister found them credible. In fairness to the minister, he was not the minister when the policy was drawn up, and I suspect that if one was to have a private conversation with Derek Mackay, he would probably—I cannot put words in his mouth—speak common sense. Certainly, all his SNP colleagues on the Finance Committee, including Mark McDonald, who is in the chamber, and the committee convener said categorically that there should have been a consultation.

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

I—again—make the point to Gavin Brown that a business and regulatory impact assessment would have been on the proposition that was announced at the budget. I have repeatedly said that we are listening to the various stakeholders to see how the policy might be developed. As that engagement is on-going so, too, is the assessment. Surely that shows that we are listening, that we are looking at the potential impact, and that we are taking that on board to see how we can refine the policy. Surely that is an approach that he would appreciate.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

No. The approach that I would appreciate is a full and formal consultation on primary legislation. I do not doubt that Derek Mackay is the listening type, but saying “We are listening” is not the same as having a full consultation, especially when every other part of the bill underwent a full and formal consultation.

Derek Mackay asserted that only industrial properties have been demolished. That is simply incorrect. The Lambert Smith Hampton report—published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors—to which I referred, makes it clear that properties of all type were demolished. If Derek Mackay can provide evidence that only industrial properties were demolished, I would be extremely interested to see it.

We heard also that the Government is going to be using Scottish Enterprise to promote some of the schemes that it proposes. That is great; I have a lot of time for Scottish Enterprise and I hope that it does that well. Why will the minister not ask at the same time why Scottish Enterprise is sitting on several hundred empty properties? The reason is that it is extremely difficult—if not impossible—to get tenants for those properties in the current climate. There are simply not enough tenants and if Scottish Enterprise, which markets extremely hard and has some of the most talented people in the business, cannot get properties let, what chance do other business owners and property holders have when they do not have one ounce of the marketing budget that Scottish Enterprise has?

I will start to draw the debate to a close, but do not worry, Presiding Officer—I will take longer to close than a minute. Fear not.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I got worried there.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

The fundamental point is that the bill will not incentivise owners to put their empty properties back on the market. It will not incentivise anyone to do anything; it will just clobber businesses that cannot get their properties let out.

There is widespread concern about the bill across the political spectrum and we have heard various quotations and comments from business organisations. I was so robust in the motion because I believe that we should scrap the proposals. It is not just the business community or business organisations that are calling for that. Yesterday, I went to the trouble of reading all the submissions that have been given to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, and a broad spectrum of people across Scotland are saying that the proposals should not go ahead.

The Association of Town Centre Managers Scotland said that

“Increasing the liability of property owners, in many cases, will not improve market conditions and reletting will not be any easier. The proposed legislation could make many property owners more risk averse.”

The Enterprise North East Trust stated very clearly:

“For property owners or landlords, the empty relief scheme is helpful but in no way detracts from a property owners ultimate desire to relet—it could be argued therefore, that it is currently well balanced. The removal of empty relief would, we suggest, have a negligible impact on a Landlords ability to let.”

From the council side, we have a submission from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which said that

“COSLA recognises that there is a cost implication for Councils where they are in ownership of properties which are unoccupied. There are often good reasons why these properties may remain empty. Councils are active in letting out such properties as part of their asset management plans.”

If councils cannot relet properties with the resources that they have, how can some of our smaller businesses do so?

Individual councils have also written in with evidence. Glasgow City Council might have to pay £1 million. Falkirk Council development services ends its comments with:

“The proposal is not therefore supported.”

Submissions from the national health service talk about the cost that NHS National Services Scotland will have to pay, and NHS Ayrshire and Arran said that it wishes its

“concerns to be noted concerning the reduction of relief for premises that are empty.”

People from across the spectrum have raised concerns about the policy and are calling for it to be abolished. I can find almost no one who thinks that it is a good idea, and almost no one—even in the Government—who can show that it will make any impact on the number of empty properties or put any back in circulation. That is why we brought the debate to the chamber today, and why we are pushing our motion.

Clyde Coastguard

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what recent representations it has made to the United Kingdom Government regarding the future of Clyde coastguard. (S4O-01149)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We have made absolutely clear our opposition to the UK Government’s cuts to the coastguard and its proposed closure of the Clyde and Forth maritime rescue co-ordination centres. That has included our responses to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency consultations, sustained correspondence with UK ministers, engagement with staff and communities affected by the cuts, and repeated calls for those decisions to be reversed.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Representatives from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and a cross-party delegation of members have just had a meeting, and I welcome the fact that the minister showed great interest in and support for the many issues that were raised. Does he agree that, in the light of the recent incidents on the Clyde, it is vital that the Clyde coastguard station remains open instead of being closed, as is planned? Will he write to the UK Government, pressing the case for it to ensure that there is a transitional period? I am convinced that that will highlight the folly of the UK Government’s proposals.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Ministers are aware of the incidents that have been mentioned, and our thoughts are with the family and friends of the man who lost his life. As Stuart McMillan said, I met representatives of the Public and Commercial Services union from the Clyde maritime rescue co-ordination centre this morning, along with Duncan McNeil, Stuart McMillan and others. The PCS members are to be commended for their on-going professionalism at a difficult and uncertain time. I assure Stuart McMillan that the Scottish ministers will continue to press the UK Government. I will write to the UK minister with responsibility on the point that Stuart McMillan has raised about ensuring that the transitional commitments given by the UK Government are adhered to.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The minister will be aware of the vital support that is given to the Clyde coastguard by the helicopter search and rescue service that currently operates from HMS Gannet at Prestwick airport in my constituency. Does he agree that that vital service should continue to operate from HMS Gannet in support of the coastguard service, and will he please make representations to the UK Government in that regard?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

That is substantially outwith my portfolio responsibility, but it points to the fact that we have a joined-up response from the emergency services just now, which we are keen to see continue. I will incorporate those comments in the approach that I make to the UK Government. If I can be assured of support from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat benches in that regard, I am sure that we can make progress with the UK Government.

Further and Higher Education (Care Leavers)

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to assist care leavers into further and higher education. (S4O-01150)

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

Opportunities for all was launched in April, when we guaranteed every 16 to 19-year-old in Scotland a place in education or training. Beyond that, staff across all agencies that support young people leaving care provide a range of advice and support to help them to access the opportunities that are available to them. The Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council recently concluded three college pilot programmes that supported care leavers. The aim was to improve access to college for members of that group through providing more support and information while raising awareness of their particular needs within education. Additional funds were granted for the current academic year to support the mainstreaming of that approach.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

The minister will know from previous answers given by the Government that, over nine years, only nine care leavers in the whole of Scotland have received the care leavers grant from the Student Awards Agency for Scotland. Does the minister think that that is acceptable? Will he consider reviewing the criteria for the grant?

