Scottish Parliament, 4 October 2012

245 contributions from 63 members. The official report.

Budget 2013-14

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what the priorities of the 2013-14 draft budget are. (S4O-01356)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The priority of the 2013-14 draft budget is to support economic recovery by providing further investment in construction, skills and the green economy.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

On the ground in my constituency, the on-going challenges to and implications of the budget are families living in overcrowded houses and languishing on ever-lengthening waiting lists, and pensioners receiving cuts to their care packages, with a background of £3.3 billion of further cuts coming down the line.

What has the cabinet secretary done to examine the work of Campbell Christie and Crawford Beveridge and when will he take those works out of his drawer to inform his on-going budgeting process?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

If Mr Kelly had been engaged in any way in the parliamentary and discussion processes around the budget for the past two to three years, he would have seen that the Government has given full consideration to the issues raised by the independent budget review and by the Christie commission.

In my summation of the debate last night, I made clear the areas of the independent budget review report—whether they are about the capital programme, pay, or the efficiency and rationalisation of public bodies—in which the Government has taken significant and controversial steps to ensure the sustainability of the public finances. The Government gave a full response to the Christie commission as part of the budget process last year and increased the emphasis on preventative spend and on the integration of local services, which is why we are bringing forward proposals on adult health and social care integration.

Far from those reports being in the drawer, they are actively pursued by the Government and integrated into our budgeting processes, which has resulted in this Administration presiding over a balanced budget since 2007-08.

Mr Kelly has an opportunity to make his own contribution to the debate. In the course of the next few weeks, I look forward to hearing from Mr Kelly and his colleagues—I have sent the invitation by letter to Mr Macintosh—on how they want to change the budget to realise the new pro-Tory agenda of the Labour Party in Scotland.

Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009

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

2. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the discharge by local authorities of their obligations under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. (S4O-01357)

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 sets out a challenging timescale for the preparation of flood risk management plans by December 2015.

In conjunction with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Scottish Government is providing support to local authorities and other responsible stakeholders to develop those plans, which will help to protect communities across Scotland.

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

The minister will be aware of the recent flooding in Comrie—the overarching priority for the village is to get to the bottom of the problem and then to ensure that it is resolved. Can the minister take up this issue directly with the chief executive of Perth and Kinross Council to ensure that all steps that need to be taken are taken as a matter of urgency?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I understand the member’s concerns and I will be speaking to Bernadette Malone, the chief executive of Perth and Kinross Council, this afternoon to discuss the best way forward for managing and responding to flood risk in the Comrie area.

Energy Academy

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making in establishing an energy academy. (S4O-01358)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The Scottish Government announced plans to develop a Scottish energy skills academy within the budget statement on 20 September. We are currently working with relevant stakeholders—including those from industry, colleges, universities, skills bodies and the enterprise agencies—to develop the new academy.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

The investment in the energy academy is welcome, but I ask the minister for further details. How many more people will receive training in skills for the energy industry as a result of the funding? How will it be allocated between the four institutions that have been announced as being involved? How will the academy be funded beyond next year?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I am pleased that the Labour Party welcomes the academy. I am grateful for that, because it is a really important venture for Scotland.

The additional funding has been £3.25 million. The sensible course, which is how we plan to proceed, is to have detailed discussions with all the relevant stakeholders from industry, colleges, universities and the enterprise agencies about how the project is taken forward.

To respond directly to Richard Baker’s point about additional numbers, however, I point out that we have already ring fenced 500 of our 25,000 modern apprenticeship starts for energy every year, and fairly recently we committed a further £2 million—that is, prior to the skills academy—to support an additional 1,000 flexible training places from the new energy skills challenge fund. Finally, we have provided funding of £1.9 million for the academic year to support an additional 300 funded university places in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics—STEM—topics.

Those three actions prior to the announcement about the skills academy show that we are seeking to rise to the challenge of the second major oil opportunity for this country.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I know that the minister has a good working relationship with energy companies. What discussions has the Government had with the private sector regarding the energy skills academy? What input will there be from energy firms?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I have had a great many discussions with the majority of the leading and many of the small and medium-sized enterprise players in the oil and gas sector that are delivering such enormous success in the city of Aberdeen and furth of Aberdeen. Those discussions will continue and we will work closely with, for example, OPITO and Oil & Gas UK. The main thing as we take forward this exciting new initiative is to ensure that we proceed with the maximum buy-in, the maximum support and the maximum deliberation and consideration about how best we can meet not just the enormous challenge but the gigantic opportunities that face this country, given the oil opportunity that is ahead of us, and particularly the opportunities that it will bring for young people.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I very much welcome the minister’s responses so far. Given that there are 15 fewer women working offshore in the North Sea than there were five years ago, will the minister commit to doing everything possible to ensure that the energy skills academy offers the same career opportunities to women as it does to men?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I am delighted that Mary Scanlon has raised that point, which is absolutely apposite. I know that Maureen Watt has championed the issue on many occasions as well, and she continues to do so.

There is massive scope for the oil industry to employ more of the female half of the population. Companies such as Shell have already taken a number of steps to encourage females to enter the oil and gas industry. I also point out that, compared with Scotland’s first oil opportunity in the 1970s, a far greater proportion of jobs in the oil and gas sector are not offshore but on land, in an office. They involve top-quality, world-beating design work in relation to subsea development, and females are already playing a major part in that. We want more women in the oil and gas industry in Scotland.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

I welcome much of what the minister has said. I am sure that he is aware of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report the other week that said that for Aberdeen to achieve its potential as a world energy centre will require 120,000 additional skilled workers over the next 10 years. Will he confirm today that the academy proposals that the Government has brought forward will support and build on the proposals from the universities and colleges in Aberdeen and Banff and Buchan in order to begin to address that enormous demand for skilled labour?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Lewis Macdonald raises an apposite point. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report identified that 120,000 jobs will be required to be filled in the next 10 years. I point out that that figure includes the replacement of people who will retire, which takes us up to nearly 100,000. Broadly speaking, the number of additional jobs is 20,000. We need to study the report further; that is not a criticism—it would be sensible to do that.

I am just delighted that the Labour Party in Scotland realises the huge opportunity that we have in this country to harness the huge wealth and opportunities that will flow from our massive oil and gas resources. I am delighted that it supports the work that we are doing thereanent.

General Practitioner Services (Out-of-hours Provision)

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what progress is being made through the extended hours initiative to widen public access to out-of-hours GP services. (S4O-01359)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We are investing more than £12 million to increase the opening hours of GP practices across Scotland and ensure that patients get more flexible access to healthcare. The extended hours enhanced service was introduced in 2008, and we said in April that we wanted to increase the participation rate from 72 per cent.

Following the steps that we took this year to relax some of the restrictions that were in place, our two largest health boards report that more than 80 per cent of their practices are now participating in the extended hours scheme. I am sure that the member will agree that that is a positive outcome that will ensure that patients continue to get more flexible access to healthcare.

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

In extending the opening hours of GP practices to widen access to healthcare for patients across Scotland, what more can be done to encourage health boards to prioritise and incentivise wider access to extended hours in all areas of the country? Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is a matter of deep regret that the Labour Party in Scotland, unlike its counterpart in Wales, seems determined to abandon the founding principle of the national health service—that healthcare should be free at the point of delivery?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I agree absolutely with Jim Eadie’s last point. People such as Nye Bevan would have been astounded to hear Johann Lamont sell out on the national health service’s basic principle.