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

The issue does not lie with the criteria for the grant, although the Government is always happy to receive representations on such matters. We have always acknowledged that we must get more people from care backgrounds into further and higher education, which means intervention at much earlier stages in the education process. We have encouraged universities to set admissions targets for people from looked-after backgrounds, and we intend to pursue outcome agreements in that area.

“Price and choice in remote communities”

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

3. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the Office of Fair Trading report “Price and choice in remote communities” in relation to such communities in Scotland. (S4O-01151)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Many of the issues that are identified in the report are reserved to Westminster. The Scottish Government believes that the powers involved—for example, on fuel taxation—should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, which would allow us to address the issues directly.

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

The OFT has confirmed in detail what we already know: scattered and remote communities suffer higher prices due to monopolies and lack of competition in broadband and in the delivery of goods and fuel. Given that Highland Council procures diesel fuel for fishing vessels using the port of Lochinver, could the council do the same for vehicle and heating fuels in order to offer reduced costs for vehicle users and residents in many of our scattered communities?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Rob Gibson is right. I, too, understand that Highland Council deals with the procurement of diesel as part of the business of running harbours, which is its duty. It does not have a duty to run fuel distribution networks, which are intensely complex, and the council says that fuel may end up being even more costly if it were to undertake that burden.

With the news yesterday that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has announced that fuel tax is to be increased by a further 3p, the burden that is borne by Rob Gibson’s constituents and others throughout Scotland, which is already massive and disproportionate, will increase. According to the table of European Union statistics that I have before me, the tax on diesel in the United Kingdom is the highest in the EU, at 56 per cent. Apparently, Westminster is unable to manage its financial affairs as well as the other 26 EU states are managing theirs.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Question 4, in the name of Neil Findlay, was not lodged. He has provided me with an explanation.

Racist Hate Crime

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to tackle racist hate crime. (S4O-01153)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

All hate crimes are deplorable and have no place in modern Scotland.

Earlier this month, we cautiously welcomed newly published figures that show a decrease in racist incidents recorded by the police in Scotland for 2010-11. Although those figures showed a decrease in racist incidents, there is absolutely no room for complacency and the Scottish Government is committed to tackling all types of hate crime and supports all efforts to stamp it out.

That is why we are providing nearly £9 million in funding during the period 2012 to 2015 to organisations whose work is aimed at tackling racist attitudes and improving the lives of minority ethnic communities, including refugees, asylum seekers, migrant workers and Gypsy Travellers. That includes £2.9 million to strategic partners such as the Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Organisations, Black and Ethnic Minority Infrastructure in Scotland and the Scottish Refugee Council to deliver race equality at a national level and represent the views of minority ethnic groups and individuals in Scotland. We also provided funding of £5.9 million to organisations to deliver projects working towards race equality at a grass-roots level.

Even one racist hate crime is one too many and we continue to work with those organisations to create the one Scotland to which we all aspire.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister might be aware of the report in the Dundee Courier on 13 June of a 50 per cent increase in race hate crime in Fife. Obviously, that is concerning. It has been suggested in reports in the newspaper that Fife Constabulary is recording those crimes differently now, which might account for the spike. Will the minister look into the spike in Fife and consider publishing some figures from Fife in the next three to six months, which will help us to see whether the issue is simply down to reporting methods or whether something more sinister underlies the figures?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

It is often the case that there are variations in the national figures. Sometimes, that is to do with issues such as changes in recording methods or the fact that there has been a specific focus on a particular crime. The member is quite right to flag up the differential between Fife and other parts of Scotland. I undertake to have a closer look at the matter to try to establish the underlying causes and determine whether the issue is simply a technical one or whether a problem is developing in Fife. I will meet the member in the near future, if he wishes.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

The minister will not wish to comment on the decisions that courts have made or may make on this matter, but will she, in general terms, applaud the decision that was taken by the City of Edinburgh Council—and, I believe, Dundee City Council—not to allow marches by the so-called Scottish defence league? Does she agree that there is no place in Scotland for the Scottish defence league’s message of hate against ethnic minority communities in general and the Muslim community in particular? [Applause.]

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The applause perhaps gives the member the answer that he might expect. I suspect that every member in the chamber is united in their abhorrence of the message that is being promulgated in Scotland by what is a small group of individuals who insist on making arguments that the rest of us simply do not and never will agree with. I commend those councils that are taking active steps to prevent that message from being broadcast even more loudly on the streets of Scotland’s cities.

Small Business Bonus Scheme (Jobs)

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive how many jobs have been created by the small business bonus scheme and how this evidence was collected. (S4O-01154)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Two out of five commercial premises in Scotland pay no or low business rates under the small business bonus scheme. Since its introduction by this Government, the scheme has reduced the tax paid as business rates by £420 million. The Scottish Government estimates that the scheme has sustained many thousands of jobs in small and medium-sized businesses throughout the country.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

I thank the minister for his response, but it does not answer my question. I asked how many jobs had been created and how the information was collected. The fact that he was unable to answer the question has partly answered it.

The minister will be aware that the Finance Committee has been considering the issue of data collection. In our evidence session with Dr Lena Wilson and others, the most robust evidence possible of the outcomes of public spending was requested. Does the minister’s answer reflect the fact that we cannot judge the overall outcome of the small business bonus scheme because we do not collect the information that relates to it?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I used to run a small business. If anyone had said then that I could get help to reduce my business rates, I would have known that that was a great thing.

It is puzzling that, in its manifesto, the Scottish Labour Party wanted to continue with the small business bonus scheme. Now it appears that it is against the scheme. It is for it and it is against it; it is not sure; it is on the fence. That used to be the prerogative of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland.

In Lanarkshire, 6,914 businesses benefit from the scheme. Does the Labour Party want to take that benefit away? We should be told.

Private Drains and Sewers

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

7. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Scottish Water regarding the adoption of private drains and sewers. (S4O-01155)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The rules on the adoption of private drains and sewers have been agreed by the Government and the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. Those rules are laid out clearly in information leaflets on Scottish Water’s website. In connecting new customers, Scottish Water must ensure that drains and sewers meet a required level of performance and do not create liabilities that it would fall to existing customers to fund.

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

The cabinet secretary will be aware that there are new builds in Scotland that, for obvious economic reasons, are unlikely to be completed for a significant period. Some of those schemes have been built in part and, in piping terms, are complete. Such schemes could be adopted, were the rules to allow it.

Will the cabinet secretary meet me and the head of Scottish Water to sort out how we can modify the rules to make some sense of the situation on the ground—quite literally—where such schemes really should be adopted, so that the roads can then be adopted, gritted and looked after, and customers can be given a sensible service by their local authorities?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

As always, I would be more than happy to meet the member to discuss any particular problems that he has in his constituency and to invite the senior management of Scottish Water to such a meeting to try to resolve any issues that need to be addressed.

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

In Auchengate in my constituency, there is a small development of 76 residential properties that were previously owned by the Ministry of Defence. The residents of those properties are responsible for the sewerage system and the pumping station. In discussion with Scottish Water about Scottish Water adopting the system, it transpired that the residents are also responsible for about a mile of the sewerage system, until it reaches an adjacent village. Scottish Water has refused to adopt the system until it is upgraded, which the residents have been told could cost upwards of £0.5 million. Will the cabinet secretary look at the specifics of the matter and perhaps discuss it with me and Scottish Water to look for some resolution?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am already aware of the problem and investigating the specifics of it. Once I have concluded my investigations, I will write to the member, after which I am more than happy to meet her, along with senior management from Scottish Water, to try to resolve any outstanding issues.

Sectarianism

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

8. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to educate children and young people about the dangers of sectarianism. (S4O-01156)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The curriculum for excellence provides the right environment to enable our young people to develop as informed and responsible citizens, and education remains central to the Scottish Government’s approach to tackling sectarianism. I am therefore delighted that Education Scotland will highlight its work to combat sectarianism at this year’s Scottish learning festival, which will showcase best practice in the area. That best practice includes a range of projects that are currently funded by the Scottish Government and which use many approaches, such as the arts, sports and classroom-based learning, to deliver real outcomes for our young people.

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

Will the minister join me in congratulating the Larkhall community on being awarded the first Nil by Mouth communities award, which was granted for the positive work that has been undertaken by the community, the churches and the Machan Trust to tackle sectarianism? I convey an invitation to the minister to see the great work that the Machan Trust in Larkhall does in tackling the scourge of sectarianism in its community.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I am delighted to join my colleague Christina McKelvie in applauding the creativity of the Machan Trust and staff and pupils on the initiative. That initiative is an example of the great work that is happening in Larkhall and the surrounding area, and is one of the reasons why Larkhall has become the first area in Scotland to receive the Nil by Mouth award, which recognises several years of hard work in uniting people of different religious and cultural backgrounds.

I have visited a variety of schools in the past few months, and would be delighted to visit the member’s constituency, meet those who are involved in that excellent project and see first hand some of the other exciting initiatives that are taking place across Larkhall and the surrounding area. There are, of course, such initiatives in other parts of Scotland, too. An enormous amount of very good work is being done in Scotland right now on sectarianism, and I commend everybody who is involved in it, but I particularly commend Larkhall for being the first to get champion for change accreditation status.

Edinburgh International Culture Summit

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

9. To ask the Scottish Government what benefit the Edinburgh international culture summit will bring to Scotland. (S4O-01157)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The first ever gathering of culture ministers from around the world will take place in the Scottish Parliament, for which I give many thanks to the Presiding Officer. It will be hosted by the Scottish Government, Edinburgh International Festival, the United Kingdom Government and the British Council, and will take place on 13 and 14 August. The culture summit will showcase the best of Scottish culture, position Scotland as a leader in international cultural debate and, in the year of creative Scotland, celebrate and enhance Scotland’s reputation as a highly creative nation.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the international cultural discourse fostered by the summit will enhance Scotland’s international reputation?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The summit will enhance understanding of the creative and cultural reputation of Scotland and the UK and the potential for full international relationships that are based on cultural ideas; it will promote international dialogue; and it will consolidate relationships with developing countries. It will also make a valuable contribution to the overall success of the year of creative Scotland and the cultural olympiad, which will, of course, kick off tonight in the Raploch, where the big noise orchestra will perform with the Simón Bolívar youth orchestra and Gustavo Dudamel. That is a great opportunity to showcase Scotland.

The summit will allow delegates to experience Scottish and other hospitality opportunities in the Parliament. I understand that the Parliament has a key role in that, and I am sure that the Presiding Officer is looking forward to the event as much as we are.

We must remember that Scotland is a creative nation. We are rich in heritage, and we have much to contribute to the world. As we welcome the world, we can promote ideas and innovation. People will see a warm, welcoming and outward-looking nation, which will enhance our international reputation. I encourage all MSPs to find some way of contributing to what I think will be a wonderful event and a chance to showcase Scotland’s international capability and our cultural contribution to an audience the likes of which we have never seen before.

Engagements

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

1. I welcome the Deputy First Minister to her place and ask her what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00782)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Today the First Minister is travelling back from a successful trade mission to the United States, and I will have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

It is a pity that the First Minister cannot be here today, but I am glad that at last he has been able to make a trip to the pictures without it ending in farce—although in those trews he could give Jack McConnell a run for his money in the fashion stakes. Of course, I say that as something of a fashion icon myself. [Laughter.]

I know that this is a word that the Deputy First Minister cannot use, but how does she explain the fall in support for independence?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I reassure Johann Lamont that Jack McConnell’s hold on the title of champion of silly outfits is quite safe. She need not worry on that score.

I am very confident that the people of Scotland, when they see the proposition that this Government will put forward for an independent Scotland, will vote yes, for an independent Scotland.

Let me tell Johann Lamont that I am happy today and indeed on any day to talk about independence. I am happy to talk about the power that independence will give us to prevent any more illegal wars, the power that it will give us to rid Scotland of Trident and the power that it will give us to protect the vulnerable from Tory welfare reforms. Johann Lamont does not want to talk about any of those things, because she prefers to leave all those powers in the hands of her new friends in the Tory party. She prefers Tory government to self-government.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The First Minister is not here, but his spirit lives on in that response from the Deputy First Minister, which simply did not answer the question. Support for independence is falling. Is it not the fact that independence is becoming more and more unpopular because of airy and meaningless assertions from the likes of the Deputy First Minister, such as, “Scotland will have a seat on the monetary policy committee of the central bank of a foreign country”?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Johann Lamont mentioned the monetary policy committee of the Bank of England, and I have to say that she is becoming a bit like a broken record on the issue. The position of the Scottish Government is perfectly reasonable, and Johann Lamont does not have to take my word for it, because that is also the opinion of the former member of the monetary policy committee, David Blanchflower, who said that it is not unreasonable for Scotland to have a seat on the monetary policy committee. I am going out on a limb here, but I suspect that David Blanchflower knows a bit more about those things than Johann Lamont does.