I expect all health boards to encourage and monitor the uptake of the extended hours initiative in their areas. Access is one of the priorities that we will consider with the Scottish general practitioners committee as we develop a more Scottish general medical services contract.

Schools (Outdoor Activity)

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that school outdoor environments promote physical activity and healthy lifestyles. (S4O-01360)

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

The 2009 school estate strategy set out a joint commitment between national and local government to create a school estate—school buildings and grounds—that allows everyone to experience the full range of experiences and outcomes in the curriculum for excellence. Architecture and Design Scotland’s schools programme provides advice and guidance to authorities and schools to help put children and young people at the heart of design and so deliver well-designed spaces inside and outside the school building.

We recognise the importance of school grounds in promoting physical activity and healthy lifestyles. That is why we launched in January this year the £1 million school play project, which is led by grounds for learning. The project will develop exciting outdoor landscapes in 31 schools and support a further 20 to develop their outdoor play provision by 2015.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

I thank the minister for the steps that have been taken and the investment that has been made so far. The link between access to natural play environments and a child’s physical and cognitive wellbeing is well demonstrated—the Government’s guidance on outdoor learning refers to much of that. However, it is often down to parents or enthusiastic teachers to fundraise in order to transform the tarmac deserts that many old school playgrounds are into stimulating green spaces. I very much welcome that individual action and community involvement.

What is the minister doing to help members of the community to volunteer their enthusiasm, time and skills to improve school grounds? What action is the Government taking to ensure that, in time, all schoolchildren will have access to equally inspirational outdoor space?

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

I very much welcome the member’s commitment to parents’ involvement. Part of my work is to phone round parent councils. An emerging theme is that parents are willing to become involved in the work that the member describes.

We have a youth sports strategy that touches on those points, but the issue partly comes down to our attitude to outdoor education. I do not want to suggest that we should celebrate Scotland’s weather, but it is increasingly understood that we should understand play to involve outside play in a wider variety of weathers.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Question 6, from John Wilson, has not been lodged. The member has provided an explanation.

Speeding (Trunk Roads)

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

7. To ask the Scottish Government what plans the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has to reduce the number of speeding offences on trunk roads. (S4O-01362)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The management of speed is a primary consideration for road authorities, police forces and safety camera partnerships.

We will continue to fund the Scottish safety camera programme, which brings together police, Transport Scotland and other partners to influence driver behaviour positively and reduce the number of speeding offences.

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

The cabinet secretary will be aware that speeding is a real problem on the A9. I have recently noticed long queues of vehicles behind convoys of lorries that are doing 40 mph on single carriageways. That leads to frustration, and to motorists taking chances in order to pass.

Does the cabinet secretary think that increasing the speed limit for lorries would improve that situation? Can anything be done to prevent lorries from bunching together?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Road safety is our first priority. All vehicles should continue to keep a safe distance from the vehicle in front, irrespective of speed limits. Enforcement will be a matter for the police in any instances in which drivers act irresponsibly and break the law.

Although we have new powers to control speed limits in Scotland, we have no current plans to increase the 70mph and 60mph limits or the speed limits for different classes of vehicle. Speed limit increases would be considered only when there is clear, unambiguous and comprehensive evidence in favour of such a change.

However, I am aware of the points that Dave Thompson and others such as the Road Haulage Association have made, and matters will be kept under review.

Minimum Alcohol Pricing (Economic Benefits)

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

8. To ask the Scottish Government when the economic benefits of minimum pricing of alcohol will be evident. (S4O-01363)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Excessive alcohol consumption is estimated to cost Scots £3.6 billion each year, which equates to £900 for every adult in Scotland. That estimate includes approximately £870 million in lost productivity, £730 million in crime costs and £270 million to the national health service.

Alcohol misuse not only burdens our health service and police, but has a terrible knock-on effect on our economic potential and on the families that are devastated by death and illness caused by alcohol.

As Colin Beattie will know, the modelling that the University of Sheffield carried out shows substantial benefits after one year of the policy, and even more after 10 years. The sooner minimum pricing is implemented, the sooner we will start to see those benefits in the form of a reduction in poor health, crime and social harms.

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

Last year, nearly £5 million was spent in Midlothian alone on social care as a result of alcohol-related harm. Does the cabinet secretary agree that minimum pricing—while essential—is only the beginning in tackling the binge-drinking pandemic in this country?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I agree that minimum pricing is only one measure—albeit a key measure—in tackling alcohol abuse in Scotland. We have a framework with more than 40 measures that seek to reduce consumption, support families and communities, encourage more positive attitudes and positive choices, and improve treatment and support services.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is disappointing that, in the first full year after the ban on discounting that was introduced by the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Act 2010—which the entire Parliament supported—the reduction in consumption in Scotland is only 1 per cent more than in England rather than the 3.8 per cent that the Sheffield model predicted? Will he invite the University of Sheffield team to help us in determining why its predictions are not being fulfilled and what more can be done?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

As Richard Simpson should know, the ban on discounting was intended to work along with minimum pricing, and by definition we will not get the benefits that he has highlighted until we get minimum pricing. I am sure that he already knows that.

Engagements

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00891)

I welcome the First Minister back to his place. I am sure that he and others will want to join me in congratulating Paul Lawrie and the whole European team on their stunning victory in the Ryder cup. [Applause.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

For the rest of the day, I will deal with issues on taking forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

The victory in the Ryder cup was an exceptional achievement for the European team. Everyone in the chamber looks forward ever more to being in Gleneagles in two years’ time to see that victory repeated. [Applause.]

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Absolutely.

How is the First Minister going to make the almost £3 billion of cuts that are to come without anyone noticing?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Government has set out its plans in the budget, as we have done for the past five years. Despite the enormous pressure from the Westminster Government, which Johann Lamont correctly identifies, we have managed to balance that budget, secure Scottish public services and, in particular, introduce vital social gains such as free education in Scotland. When I left for America, I thought that those things were largely agreed across the chamber. When I left for America, Johann Lamont was just appearing on the same platform as Ruth Davidson; now I am having to adjust to the fact that Johann Lamont is leading her party to become the Conservative Party of Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The problem with the First Minister is not just that he is surprised when he leaves for America, but that, when he is in Scotland, he is in denial about what is happening in the real Scotland outside this chamber. He talks about securing public services and says that we have free everything, but he has already brought in £2.7 billion of cuts, and the poor, the vulnerable and the hard-working families in this country have noticed. They have noticed the pensioner who needs help to wash, to dress and to feed themselves suffering the indignity of having just 15 minutes of care visits in a day; the family paying more for childcare than for their mortgage; the 18,000 Scots who are being denied a place at college; and the thousands of working-class students who have had their bursaries cut by £900 a year. They see his cuts; they do not see his Scotland where everything is free and everything is fantastic.

Who is going to pay when he delivers the next £3 billion of cuts?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Johann Lamont is correct to say that the Scottish budget is under severe attack from Westminster—that is true. Incidentally, it was under attack from the previous Labour Government as well. However, the solution to that surely cannot be to abandon concessionary fares, free prescriptions and free personal care, to reintroduce tuition fees or to abandon the council tax freeze. How would the working families of Scotland benefit from our adopting the policies that the Tory party has adopted south of the border? Johann Lamont was deeply wrong to talk about a something-for-nothing society. That is exactly the language of the Tory party of 20 years ago.