On unpopularity, nothing will be more unpopular in Scotland in the coming months and years than the new coalition between Labour and the Conservatives—the coalition to hold Scotland back.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The problem for the Deputy First Minister is that she did not go on television and say, “David Blanchflower thinks it might be a good idea”; she said that it would happen, and she repeated that in the Parliament, without even asking anyone. That is what I mean by meaningless assertion in a serious debate [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Indeed.

I felt for the Deputy First Minister when she had to defend her boss’s love-in with Rupert Murdoch, but her defence of her boss’s banking plans is even more risible. We can imagine Wallace’s address to his troops at Stirling Bridge if Nicola Sturgeon had written it: “Don’t worry boys. If we win, we’ll still keep Edward as king. We’ll send him homeward with a seat on the monetary policy committee.” [Interruption.]

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Presuming that the Scottish Government is doing anything to prepare for independence—there is that naughty word again; maybe we should call it the “i” word—can the Deputy First Minister tell me how the discussions are going with the European Union about, shall we say, an independently-minded Scotland being a member?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

An independent Scotland will be a member of the European Union and if Johann Lamont is arguing otherwise, she really is in an utterly absurd position.

It is interesting that Labour members are laughing, because Johann Lamont’s propositions are certainly something of a joke. I said that the monetary policy committee position was reasonable. David Blanchflower says that it is reasonable. However, the real question for Johann Lamont is this. If Scotland—when Scotland—votes for independence, is Johann Lamont really saying that she would argue against an independent Scotland having that representation on the monetary policy committee? If she is, she is arguing an absurd proposition, but we should not expect anything more from a party that is so happy to link arms with the deeply unpopular Conservative Party.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Again, the Deputy First Minister simply asserts something about the European Union. She does not ask anybody or check her facts. It is a simple assertion. She says that it would be absurd to suggest that an independent Scotland would not be on a monetary policy committee. In forty years I have not heard that argument being made by anybody in the Scottish National Party until this year.

There is another option that the SNP will not talk about, although Jim Sillars talks about it. It is, of course, an independent currency of your own. This is Monty Python’s “Life of Nicola”. What has being British ever done for us—apart from the pound, the monarchy, the Bank of England, financial regulation and the union jack. The only—[Interruption.]

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The only dead parrot in the sketch, as the First Minister would have it, is independence. The reality is that the SNP—under its current leadership, on Nicola Sturgeon’s watch—is not even prepared to make the case, because Nicola Sturgeon knows that the Scottish people will not buy it: compromising the monarchy, compromising the currency, compromising the second question; we will still be British, but not nationalists; and the final humiliation of SNP members not even being allowed to say the word that they have campaigned for for their whole political lives. Is there anything that Nicola Sturgeon will not sell out on? [Interruption.]

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I remind Johann Lamont that Monty Python actually worked quite well for the SNP in the election last year. We won an overall majority on the back of that particular broadcast. Johann Lamont was all over the place there, but I will try to take her points one by one.

On European Union membership, I will refer her to the words of the late and greatly respected Robin Cook:

“It’s in the nature of the European Union, it welcomes all comers and Scotland would be a member.”

Was Robin Cook also wrong?

It might have escaped Johann Lamont’s notice that the SNP has been in favour of retaining the Queen since 1934. Johann Lamont says that she did not hear about our position on sterling—[Interruption.]

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

—until this year. That has been our position since 2005. Perhaps Johann Lamont should pay greater attention. [Interruption.]

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I will tell Johann Lamont what the benefits of independence are: no more Labour illegal wars; no more weapons of mass destruction; an ability to tackle the poverty that Labour so abysmally failed to tackle; and an ability to protect people in Scotland from the policies of a right-wing Tory Government. Johann Lamont prefers to leave all those powers in the hands of a Tory Government. That is what she will find difficult to explain to the Scottish people.

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. When the Deputy First Minister says that the Scottish National Party has been in favour of keeping the Queen “since 1934”, that possibly means 7.34 last night rather than 1934, when the Queen was not on the throne.

To ask the Deputy First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00775)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

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

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

The Deputy First Minister has said that she has sympathy with the doctors who are striking today and understands their frustration and anger at pension changes that they say are unfair. Will she explain to the Parliament precisely what she finds so unfair about an annual pension of £68,000?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

That is a serious issue, so I will treat it extremely seriously. I deeply regret the action that has been taken today, although it is not a strike by doctors, because they are continuing to cover all emergency and urgent care as normal. However, those who are participating in the action are not covering non-emergency care. It is therefore unavoidable and unfortunate that many patients will be affected. I deeply regret the action. British Medical Association material states that the action is being taken to force the UK Government back to the negotiating table. I should point out that the Scottish Government has never left the negotiating table. I therefore consider the action not just unfortunate, but unnecessary.

I also regret the fact that the action is taking place over an issue on which the Parliament has limited room for manoeuvre. However, we remain willing to work in partnership with national health service trade unions to find a way forward on the pensions issue within the severe constraints that are imposed on us. I urge the BMA to continue to be a part of that.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

I did not hear anything in that response from the Deputy First Minister about why £68,000 is an unfair pension income or about whether she would increase that at the expense of lower-paid public sector workers. All we had was more SNP grandstanding that it would do something different, just do not ask what.

On the point about sitting round the negotiating table, the Deputy First Minister knows fine well that the Department of Health had 23 meetings on pensions with the BMA, including five between the Secretary of State for Health and the head of the BMA.

Given that the responsibility of the Deputy First Minister and her Government is to stand up for the patients who are affected today and for the taxpayers, who finance three quarters of the multibillion pound pension bill—

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Doctors pay taxes; it is Tory donors who do not.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

I ask the Deputy First Minister how many appointments have been cancelled in Scotland because of the industrial action, how many operations have had to be postponed and how many patients have been denied treatment by their NHS because the taxpayers’ contribution of £50,000 a year to a £68,000 pension is not deemed to be enough.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I point out to Ruth Davidson—as I appreciate that she might not be aware of this—that the NHS pension scheme was reformed in 2008. Everybody in Scotland, including doctors and other public sector workers, and certainly the Government, understands and appreciates the importance of the long-term sustainability of pension schemes. However, many people in Scotland, including low-paid workers, think that the current United Kingdom reforms are more about a cash grab for deficit reduction than about the long-term sustainability of pensions.

I have already outlined the Scottish Government’s position. We will continue in negotiations, albeit within the limits of the severe constraints, to see whether we can find a better way forward. That is in the interests of patients and of those who work in our national health service.

On the impact of today’s industrial action, Ruth Davidson and other members will appreciate that I have been monitoring the situation carefully and closely and will continue to do so throughout the day. I am advised that approximately 3,200 out-patient appointments and around 450 in-patient and day cases have been cancelled. Patients have been advised and all appointments will be rescheduled as soon as possible. I also understand that approximately 60 per cent of general practitioner practices are affected to some extent. I will continue to monitor the situation as the day progresses. The interests of patients and of patient safety and continuity of care are absolutely paramount, which is why the Scottish Government will continue to work with doctors and health boards throughout the day to ensure that any impact on patients is minimised.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Why has the Dalai Lama not been afforded a proper welcome by the Scottish Government or the Scottish National Party-led Dundee City Council, which, after a visit from the Chinese consul wanted the city’s logo removed from the visit programme and will not even put up the deputy lord provost of the city to welcome the Tibetan leader? What message does that send about the SNP’s willingness to address human rights abuse in China?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Scottish Government has on many occasions raised, and will continue to raise, with the Chinese Government in meetings and speeches the important issue of human rights. As for Jenny Marra’s question about Dundee City Council, I am sure that she appreciates that arrangements made by Dundee City Council are entirely a matter for that council. There has been no discussion or contact whatever between the Scottish Government and Dundee City Council about the Dalai Lama’s visit.

More generally, I say in all sincerity to members across the chamber that I think it unfortunate if anyone in any party seeks to politicise the Dalai Lama’s visit to Scotland. It is not a political or state visit; the Dalai Lama is making a pastoral visit to Scotland and is being very properly recognised and respected by this Parliament in what I understand will be a non-political meeting hosted by the Presiding Officer tomorrow in Queensberry House. I hope that all members will recognise that and reflect it accordingly in the tone that they take about the visit.

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

This week, Philips Lighting in Hamilton in my constituency announced the potential loss of 40 jobs. As the company has had a 65-year presence in Hamilton, the announcement will be a blow to the local economy as well as a shock for the workers concerned. What support can the Scottish Government offer both to the workers directly affected by redundancies and to Philips itself to ensure that the workforce in Hamilton is protected?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Like all members, I share the concern that Christina McKelvie has expressed with regard to developments at Philips Lighting and their impact on the employees affected, their families and, indeed, the general area. I understand that, as Christina McKelvie has indicated, there are around 320 staff on the Hamilton site and approximately 40 employees across production and support functions are likely to be affected. It is hoped that that number will be achieved through voluntary redundancies. I confirm that our local partnership action for continuing employment team has already contacted Philips to offer PACE support and that PACE presentations to staff have been arranged for 8 August with the offer of follow-up workshops and one-to-one career management interviews. I hope that that reassures the member that we will do everything possible to provide support to Philips employees who might be affected by redundancy and minimise the time that they are out of work.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the Deputy First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00780)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

At its next meeting, the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In response to Jenny Marra, the Deputy First Minister talked about human rights in China. Let us remind ourselves that China is a country where 500,000 people have been detained without trial, where women are forced to have abortions on the orders of the Government and where political oppression is at its most severe in Tibet. The Deputy First Minister has a chance today to be very clear about what she thinks. Will she, on behalf of the Scottish Government, condemn the Chinese Government’s human rights record?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I condemn human rights abuses everywhere that they happen and am absolutely unequivocal in doing so.

I say again in all sincerity to Willie Rennie that I think every single member of the chamber has a deep commitment to human rights across the globe and that it is a mistake for any member to seek to divide the chamber on the important issue of human rights. I hope that that statement is unequivocal enough for Willie Rennie.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am pleased to hear the Deputy First Minister condemning the Chinese Government’s human rights record—I have to say that it is a welcome change from the First Minister’s ambiguous attitude.

Will the Deputy First Minister now take some practical steps? We know that the consul general has put pressure on Scottish councils and the First Minister; Dundee has pulled back from the Dalai Lama’s visit and the First Minister is refusing to meet him. To put things right, the Deputy First Minister can do two things: first, encourage her colleagues on Dundee City Council to provide a high-level speaker to deputise for the lord provost; and secondly, get the First Minister or any other minister at any point over the next three days to meet the Dalai Lama. If the Deputy First Minister takes those steps today, she will send a loud and clear message to the Chinese Government that she condemns its human rights record. Will she make those changes happen?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Willie Rennie is making a serious mistake by trying to divide the chamber on these issues. I do not speak for Dundee City Council, but Willie Rennie’s description of its position is wrong. The Lord Provost will attend the reception for the Dalai Lama after he has attended a funeral. I hope that Willie Rennie is not seeking to make an issue of that.

As I said to Jenny Marra, the Dalai Lama is making a pastoral visit to Scotland. He will be properly recognised by the Parliament in a reception that will be hosted by the Presiding Officer and which, as far as I understand it, no party-political representative will attend. It is also my understanding—although Willie Rennie may know differently—that no United Kingdom Government minister, including Michael Moore and Danny Alexander, will meet the Dalai Lama while he is in Scotland.

I hope that Willie Rennie will do two things. I hope that he will accept the deep commitment of everyone in the chamber to human rights across the world, and I hope that he will accept that this is a pastoral visit by the Dalai Lama and that it would be wrong for anybody to seek to politicise it.

Carers (Support)

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

4. To ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Government gives to carers. (S4F-00776)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

During carers week, and, indeed, all year round, I acknowledge and applaud the tremendous work of Scotland’s unpaid carers and young carers, who care for their families, friends and neighbours. Yesterday, the Minister for Public Health launched in the Parliament the Support in Mind Scotland carers’ information pack, for carers of people with mental illness. With our funding, local authorities exceeded the target of delivering an extra 10,000 respite weeks by 2011 and achieved an extra 10,600 weeks. The Scottish Government is providing unprecedented levels of support to carers and young carers through our manifesto commitment, which includes at least 20 per cent of the change fund for older people—almost £50 million over 3 years—and will support carers of older people to continue to care.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

I know that the Deputy First Minister recognises the great work that is being done in both my constituency and hers by organisations such as the Glasgow south east carers’ centre. When working with carers and carers groups, I became aware that many of the voluntary organisations that support carers and those who require care in Glasgow face extra difficulty, due to the unique tendering process that Glasgow City Council has put in place. Given those challenges, would the Deputy First Minister consider using the change fund to further support the work of those important voluntary organisations?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am very familiar with the good work of the Glasgow south east carers’ centre. As James Dornan rightly said, it operates in his constituency and has a heavy presence in my constituency. I also know of the concerns expressed about the tendering processes. As I indicated in my original answer, we have made it abundantly clear that at least 20 per cent of the change fund for older people should be used to support carers to continue to care. That will apply in Glasgow as much as it will in any other partnership area. The change plan submitted by Glasgow city community health partnership states that approximately £2,600,000 will be spent on supporting carers, either directly or indirectly, which represents more than 20 per cent of its change fund application. However, we want evidence of support and will therefore ask all partnerships to submit a progress report in September, to review in particular progress on the development of support for carers and work on joint commissioning.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