Yes, the cuts that are being imposed on Scotland are severe—there is no doubt about that—but they were set out in the comprehensive spending review. There is no difference in those things than when we fought the election last year and fought the local elections this year. When the Labour Party fought the election last year and fought the local elections this year, it was in favour of retaining concessionary fares, free prescriptions, free personal care and free education, and it was in favour of the council tax freeze. Indeed, it was trying to outbid the Scottish National Party on those vital aspects of social progress. So, the question that Johann Lamont must answer is: how, all of a sudden, has she been converted to sweeping away not just the gains introduced by this Government, but the gains of having a Parliament for Scotland?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I do not think that the First Minister listened to what I said about what is happening to people throughout the country. He says that nothing changes, but the question that we should be asking is: who is paying the price for the benefits that we all get from his spending choices?

The First Minister says that we tried to outbid the SNP. One lesson that we have learned is that it is impossible to outbid the SNP on recklessness. Instead, we will demand a serious Government that makes the hard decisions so that people do not pay the price.

It is no wonder that the First Minister thinks that he needs to spend £1 million on spin doctors to try to spin his way out of this. That tells us all we need to know about him. Care workers are losing their jobs or getting their wages cut, but more SNP spinners are hired.

The cuts must be brought in by 2016. Already, John Swinney has delayed half the cuts that he must make. Will we know more before the referendum in 2014 about where that £3 billion-worth of cuts will be made or will the Government continue to try to con the people of Scotland and treat us all as fools?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Johann Lamont called for a quality debate, so let us see whether we can give her one. The argument against means testing—which is her direction of travel—was set out famously in a document almost 20 years ago. It said:

“There is ample evidence that systems with benefits paid to the majority are considerably more popular as well as more efficient than those which reserve benefits solely for the poor.”

That comes from page 249 of the report of the commission on social justice that the late John Smith set up—Johann Lamont was chair of the Scottish Labour Party at the time. I do not understand why Labour has moved away from that fundamental principle.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

We have not.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I hear the cries from Labour members saying that they have not. If they have not moved away from that principle, why is Johann Lamont making speeches attacking the great gains in free education and free health for the people of Scotland?

I agree that the reintroduction of means testing would not be popular, and I also agree that it would not be efficient. One of the arguments is about holding society together. Certain things are so important—such as free education in Scotland—that we must ensure that the people who are lucky enough to be in a position to make a contribution to them through their taxation can see the social benefit as well. That is how we hold society together.

The introduction of sweeping means testing across those valuable areas of society would introduce inefficiency and social division. The Labour Party recognised and, by and large, stayed faithful to that point for many years but now is deserting totally to the Tory ground not only of Ruth Davidson but of Peter Lilley, who first introduced the phrase “a something-for-nothing society”.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The First Minister loves having straw men to cut down. The reality is that a much more serious debate is going on. He says that we should have a debate and then insults every family in the country that is worrying about its children in school, its young people in college and the care of its older people.

He talks about debate but forces his Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning to come to the chamber and recant a position that he held five years ago. We want to have a debate and test the evidence on where the balance, which the First Minister knows is needed, should lie.

I understand why the First Minister thinks that everything is free: he is on £130,000 a year, spends almost £2,000 a week on hospitality and then gets taxpayers to spend £1,300 a year for a television package to enable him to watch the films and sports events that he then gets them to pay for him to attend.

The First Minister does not live in the real world. He lives in a world in which it is fine to spend £400,000 to rent a gentlemen’s club in Pall Mall, but not to worry about the care worker who has had their wages cut by £4,000 a year. He is not an economist—he is a fantasist. No wonder that, from Hampden Park to the Ryder cup and from George Square to the Edinburgh tattoo, he is roundly booed wherever he goes.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

So much for the quality debate that Johann Lamont wants.

I will make three points to Johann Lamont. The argument that we put forward was not only put forward in our election manifesto, on which we were elected; it was enunciated when we set out our programme for government. I set out the social wage argument in the chamber on 26 May 2011, when I said:

“Free university education, no tolls, no tax on ill health and one bill—the council tax—that will not soar: that is the concept of the social wage. For the sacrifices that all of us are and should be making, there is a reward in the form of a society that is geared to our values. We do things differently here, not because we can but because we want to, and we should be proud of that.”

Iain Gray was the leader of the Labour Party then. His response was:

“I agree that Scotland’s path should be different from that pursued by the Tory-Lib Dem coalition in Westminster. There is a fairer, better way, and we will hold the First Minister to his promises on the social wage, as he has characterised it: on free personal care, concessionary travel, free prescriptions and free education.”—[Official Report, 26 May 2011; c 69 and 78.]

In the space of a year, the Labour Party has been transformed from demanding that the Scottish National Party holds to these policies on the social wage to being hand in glove with the Tory party in attacking those gains for the Scottish people.

Johann Lamont should be worried not just about the SNP’s reaction to her; let us talk about other reaction to her speeches. On the LabourHame blog site, for example, Alex Gallagher said:

“The phrase ‘something for nothing’ is badly chosen. It’s a Tory shiboleth”.

George Anders said:

“What are we doing?

Did we learn nothing from the ‘New Labour’ nonsense.”

David Wells said:

“Labour used to endorse policies like: free prescriptions, free tuition fees and the council tax freeze.”

As the Labour Party becomes the new Tory party of Scotland, its support, which is already diminished, will vanish like snaw off a dyke.

Secretary of State for Scotland

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00888)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have no plans to do so in the near future.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

Last year, the principal of the University of Glasgow, Anton Muscatelli, warned that the funding gap for the First Minister’s policies would cause long-term damage to Scottish universities. Alex Salmond not only refused to listen to him; he quite publicly slapped him down. We are starting to see the full effects of the Scottish Government’s higher education policy. All but one of Scotland’s top universities are slipping down the world rankings, and one has tumbled out of the top 200 altogether. University principals such as Professor Muscatelli were right all along. Will the First Minister now admit that his policies are creating a deepening crisis in Scottish education?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I think that there is general acknowledgment, including among all the university principals in Scotland, that the universities in Scotland are currently the best funded by far in these islands. Indeed, the Labour Party’s attack has been that we are overfunding university education in Scotland. As Ruth Davidson should know, in comparison with the 25,000 reduction in university students from England who are going to English universities, record numbers of Scottish, English and overseas students are going to Scottish universities this year.

I would beware of quoting the report that Ruth Davidson has just cited, which describes the situation in England as a “perfect storm” of underfunding. Every university principal in England would gladly change places with Scotland’s university principals, who are properly funded and can look forward with confidence to an excellent future.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

Classic SNP playbook: attack the messenger, ignore the message, do not acknowledge responsibility and, for goodness’ sake, do not even think about answering the question.

Perhaps the First Minister has spent too much time lolling on the greens in America to pay any attention to schools. Let me take the First Minister on a journey through Scotland’s education system: one child in every five leaves primary school unable to read and write properly; our teachers are confused about what they are supposed to do in the classroom because, as Professor Lindsay Paterson pointed out, there is no

“clear leadership and focus in the implementation of curriculum for excellence”;

70,000 people are now denied a place at a further education college after tens of millions of pounds-worth of cuts to the budgets; and, shamefully, Scotland’s poorest and most disadvantaged students have seen vital bursaries cut by 34 per cent.