This week we all recognise the contribution that Scotland’s 650,000 carers make. I am confident that the cabinet secretary will be as concerned as I am and others are about this week’s survey of more than 3,000 carers, 80 per cent of whom believe that their caring role has an impact on their health. We know that work takes place, as she has just described, and that support is in place for many but, obviously, many carers are missing out. What action can we take to ensure that all carers receive the help that they need?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I very much appreciate Duncan McNeil’s question, and I think that he is absolutely right. I will be frank about the issue, as I often am when speaking directly to carers. First, we owe carers an unbelievable debt of gratitude, but we do not just owe them thanks; we owe them action to support them. Secondly, I am not sure that we will ever—no matter how much we do—properly repay carers for the extraordinary contribution that they make, but we have an obligation to do everything that we can.

I was struck by the survey to which Duncan McNeil refers, because it reflects evidence and information directly from carers that shows that they often care at the expense of their own health. That is why so much of the action that we have taken—and will continue to take, because it is work in progress—focuses on providing respite care and short-break provision, and on encouraging general practitioners and other health professionals to be conscious of the health needs of people who have caring responsibilities.

I am not standing here saying that the Government has got all that right and that there is no more that we can do, but we are going in the right direction and we will continue to work with carers’ organisations to ensure that we are fulfilling our obligation to them.

On behalf of every member in the chamber, I am sure, I end with a heartfelt thank you for the contribution that carers make. [Applause.]

Doctors (Industrial Action)

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the Deputy First Minister what impact industrial action by doctors could have on operations, diagnostic tests and out-patient appointments. (S4F-00778)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

As members are aware, today’s industrial action is the first by doctors in almost 40 years. It is important to emphasise that doctors are not on strike, as they are continuing to cover all emergency and urgent care.

However, non-urgent care is being affected. As I said earlier about hospital care, boards have assessed the impact on operations at clinics and taken steps to inform patients of cancellations. As I said to Ruth Davidson, I am advised that approximately 3,200 out-patient appointments and approximately 450 in-patient appointments and day cases have been cancelled, and all appointments will be rescheduled as soon as possible.

I also understand that approximately 60 per cent of GP practices are affected by the industrial action to some extent.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer and advise members of my British Medical Association membership.

I think that every member in the chamber regrets the action for the effect that it will have on patients. Whatever the rights and wrongs on the pensions issue, I think that the public would be more sympathetic if doctors confined strike action to defending the national health service and patients.

However, the BMA gave three weeks’ notice of the strike rather than the statutory one week’s notice in order to allow patients to be informed in good time of the fact that their appointments, operations and diagnostic tests would be cancelled.

What action did the Government take? Was a chief executive’s letter issued to health boards? What monitoring has the Government undertaken to ensure that patients have been informed in a timely way of that disruption to their lives? What further action will the Government take to ensure that those patients whose lives are being disrupted today get their appointments as quickly as possible?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

First, I reiterate what I said earlier: I deeply regret that the action is taking place, and I do not believe that it is in the interests of patients or the NHS—or indeed, ultimately, in the interests of doctors or those who work in our national health service.

Scotland’s health boards have been planning to deal with the impact of today’s industrial action since it became clear that it was going to happen. I have been receiving regular updates on the preparedness for the industrial action. As Richard Simpson may be aware, NHS Scotland employers and BMA Scotland agreed on and issued joint principles for dealing with the industrial action.

Health boards have taken all steps as quickly as they have been able to in order to advise patients whose appointments are affected or cancelled. Richard Simpson is right to say that the industrial action in general has been known about for a number of weeks. However, he will appreciate that, for some individual doctors, the decision on whether to participate in industrial action will have come later than that, so boards have had to assess the impact on an on-going basis and inform patients accordingly.

I am satisfied from the updates that I have had that boards have taken all appropriate steps to do that in order to minimise the impact on patients but, unfortunately, as I have made clear in previous answers, a number of patients—too many patients—will be affected by today’s action. I again give them an assurance that all appointments will be rescheduled as quickly as possible to minimise the disruption and the impact on patients, who should be the first priority for us all.

Rail Journey Times (Inverness to Edinburgh and Glasgow)

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

6. To ask the Deputy First Minister what progress has been made to reduce journey time on the main rail line from Inverness to Edinburgh and Glasgow. (S4F-00786)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Over the past five years, this Government has invested £1.9 billion in improving the infrastructure of our railways, which has included opening the Airdrie to Bathgate route, work on the Borders rail link and improvements to services between Dundee and Elgin. In addition, of course, the Minister for Housing and Transport will make further announcements on the future of rail this afternoon.

As part of that investment, we have made progress on reducing journey time between Inverness and Edinburgh and Glasgow by 35 minutes and increasing the number of services. In 2011, two additional trains were added to the service, which means that it is now provided by a total of 11 trains. Recent network improvements between Perth and Inverness complete phase 1 of the project.

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

I declare an interest as a regular user of the service. It would indeed appear to be more punctual and the number of services has increased. Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that passengers to and from the north of Scotland will see further reductions in journey times by the end of this year?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

As I said, the transport minister will provide further information about rail services in general this afternoon, so I do not want to incur the ire of the Presiding Officer by straying on to territory that he will cover later.

However, I am happy to confirm that a consultation on the new timetable was conducted in May and that the new timetable that is to be published in the autumn will see journey times being reduced again this December. In addition, Network Rail is currently examining what infrastructure improvements are necessary to further reduce journey times on the route. I hope that, as a user of the service and as a local MSP, Rob Gibson will welcome those developments.

12:31 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—

National Health Service (Whistleblowing)

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

1. To ask the Scottish Government when it plans to review the partnership information network policy on implementing and reviewing whistleblowing arrangements in the NHS. (S4O-01159)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I take advice from the Scottish workforce and staff governance committee on those matters. SWAG normally reassesses PIN policies every two years in order to determine whether they are considered to remain fit for purpose or require further review. The PIN policy in question was first published in December 2011. It is open to SWAG to decide that individual PIN policies are subject to review, either in part or in full, outwith those timescales if it considers that to be necessary and appropriate. I have asked SWAG to review the implementing and reviewing whistleblowing arrangements in NHS Scotland PIN policy with particular reference to the prospect of introducing a whistleblowing helpline for staff, and to report back to me by the end of this year.

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

The cabinet secretary is to be commended for her efforts to create the right environment for whistleblowers. Constituents have raised that issue with me.

We must be seen to be open and accountable. In that regard, will the cabinet secretary confirm that she will meet Patients First, which is a new whistleblowing campaigning organisation that is just starting to operate in Scotland?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I would be happy to meet Patients First, as I am happy to meet a range of organisations. Dave Thompson will appreciate that it is not always appropriate for me to meet such organisations to discuss individual cases, but if Patients First wants to meet me to discuss general issues, I would be delighted to have my office arrange a meeting.

Dave Thompson will be aware that the Scotland Patients Association is also very active in Scotland. I meet it regularly and very much value the advice that it gives.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Many issues that relate to whistleblowing could be addressed by more understanding and supportive human resources departments in the national health service rather than by the usual approach of suspending conscientious staff. Will the cabinet secretary ensure that HR departments try to support staff rather than bully them for whistleblowing?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I hope that Mary Scanlon recognises that I would never tolerate bullying in the NHS from any source for whatever reason. HR departments exist fundamentally to be supportive of staff and to take a supportive approach to addressing any issues that staff may encounter, and to help them to address any particular problems that they are experiencing. That is absolutely the way in which I expect HR departments and, indeed, all levels of management in health boards to approach the issues, and the belief that that is the best approach underpins the PIN policy that we are talking about.

I am the first to admit that, from time to time, health boards will fall short of the standards that we expect on the issue in question and on many other issues. When they do, it is right that we take action to put things right. However, the policy and the principles on which that policy is based are very clear, and I expect all health boards to abide by them.

Giving Voice

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists in Scotland regarding its giving voice campaign. (S4O-01160)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

No formal discussions have taken place between the Scottish Government and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists in Scotland about the giving voice campaign. However, the campaign’s aims are subject to an on-going parliamentary petition, which was submitted to the Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee.

The national delivery plan for allied health professionals was published this week and was welcomed by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. The delivery plan emphasises the need for AHPs to ensure that the communication needs of people who use services are effectively met. It also makes clear the need to consider how to support children with communication difficulties to access the curriculum and achieve their full potential.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

As the minister said, effective speech, language and communication are fundamental to the success of our communities and our economy. People with speech, language and communication needs are likely to be unemployed or underemployed and victims or perpetrators of crime. Will the minister ask national health service boards to update their strategies to improve their SLCN services, so that we can secure an additional annual net benefit to Scotland and its economy? The benefit is currently approximately £60 million.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

As I said, the national delivery plan includes actions and AHP directors in each health board should be working in partnership with colleagues in research and analysis to grow the health economics base for AHPs in Scotland, so that we can gain a clear understanding of the economic benefits that can be gained from AHPs’ intervention across the health and social care setting.

As part of the mainstreaming of the delivery plan, NHS boards have been asked to prepare local plans that detail how the actions in the national plan will be delivered locally and how that will be evidenced. The chief health professions officer will work with NHS boards and local authorities to support implementation and to ensure that activity is effectively monitored, so that we can assess progress in each board.

Post-natal Depression

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive how many women had post-natal depression in 2011. (S4O-01161)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The information is not held centrally. The Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network guideline on the management of perinatal mood disorders refers to a range of evidence that shows a post-natal depression prevalence rate of around 10 to 15 per cent. The figures encompass people who experience mild, moderate and severe post-natal depression.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

The minister will be aware that SIGN guidelines on post-natal depression focus on cognitive behavioural therapy. However, CBT is inappropriate for some sufferers, who would be better served by art therapy and counselling. The post-natal depression group PND Borders offers such services but receives no funding from NHS Borders or Scottish Borders Council, even though it had 80 referrals from those two organisations during its first year of existence. The reason for the lack of funding is that the therapy that the group offers does not conform to Government guidelines.

This week is Action on Depression week in Scotland. Will the minister agree to meet me and Jenny Copsey, of PND Borders, to discuss the group’s funding anomaly and the Government’s guidelines on post-natal depression?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The new SIGN guidelines were published only in March, after careful consideration.

The decision about the approach that should be taken with a patient who is experiencing post-natal depression is primarily a clinical one and involves a multidisciplinary team in considering the most appropriate treatment programme for the patient.

I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed on behalf of the organisation in the Borders to which Jim Hume referred, which supports individuals who are experiencing post-natal depression. However, the member will acknowledge that it is the responsibility of local health boards and local authorities to decide how to provide services locally and which organisations will deliver services. The decision on funding the organisation is therefore a matter for the local health board and local authority. I will be happy to discuss the matter in more detail if the member wants me to do so, but I am sure that the member recognises that the primary responsibility for the matter lies with the local health board and local authority.

Shingles (Vaccination Programme)

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what progress is being made regarding the introduction of a shingles vaccination for all 70 to 79-year-olds. (S4O-01162)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has recommended that people aged 70 to 79 should be vaccinated against shingles if the vaccine can be purchased at a cost-effective price. The United Kingdom Department of Health, which procures vaccines on behalf of the four UK health departments, has started work on the vaccine procurement process, which will establish whether a cost-effective shingles vaccination programme can be introduced.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

The minister will be aware that a chicken pox vaccine is available in Australia, the United States of America and Japan. Can he say what implications his answer to my first question has in relation to a chicken pox vaccine?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am aware that the chicken pox vaccine is available in a number of countries. We are guided on such matters by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, whose current advice is that the universal varicella vaccine for chicken pox is not recommended. I assure the member that those recommendations are kept under review in light of any data that may emerge. If further recommendations come from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation that we should act upon as a Government, we will take the appropriate action at that particular time.

NHS Grampian (Maternity Services)

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with NHS Grampian regarding its plans for the provision of maternity services. (S4O-01163)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Scottish Government ministers and officials regularly discuss matters relating to service provision with national health service boards.

I am aware that following a full public consultation, NHS Grampian has reached a view on its preferred maternity service configuration. As the proposals would involve major service change, the board will now submit the proposals to the Government for a final decision. The member will appreciate that, due to my formal part in that process, it is important that I do not pre-empt consideration at this stage. However, upon receipt of the proposals, I will carefully consider all the evidence and representations before coming to a final decision.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

When the Fraserburgh and Aboyne maternity units were threatened with closure in 2006, Andy Kerr intervened as health minister and they remained open because fears had been expressed over expectant mothers having to travel long distances to give birth.