From primary 1 to postgraduate, that is a catalogue of failure. Will the First Minister now do what his Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning did and stand in the chamber and just admit that he was wrong?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

At some stage, the Conservative Party will have to get over the contradiction between its constant calling for additional expenditure on things that it wants additional expenditure on and its Government in Westminster scything the Scottish budget and the spending in departments.

We have managed to maintain public services in comparison with what is happening in England and Wales. The position of colleges in Scotland is infinitely superior to that of colleges south of the border. We are maintaining student numbers and full-time equivalents, as evidence to the Education and Culture Committee demonstrated this week.

I really think that the attack on curriculum for excellence should stop, because curriculum for excellence has been greeted with huge enthusiasm by both the teachers and the parents of Scotland and is a fundamental, well-needed reform in Scottish education.

I have been looking at some of the quotes coming in on the position of Scotland’s universities. I was delighted to see, just a few seconds ago, a quote from Robin Parker, who talks about

“the huge investment the Scottish Government is making in our universities over this parliament from this new academic year ... In fact in Europe, Scotland is one of only a few countries that are investing in higher education.”

Unfortunately for people south of the border, one of the countries that are not doing that is England, where Ruth Davidson’s Conservative Party is unfortunately visiting its policies on the people of that country.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Today we learn that the former NHS Lothian chief executive James Barbour has been given a £100,000 golden goodbye on top of a very generous package that was awarded when he left office following the waiting times and bullying scandals in Lothian. What action will the First Minister take to end the blatant milking of public money by highly paid professionals who leave office following scandal, or who retire and are then re-engaged?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Professor Barbour received his normal pension benefits in line with contractual entitlements that are standard for all national health service employees. The member should consider what would have happened to the Scottish Government if we had decided to break that contract. The member should also consider that those contracts were entered into when the Labour Party was in government in Scotland.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00890)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Good. Last week, I was pleased that the Deputy First Minister committed to do more for vulnerable young children. She talked positively, I have to say, about building a consensus. I was therefore disappointed to see, the very next day, a statement from the Government that it would not even be piloting an extension of free early learning for deprived two-year-olds.

I need the First Minister to clear this matter up. It is important, because Nobel laureate Professor James Heckman has worked out that the highest rate of return in education comes from investment before a child is three. He is one of many experts who support that view. Will the First Minister clear the matter up and commit to following the United Kingdom Government by extending early education to 40 per cent of two-year-olds—the ones who need it most—rather than sticking to the 1 per cent who are in his current plans?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As Willie Rennie knows, the plan to move three and four-year-olds to 600 hours of early years education and childcare is superior not just to the 412 hours that we inherited but to the plans in England, which are for less than that. The plans also include looked-after two-year-olds.

I watched the exchange between Willie Rennie and the Deputy First Minister last week and I repeat that we are willing to consider all plans for the future, as she said. However, Willie Rennie should look carefully at the exciting developments with family centres in Scotland—and the mention that has been made of them—and at the fact that in the budget, thankfully, we have decided to direct money into early years and early intervention as a part of policy. He should acknowledge that there are a number of ways in which we can effect our shared aims, even against the dramatic budget pressure that has been introduced by his Government at Westminster.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I accept that the work in relation to three and four-year-olds and the other work that the First Minister mentioned represent good progress. However, the best investment is made before a child is three. The First Minister is doing some of that, but £1 invested before a child is three can save £11 later.

I want to join in the consensus. A parliamentary motion has been lodged that calls for more provision for two-year-olds; the motion has been signed by members of all five parties in the Parliament, including members of the First Minister’s party. I welcome that and I want us to work together, but we need a bit more commitment on the matter. If a two-year-old misses out now, they miss out for ever. If the First Minister will not commit to help 40 per cent of two-year-olds, as the UK Government has done, will he at least agree to open up the budget and look for a radical change, so that we can do more for young children?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Perhaps at some stage we will get the acknowledgement that what we are proposing for three and four-year-olds is substantially above what the UK Government is proposing. Perhaps there will also be an understanding that there are a variety of ways to bring about the desirable aims, such as through the family-nurse partnerships and family centres.

As the member should know, this Government set up an early years task force, which includes a substantial number of experts in the field as well as members of the Parliament, to make recommendations on how to bring about the improvement that we all want to see.

One of the first things to do is to allocate money in the budget for early intervention for preventative spending, which the Government has done. That has been an enormously difficult task, given the budget pressures that are upon us, but Mr Swinney has done it. That has given us the basis for a debate and action on how we can effect improvements in the early years.

I agree that the early years are of enormous and profound significance in the context of the future development of our children and our society—hence the move to intervention in the budget. However, if we come to the debate saying that everything that takes place south of the border must automatically be matched in Scotland, we tend to overlook a variety of benefits and incentives, as well as the platform of education and health that is provided in Scotland, which of course is being denied to people in England.

Ryder Cup 2014

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

4. To ask the First Minister what the benefits will be of Scotland staging the Ryder cup at Gleneagles in 2014. (S4F-00895) [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Ryder cup is one of the biggest sporting events in the world. Scotland is the next host nation and the Scottish economy is expected to benefit by up to £100 million over the week of the event. In addition to the 45,000 spectators who are expected to attend each day at Gleneagles, television coverage is expected to reach more than 500 million homes worldwide. That will provide a unique opportunity to promote Scotland on the world stage and to reinforce Scotland’s place as the home of golf.

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

As the local MSP, I am looking forward to the tournament coming to Gleneagles and to the economic benefits that it will bring. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that young Scots are given the opportunity to participate in golf and, who knows, perhaps to compete in a future Ryder cup?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The member raises a hugely substantial point. A key component of the Ryder cup host nation agreement is that the Scottish Government is committed to continue funding the club golf initiative through to 2018, to deliver a post-event legacy beyond 2014. I am supportive of that fantastic initiative—since its inception, more than 260,000 children have been introduced to golf at school. We are the home of golf; we are the history of golf. Initiatives such as club golf will ensure that Scotland is the future of golf, too.

Police Staffing

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

5. To ask the First Minister whether police officers will have to perform more administrative duties to cover proposed reductions in police staff. (S4F-00903)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

We expect the Scottish police authority and the police service of Scotland to ensure that officers and staff are deployed in roles that utilise their expertise and experience effectively and efficiently.

We have given a commitment to there being no compulsory redundancies among police support staff. The reform of the police service, which was supported by the Labour Party, offers the unique opportunity to improve services. The new police service of Scotland will eliminate duplication by working more effectively, and will bring 10 national police organisations into one organisation.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

That commitment is interesting, given Stephen House’s revelations last week. The First Minister has repeatedly told the Scottish people that 1,000 extra police officers are on their streets today. He has denied our reports that police officers are sitting in police stations across Scotland filling back-office duties, but a leaked document from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s police reform sub-group reveals a plan to release hundreds of police staff that will be delivered through

“police officers performing basic administrative duties themselves.”

Is it good economics to have police officers who earn a third more than police staff doing the police staff jobs? Will the First Minister admit that he has not put 1,000 extra police officers on our streets, but that he has given Scotland 1,000 backroom bobbies?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

What total nonsense. The position is clear and is as outlined by Chief Constable Kevin Smith to the Justice Committee earlier this year, who said, in response to a question that was asked by one of Jenny Marra’s colleagues, that

“as a general policy, police officers would not be put in such roles. I am confident that, as a matter of policy, cops would not backfill posts. That would not be a good operational use of the resource, and making someone redundant then filling their post with a cop would be challengeable.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 February 2012; c 984.]

Jenny Marra is on unsafe ground in challenging the commitment to 1,000 additional police officers. After all, that commitment was questioned in Johann Lamont’s speech only last week. As a policy change, it lasted a matter of minutes: after the Scottish Police Federation tweeted that it would be a tragedy if Scots politicians became “as out of touch” as politicians are in England and Wales, it was reassured by one of the Labour Party’s spin doctors that that was not Labour policy and, about 20 minutes later, it was able to say that Johann Lamont’s questioning of the 1,000 extra police officers had lasted a mere 30 minutes. If the challenge to our commitment on 1,000 police officers lasts a mere 30 minutes, how long will Labour’s attempt to remove free education and health for the people of Scotland last?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Does the First Minister agree that Labour’s cuts commission, for which everything is on the table, could lead to a massive decrease in bobbies on the beat and other police staff, which could mean that our crime levels, which are at a 37-year low, rise again?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

There should be some acknowledgement that the commitment to deliver 1,000 extra police officers on the streets and communities of Scotland was, of course, met—despite the pessimism of the Labour Party, which said that it would take 13 years to fulfil. [Interruption.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I, along with the new police chief constable, believe that that initiative bears a large part of the responsibility for the reduction in recorded crime to a 37-year low. Given how society has benefited, what kind of party challenges the effective use of 1,000 police officers?

Free Prescriptions

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

6. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will fulfil its commitment to deliver free prescriptions. (S4F-00906)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Yes.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The First Minister will have noted that, earlier this week, his counterpart in Wales, the Labour First Minister, said:

“We believe it’s important that we have an NHS that’s free at the point of delivery. We are not going to change the policy on free prescriptions.”

Nye Bevan, the founder of the national health service, resigned from Government over the introduction of prescription charges; does the First Minister agree that free prescriptions are an integral part of the NHS, and that Labour in Scotland, in suggesting the reintroduction of prescription charges, has lost its social democratic principles by simply aping Tory policies?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

It is the case that, only one day before Johann Lamont reinforced her cuts commission speech to the Labour Party conference, Carwyn Jones extolled the benefits of free health for the people of Wales. The question that the Labour Party must answer is twofold. First, if free prescriptions and free healthcare are good policies for the Labour Party to pursue in Wales, why are they not good policies for the Scottish National Party to pursue for the people of Scotland?

Secondly, there is the issue of electoral credibility. It is only a few months since the Labour Party extolled its commitment to free healthcare in Scotland. It also extolled its commitment to free education. I have Labour’s manifesto with me. Next to a photo of Johann Lamont, it says:

“No price tag on education”.

The way the Labour Party is going, it will make Nick Clegg look like a model of consistency.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

The free prescriptions policy has consequences. Some 15,000 cancer sufferers in England have now benefited from life-extending drugs that are not available to cancer sufferers in Scotland. The First Minister wrote to pharmaceutical development companies to invite them to come and establish new bioscience facilities in Scotland, but they are asking why they would come to develop medicines in Scotland that cannot be prescribed in Scotland and why they would work with clinicians in Scotland whose experience of modern medicines is falling behind that of clinicians in England.

The objections that the First Minister raised to the cancer drug fund in England 13 months ago have now been overcome. Is it not time to offer cancer sufferers in Scotland the same hope and the same opportunity for their future as cancer sufferers in England have?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have outlined the complaints about the special funding arrangements in England, which include complaints from Conservative members of Parliament, among others.

Jackson Carlaw asks why pharmaceutical companies would come to Scotland. Is he not aware that last Thursday, in Chicago, Sigma-Aldrich announced another significant investment in pharmaceuticals and life sciences in Scotland—the third major investment in that industry in this year alone?

The suggestion that Scotland is somehow not seen as a location for pharmaceutical development and life sciences is belied by the facts. If the Conservatives are to make wide sweeping comments against the Scottish economy, they should really catch up with the announcements that are being made.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The First Minister may be happy to talk about free prescriptions. Does he recognise that there are consequences to his policy choices? Does he recognise that nursing levels are at their lowest since 2005, and that—as told by the Edinburgh Evening News—nurses are working seven days a week for months at a time to fix NHS Lothian’s waiting-list scandal? Is not that the reality of the SNP’s choices in government?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The reality of the SNP’s choices in government is that we have protected the revenue budget of the NHS in real terms, which is one of the commitments that the Labour Party would not make in the election.

Jackie Baillie says that I am happy to talk about the SNP policy of free prescriptions. That is correct. There was a time when Jackie Baillie was pleased to talk about the Labour Party’s policy of free prescriptions, but that has all changed now.

The election commitments that Labour made last year and this year have to be dumped. Labour is in headlong flight to join the Conservative Party and follow the road of means-tested benefits. It has betrayed the generations-old tradition of the Labour Party. Why Jackie Baillie thinks that a new Conservative party in Scotland will do any better than the old Conservative Party in Scotland will be a mystery to the Scottish people. Let us talk about the policy of free prescriptions in the knowledge that it is supported by the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would be most grateful if you would look at the exchanges at the beginning of this item of business and compare them with the stated aim of this part of the working day, which is supposed to be for questioning of the Executive by back benchers. So much time is being taken up by ritualistic abuse from the front benches that there is no chance to get back-bench questions in. You did your best today, and we went five minutes over time. This is no criticism of the chair. It is a criticism, though, of how we are allowing this item to stray far too far from the original intention.

Land Reform (Isle of Gigha)

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-04081, in the name of David Stewart, on the Isle of Gigha—10 years of pioneering land reform. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament congratulates the community of the Isle of Gigha on the tenth anniversary of what is considered its pioneering community buy-out; acknowledges the efforts of the Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust to redevelop the community by introducing development projects in the area; understands that, over the 10 years, the population in the community has risen from 96 to 160; welcomes the inspirational example that it considers those on Gigha have set for other communities; believes that there is much work still to be done throughout Scotland regarding land reform; notes the recommendations of the Land Reform Review Group, and believes that valuable lessons can be learned from Gigha.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

As a highlander, I have had an interest in the land reform debate since I was old enough to hold up my first copy of the West Highland Free Press. History provides a rich tapestry of experiences: the Highland clearances, the battle of the braes and the Highland Land League. Perhaps lesser known are the seven men of Knoydart, who defied Nazi sympathiser and landlord Lord Brocket to settle the land.

Gigha is an exemplar in the debate—a standard in the toolbox of how it is done. I visited the island in August. As one makes the crossing from Tayinloan to Gigha, the beauty of the natural landscape comes into view, and in the distance it is possible to make out the faint outline of the dancing ladies of Gigha, which point to the transformation of this beautiful place.