Will the cabinet secretary consider carefully new plans that have now been submitted to her that are different from 2006, but still include proposals to close the Aboyne and Fraserburgh units? Will she ensure that before those plans are put into action, she is personally satisfied that they are genuinely about better maternity services and not about reducing budgets?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I will say three things quickly to Richard Baker. First, when this issue was under consideration previously, Andy Kerr had exactly the same role in the process as I do now. He considered proposals that came to him and took a decision. That is what I will do when the proposals come to me. Secondly, to correct something that Richard Baker said, I have not yet received the proposals. Thirdly, when I receive the proposals I will, as I said in my previous answer, give him and other members with an interest an absolute assurance—as I always do on such issues—that I will look very carefully at the proposals, I will consider carefully all representations that are made and I will reach a decision only when I am absolutely satisfied in my own mind that it is the right decision to take.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Question 6 in the name of Linda Fabiani has been withdrawn for understandable reasons.

Edington Cottage Hospital

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

7. To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on the value of Edington cottage hospital to North Berwick and its neighbouring communities. (S4O-01165)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am very well aware that the hospital is very valued by the local community.

As Iain Gray knows, national health service boards are responsible for planning and providing the best possible quality and safe local services. It is right that they keep those services under review to ensure that they continue to reflect local needs.

It is in the context of East Lothian’s older people strategy that the East Lothian community health partnership is at an early stage of discussions with local stakeholders about future service provision at Edington cottage hospital. If those discussions result in a specific proposal to change current services, I expect the health board to engage appropriately with local stakeholders in line with national guidance.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I wanted to thank the cabinet secretary for her endorsement, but I fear that organisations such as the friends of the Edington hospital in North Berwick will find that endorsement rather less strong than they hoped for.

Two weeks ago, the Edington celebrated 100 years of serving the people of North Berwick. It continues to provide crucial services close to home. It allows for short-term in-patient care; it allows people to return from surgery in Edinburgh earlier than they would have done otherwise; and most important of all, it provides palliative care close to families.

The Edington hospital has served its community for 100 years. It would be unfair to ask the cabinet secretary to promise another 100 years of life for the Edington, but it would be good to hear her suggest that for the foreseeable future, it is a facility that will remain available to serve my constituents in North Berwick.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I appreciate and respect Iain Gray’s role as a constituency member to speak up for the hospital, although I am a bit disappointed at his tone. I was clear in my answer and I will say again that I fully appreciate how highly valued the hospital is by people in the community. I am aware that the hospital celebrated its centenary recently. It has done a sterling job for the people of the community that it serves and I fully understand the sense of anxiety that there will always be if people have a sense that there may be change on the horizon.

I expect the NHS board to take full cognisance of the value that people place on the hospital, but I am sure that Iain Gray agrees that it would be wrong for any health board to refuse to consider whether services can be improved in any way at any hospital in any part of the country. For example, there are no en suite facilities at the hospital and not all provision is in single rooms. It is right that the health board considers how it provides services and whether those services can be provided better to local people. However, in doing that, the board must be mindful of the important place that the hospital has at the heart of its community.

Finally, I point out that no proposals for change are on the table. If such proposals emerge, they would have to go through the robust consultation and decision-making process that any change proposal has to go through.

Read Classifications

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive what representations it has received regarding Read classifications for general practitioners. (S4O-01166)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Government has had no recent representations about the United Kingdom Read classification system for GPs. NHS National Services Scotland, which is responsible for Scottish input on the issue, has received representations about the way in which version 2 of the Read codes classifies homosexuality. NSS is taking forward the issue with the UK authority that is responsible for the matter.?? The Scottish Government agrees, and I certainly agree, that the current situation does not reflect our equalities aims and I support change to bring systems into line with those aims.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that somewhat pre-emptive response. I recently met Stonewall Scotland and was horrified to discover that gay men are classified under mental health and paedophilia. In the 21st century, that should not be the case. I look forward to that changing quickly.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am happy to respond. Obviously, the classification is 20 years old, but that is no justification if it does not reflect our values and commitment to equalities. I am happy to keep Mary Fee updated on the efforts that NSS makes to bring the classification into line with the current situation.

Coeliac Disease (Prescription of Gluten-free Foods)

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

9. To ask the Scottish Executive what action it has taken to ensure that a full range of staple gluten-free foods is available on prescription to people with coeliac disease in all national health service board areas. (S4O-01167)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that people who are living with long-term conditions such as coeliac disease receive the care and support that they need. A range of gluten-free food products is available on prescription to patients who are diagnosed with coeliac disease.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Thanks to the resources that have been put in and the research that has been done by food manufacturing companies, the range and quality of foods that are available to coeliac sufferers has greatly improved in recent years. A balanced and nutritious diet is more likely to be followed if it is enjoyable. It takes a great deal of time and investment to create successful new gluten-free foods and to gain approval from the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances. It is therefore disappointing that products that have ACBS endorsement are being denied to coeliac sufferers in some parts of Scotland.

For example, Nairn’s Oatcakes recently developed a gluten-free porridge, but it is not available on prescription in all NHS areas. Such disparities are unfair for coeliac sufferers and, if they go unchecked, are likely to have an impact on companies’ willingness to fund future research and development. Will the minister review the current patchwork of provision with a view to ensuring that people throughout Scotland have equal access to staple products? Will he consider the merits of a community pharmacy supply model as an alternative way of delivering a more cost-effective service?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The member is correct that there is a process through which the United Kingdom Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances is responsible for deciding on which products could be considered as appropriate for the prescribed list of gluten-free products. It is important to recognise that the current guidelines focus on prescriptions for staple food products. That is the arrangement that has been put in place across the NHS, which I believe is consistent with Coeliac UK’s prescribing guidelines. We are about to undertake a review of the processes in Scotland, which we will do in consultation with a range of stakeholders to see how we can continue to improve the range of services and products that are available to patients who require access to gluten-free products.

Olympic and Paralympic Games

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

10. To ask the Scottish Government what message it has for the public and competitors from Scotland with regard to the forthcoming Olympic and Paralympic games. (S4O-01168)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As the great turnout for the Olympic torch demonstrated, people across Scotland are looking forward to the fantastic festival of sport and culture that the Olympic and Paralympic games will offer. The Scottish Government congratulates all those Scottish athletes who have been selected to compete at the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games and we wish them good luck when they compete in London.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

How will the Scottish Government capitalise on the opportunities presented by the Olympic and Paralympic games to ensure that the Scottish public are aware of the benefits of participation in sport to their personal health and wellbeing?