The beauty of the landscape is superseded only by the warmth of the people on the island. Once there, one finds a thriving community, a youthful and dynamic population, a number of new business start-ups, a fine housing refurbishment project and a community energy resource, exporting power to the national grid. In short, one finds a community that is going places.

Yet that was not always the case. A dwindling population, poor housing stock and a lack of opportunities led to fears for the future sustainability of the island. Indeed, as recently as 2000, the population was less than 100. Gigha, as with so many other places in Scotland, had been passed from landowner to landowner, with no reference to the community, choking the entrepreneurial spirit of the residents and stifling development.

The catalyst for this remarkable change is what we are celebrating today. Ten years ago, on 15 March 2002, through the Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust the people took possession of the island that they call home. For the first time, those with a stake in the island took ownership of the community, and that changed the outlook of the island in remarkable ways. To give some simple facts, the population has grown by 50 per cent, two thirds of the housing stock has been refurbished and the island has moved towards sustainability by purchasing and constructing its own wind farm.

Of course, challenges still remain. Not least of those are funding problems, which lead to concerns about the completion of the housing refurbishment. I hope that the minister will be able to provide me with some reassurances in that regard today. However, those challenges should not detract from the incredible success of Gigha, which provides an example to other communities of what can be achieved with community ownership of land. Today, I offer my heartfelt congratulations to the people of Gigha in celebrating this milestone in their history.

Gigha is just one of the success stories of community ownership of land. In the communities of Knoydart, Eigg, South Uist, Galston or Harris, there is a new dynamism, new enterprises and a new confidence about the future. That is what comes when private land ownership gives way to community ownership, when a community democratically has control of its land and associated assets and can utilise the land in the cause of securing a more sustainable future. The sort of activity now seen in Gigha has been replicated in those other communities.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I very much appreciate what the member is saying, but does he think that only rural communities can learn from Gigha, or is there the possibility that some urban communities that have a problem with land ownership could also learn from it?

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The member makes a very good point. I think that this should extend across Scotland, where there is local community demand.

Some 500,000 acres of Scotland is now owned and managed by local communities but, significant though that is, it represents only a tiny fraction of Scotland’s land. There is so much more scope to push further forward with the agenda of community ownership. Doing that will help to bring the benefits that we are seeing in Gigha and elsewhere to many more communities.

Only two weeks ago, we marked the 20th anniversary of the death of John McEwen, who wrote “Who Owns Scotland?” His book demonstrated just how few people owned the vast bulk of our land. Since it was published in the 1970s, some things have changed for the better but not enough has. The land ownership pattern remains essentially the same, and that simply cannot be right. As we look forward, we cannot imagine a future Scotland where that continues.

I have a confession to make: I am a great admirer of David Cameron—not the Prime Minister but the real one, who is the chairman of Community Land Scotland and who is in the public gallery today. In a recent speech, he called land reform “unfinished business”, that is fundamental to greater social justice in Scotland. He said:

“Is it possible for Scots to conceive of a future Scotland that does not, explicitly, have greater social justice at its heart? I think not ... This is not about fighting battles of the past ... land reform remains a cause of the present and the future.”

Today, land changes under the feet of the people for some odd reasons. In the same speech, David Cameron highlighted a recent advert for the Gledfield estate in Sutherland, which appeared in the property section of The Press and Journal. I quote:

“The estate will appeal to the international super rich ... The asking price for this exceptional property is offers over £8 million, but for that you get a traditional Highland estate with more than 6,000 acres of sporting ground, 2,000 acres of commercial forestry and a spectacular sporting lodge.”

Like David Cameron, I cannot see many local people having the more than £8 million that is needed to put in an offer. That is one reason why we need to push on with land reform and build on the work, which I am proud the first Labour Scottish Executive promoted, of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.

That is why I welcome the Scottish Government’s announcement of the land reform review group. I welcome the members of the group—particularly my friend Professor Jim Hunter—and its terms of reference, which are to secure a greater diversity in land ownership in Scotland. However, this is a matter not just of law but of money. In that regard, I welcome the re-establishment of Labour’s Scottish land fund, which will assist communities with buying land. That is a step in the right direction but, at £6 million over three years, the fund will not buy many—or any—Sutherland estates of the type that I mentioned.

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

I am glad that the member has welcomed the Scottish National Party Government’s reinstatement of the land fund this year. Does he regret the fact that the fund was scrapped in 2006 by the previous Labour and Lib Dem Executive?

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Mr Thompson has to look at the achievements. Labour introduced the milestone act that set up land reform and we need to continue that work. I hope that there is consensus on that but, judging from his intervention, I think that it is probably unlikely that we will have that from Dave Thompson.

The land reform review group is not due to report until the end of 2013. I hope that the minister will today give me the absolute assurance that the long timescale is not an attempt to take the issue off the public agenda for the next year or more. The community of Gigha testifies to the value of land reform. Further land reform is a cause for good. We need to encourage the land reform review group in its work—in that, it will have the support of Parliament to be radical. A new chapter in land reform is ready to be opened. What we need to succeed is, to quote Sir Walter Scott,

“The will to do, the soul to dare”.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

It is entirely appropriate and fitting that the Parliament should note the 10th anniversary of the Gigha buyout and congratulate and commend the community of Gigha for its successes since then. I therefore thank David Stewart for bringing the debate to the chamber. In passing, I should also pay tribute to the elderly statesmen of Gigha, Willie McSporran and John Martin. It is only right that their part in this should be acknowledged.

It is fitting that the debate comes at a time when the community empowerment consultation has recently closed, and soon after the land reform review group has been set up, for there are many lessons to be learned from Gigha and from the islanders’ experience over the past 10 years. It is good to look with some satisfaction at how far communities such as Gigha have travelled along the road towards addressing their many challenges and how the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Scottish land fund helped to start them on their journeys, but it should also be recognised that the path of Gigha and other such communities is not always easy. Managing the challenges of running an organisation such as the Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust would tax the abilities of many a chief executive of a multinational corporation. The political challenges of doing that within the intensely local democratic framework of a community such as Gigha might well challenge the abilities of many professional politicians. Of course, I am not thinking so much of members of this Parliament as I am of our colleagues down in Westminster, who seem to understand little about Scotland and nothing at all about our islands.

There is a need, therefore, to recognise and pay respect to the knowledge, know-how and experience that have been acquired on Gigha—all the more so because that experience has been hard won mainly by volunteers who wrestle with issues that have a profound effect on their futures, those of their families and those of their friends and neighbours. We should recognise, too, that that voluntary work takes place in communities that are acknowledged to be economically fragile, where people have to struggle daily to make a living, as well as attending to the collective needs of their community.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does Mike MacKenzie agree that one of the problems with buyouts is not so much capital funding—which can be found—but revenue funding, which is needed later on?

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Yes, of course. That is why I am delighted that communities such as Gigha have been able to take advantage of the many opportunities in renewable energy, for example with the dancing ladies of Gigha. I am also delighted that the Scottish Government has established the community and renewable energy scheme, through Community Energy Scotland, which will enable many more communities to take advantage of the revenue funding that is afforded by renewable energy.

Gigha faces continuing and imminent challenges, some of which David Stewart mentioned. There is some way to go before all of its housing is brought up to a decent standard—it is still somewhat below the average standard in Scotland. Gigha also needs its sustainability to be ensured with the realisation of the planned new wind turbine. Further investment in Gigha will be required before the overall investment begins to pay off, as it assuredly will over the generations to come.

With £6 million having recently been put into the re-established Scottish land fund, I hope to see many more communities achieve ownership and control of their own assets and benefit from that local control. Gigha is a microcosm of Scotland. The islanders there suffer from many of the same problems that are writ large across Scotland. Ownership and the ability to harness and control their own resources are significant factors that have allowed the community to take huge steps towards addressing those problems. What is good for Gigha should be good for the rest of Scotland, too.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Before I speak about Gigha, I ask the chamber to join me in paying respects to Andrew Riddell, who died this week. Andrew, a tenant farmer of Peaston farm in East Lothian, made a strong contribution to the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association. He leaves a young family, to whom I am sure we all send our condolences.

Impressions formed on a brief visit to Gigha more than 20 years ago of a beautiful but quite desolate island are in sharp and happy contrast to those created when I arrived on the island with my colleagues on the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee only this May. Both times the weather was fine and the sand below was white when we saw the bottom through the aquamarine water as we docked. However, this time, the visit quickly spoke of a vibrant and forward-looking community running its own future.

The words on the Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust website are true. It states that the island is going

“from strength to strength with a growing population that is sustainably developing its local economy.”

Committee members stayed in a welcoming community-owned hotel and had a dram or two. We visited the community-owned gardens at Achamore and saw the dancing ladies, to which other members have referred. We tasted delicious local food and visited the primary school, which has an increasing school roll. We met young families who have come to make their future on Gigha and we also heard of on-going smallholding creation. Other members have spoken of the challenges of the new housing, much of which is affordable and sustainable. The master plan and design guidance process involves the whole community. People who would otherwise not have been able to do so have been able to come from the mainland and stay on Gigha.

It sounds like nirvana but, as Mike MacKenzie highlighted, there are always challenges, whoever owns the land. However, the point of those challenges is that the land is owned by the community. As a result of all the hard work and the hard decisions that have been made, the vision of inspiring others and taking the community with them has become a reality.

It was pointed out by the people on the Gigha trust and by people in the community that when there is an opportunity for a buyout, it can often be the case that islanders—or, indeed, people on the mainland—can be somewhat sceptical. Islanders on Gigha were inspired by a visit to Eigg, where people had already become community owners of their island. They were also strongly supported by Highlands and Islands Enterprise. David Stewart highlighted that funding—both funding at the start and on-going funding—can be a challenge.

Last week, when the committee questioned Professor James Hunter and Dr Alison Elliott, who are members of the land reform review group, I was eager to hear how the group planned to engage with other communities across Scotland. Professor Hunter highlighted that in Scotland we have

“one of the most concentrated patterns of land ownership in Europe.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 26 September 2012; c 1117.]

I was interested to hear the word “release” used. The opportunities for community empowerment are chances all communities should have, whether they are rural, urban, ex-mining or coastal, and no matter where they are—whether they are in the north, in my own region in the south or wherever. I specifically asked the witnesses how young people could be engaged in the process. The answer was through Young Scot. Scots from all backgrounds and all parts of Scotland must be involved in the process.

On Gigha’s website, the children of Gigha have wonderful paintings, which are all sunny and bright. Although I know that the weather is not always bright and sunny on Gigha, the paintings reflect the incredible optimism of the community. I congratulate them on their decade of community ownership.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I congratulate David Stewart on securing the debate.

I am also very happy to pay tribute to all of my constituents on Gigha and members and supporters of the Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust for the efforts that they have made and are continuing to make to create a sustainable and successful island community. I agree with David Stewart that the success of Gigha is an inspiration to other rural and island communities.

The population on Gigha is rising and the excellent primary school has 13 children, which is a testament to the health of the island and is something that we can all celebrate. Gigha is a beautiful island in a wonderful setting and I encourage my MSP colleagues and others who are listening to visit it to experience Gigha for themselves. They can be sure of a very warm welcome and excellent hospitality, whether at the Gigha hotel or at the various bed and breakfasts or self-catering cottages. The island’s Achamore gardens, golf course and clean sandy beaches are just some of the attractions that are available to the tourists.

Achamore gardens are a testament to the memory of Sir James Horlick. He was a good laird and a founder of the famous malty drink, which had the slogan “The Great Family Nourisher”. Sir James Horlick was a great nourisher and a great philanthropist with a reputation as a good landlord who used his fortune to promote schemes on the island to help employment there.

I welcome to the public gallery the celebrated Mr Peter Joynson, who for some 20 years was factor for Sir James Horlick on the Isle of Gigha. He has many happy memories of the island, of the people and of his former employer, who I am sure would be happy to see the Gigha community thriving once again and the population increasing.

Renewable energy remains a big and often controversial issue across my region, so the example of Gigha is worth highlighting as one of success. On Gigha, the three Vestas V27 wind turbines—known locally as the dancing ladies—enjoy widespread community support, with the Gigha residents controlling the whole project and the profit being reinvested in the community. It has been so successful that local residents are seeking to erect a fourth turbine to join the current three. No one on Gigha thinks that renewables developments are incompatible with tourism—rather, they complement each other.

Although I agree that valuable lessons can be learned from Gigha, not least in terms of community empowerment, which we all support, and the development of a practical island master plan that has helped to foster economic development, we are cautious about calls for further legislation on land reform and we remain unconvinced that yet more legislation in this field is required or desirable. We should recognise that Gigha has succeeded within existing land reform laws and we should seek ways of improving how those laws operate.

We should also recognise the vital importance of the ferry link between Gigha and Tayinloan, which has come under pressure of late. The islanders deserve a ferry service that encourages tourism and their lifeline activities.

The Gigha buyout was not a hostile buyout—rather, it was encouraged by seller and buyer alike—and I have to pay tribute to previous Argyll and Bute MSP George Lyon, who gave a great deal of his time to the project. It is very seldom—there are no Liberal Democrats in the chamber today—that I praise the work of Lib Dem MSPs, but in this case it would be churlish of me to not recognise the part that he played. While I am talking about politicians, or famous people, I note that David Stewart mentioned Professor Jim Hunter, who got to his feet recently at a meeting in Stornoway after one of the SNP people had spoken and said that he was tempted to vote Conservative, so there we are.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will conclude by wishing my constituents on Gigha continued success in the future. They are to be congratulated for proving that determined and dynamic community effort can make even the smallest and remotest island communities sustainable and economically successful.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I realise that it may seem strange for a member who represents a constituency on the east coast of Scotland to seek to make a contribution to the debate. However, having visited Gigha at the end of May on the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s fact-finding trip, which Claudia Beamish referred to, I want to add my congratulations to the islanders on the 10th anniversary of the community buyout. I also congratulate David Stewart on being instrumental in affording all of us this opportunity.

I have two abiding memories from the visit to Gigha—the first is light hearted and the second is more significant, given some of the myths that surround renewable energy.

As Claudia Beamish may recall, one of the guides on our tour of the island was, among many other things, the session clerk at the kirk. As we passed the kirk, I inquired politely about the level of regular turnout for services. I was somewhat impressed to be told, if I recall correctly, that around a third of the population attended. I discovered shortly afterwards, when we pulled over to chat with a resident, how such an impressive attendance is achieved. The session clerk, in a well-practised tone, inquired of the lady, “And why weren’t you at the church on Sunday?” I was left with the impression that she would not commit that particular misdemeanour again.

My other lasting memory involved our trip to the dancing ladies. At the time of our visit, faith, hope and charity had been operational for a little over seven years. We learned from the digital information hub at the site that, during that period, the turbines had been responsible for saving 7,936 tonnes of CO2 and that in the preceding month alone they had generated 111MW of power—enough to power 371 homes—and created an income for the island of £12,680. Just as interestingly, as committee members questioned the locals about the pluses and minuses of their renewable power source, there were no tales to be told of terrible health problems afflicting residents, people leaving the island as they could not stand having the landscape blighted by the turbines, or indeed bird deaths caused by the blades. In fact, we learned that the only incidents of bird fatalities on the island stemmed from collisions with pylon cables—not with the turbines.

As the technology has advanced, the heritage trust, in seeking to replace faith, hope and charity, which were purchased on the second-hand market, is looking to purchase just one turbine, albeit a larger one, thereby reducing the visual impact, although I have to say that I found the visual impact of the dancing ladies, both from a distance and up close, quite positive.

As Claudia Beamish said, while we were on the island we also visited the school, where numbers have gone up from six to 19; the halibut farm; some of the new-build housing; the golf course, which I enjoyed; and, memorably, the gardens at Achamore house. However, our visit was by no means positively spun. We also got to hear of the difficulties and challenges that required to be overcome and which are still being faced. For example, the agreed roll-out of the housing improvements had run into a slight problem at the time we were there. We also learned that the odd decision or two that had been taken along the way might, with the benefit of hindsight, have been different. I think that we all came away from the visit feeling that we had been given a true insight into the buyout and the progress that has been made since what was, at the time, a rather bold—some might say brave—venture.

As the motion states, Gigha is “inspirational” in the example that it sets for other communities. In closing, I associate myself with the concluding lines of David Stewart’s motion, which states that the Parliament

“believes that there is much work still to be done throughout Scotland regarding land reform”

and

“notes the recommendations of the Land Reform Review Group”.

Last week, the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee heard from the group’s chair, Dr Alison Elliot, and vice-chair, James Hunter. It was encouraging to learn—David Stewart will welcome this, although Jamie McGrigor might not—that they intend to heed the First Minister’s call for them to bring forward innovative and radical proposals.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I, too, congratulate David Stewart on securing the debate. It is hard to believe that it was 10 years ago that Gigha was bought out by the community. I had the privilege of being there alongside the community on that historic day. It was a great celebration, the memory of which will remain with me for the rest of my days. It was a time when the island’s population was falling, there were few jobs, housing was poor and the viability of the community was in the balance. The purchase brought hope to the community.

So much has happened in those 10 short years. The population started to increase almost immediately, housing improved, and now the community has its three dancing ladies, which other members have mentioned. The wind turbines generate profit of about £75,000 a year, which provides an income for the community. They attracted 100 per cent support from the community, which shows that such support is possible when a community pulls together.

Today’s debate is also timely given that we are so close to the 20th anniversary of the death of John McEwen. As David Stewart said, he was the first person to catalogue land ownership in Scotland. Indeed, his work still drives the debate forward today. We should also pay tribute to the Assynt crofters, who led the way on community buyouts. They also need to be recognised in the debate. Like other members, I am pleased to welcome David Cameron to the Parliament today. He and Community Land Scotland are pushing the agenda forward, which is very much required in the current situation.

I welcome the review group that the Scottish Government has set up to look at land reform. However, the Government has already missed opportunities to further land reform through legislation that we have passed. A serious concern is that the time that the review group has been given to report will halt progress on land reform for the foreseeable future, and certainly that there might be no progress in this parliamentary session. I urge the minister to produce an interim report and an interim action plan, so that we can keep the process moving forward throughout the session.

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I will deal with the land reform review group in my speech, but I clarify that we fully expect to have interim findings by April next year, which will allow us to take the low-hanging fruit under current legislation and to see what measures we can take before the full report is issued in April 2014.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for that intervention, which helps us all and gives us the reassurance that we require.

If Gigha and the other communities that have bought out their estates have taught us anything, it is that community ownership leads to growth in communities. Jobs have been created and communities have been revitalised.

The most important part of land reform is that it puts the levers of economic generation into our communities’ hands and allows them to take charge of their future and that of generations to come. Many communities want that opportunity, so we must continue to make progress and to look for new ways to empower our communities.

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

I congratulate David Stewart on obtaining the debate and on its wide-ranging nature. We congratulate the people of Gigha—well done. In 10 years, their local economy has bucked the trend of 100 years. No matter what philanthropy took place in the past, a fundamental need is for people across this country who live on and own the land to be in charge.

That leads me to remind members that no political party has a monopoly on support for land reform. The Tory party effected the biggest land reform ever in these islands by turning tenant farmers in Ireland into owners. Never let us forget that, in many cases, other parties have a lot to learn. Long before the West Highland Free Press came into existence, a Labour secretary of state let down the people of Knoydart in 1948. That lesson has been learned.

The land reform review group must look at the complexity in the 2003 act that has hampered communities in accessing the ability to buy land and register interests. I believe that that part of the group’s work will be in the interim report that we will hear about, as the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee heard last week.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The strength of the debate is that it has been by and large consensual. Does the member recognise that, when Brian Wilson was a minister of state, he led the way on the land buyout at Knoydart?

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

I do not know the exact details, but I would be happy to debate them, and I am happy to welcome the work of all the people who have been involved in helping to make things happen. At the time of the Knoydart land raid, it was the Scottish National Party and the Communist Party that supported the men there.

Last night, I was at a play called “We Have Won the Land”, which is a Rural Nations production that played in Balallan three or four weeks ago and has toured around Scotland. The play is about community land ownership and about the difficulties for people who pick up such things. David Cameron and his wife saw the play, along with others. I hope that a lot of other people can see one of the final performances in Glasgow or Luss.

MSPs should have been at the play to see how the people of Gigha, as volunteers, had to face up to the personal and other problems that confront folk who give their time to such activities. One of the greatest messages from the play was that people overcame problems and could create on the fictional island of Murg the buyout that they wanted, with dancing ladies of their own.

Attacks by the right-wing press on community land buyouts, such as that on Eigg—as has been suggested, people from Eigg gave the people on Gigha a lot of advice—are appalling. As James Hunter has pointed out, the price of 600 yards of tramline in Edinburgh would be about the same as all the moneys that the Government has spent on supporting those initiatives. The point is that, over many years, money was not drawn down from public sources to support development in Gigha. It can be drawn down now, and I praise the opportunities that the Labour-Lib Dem and SNP Governments have created to ensure that that happens.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Does Rob Gibson agree that, when we consider the cost of assisting communities such as Gigha, we should also consider what the monumental cost of not assisting them could be in the future? We would have to continue to provide health and social care services even if the population of Gigha dwindled to a handful of people.

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

Thank you—I thought that, as I have taken interventions, I might get a little more time.

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

Right—okay. That is five seconds of it done.

In our community of Evanton, there has recently been a community buyout by the Evanton Woods Community Company. It is part of a wider group of people who realised that owning one’s own land is important. The people of Gigha are being celebrated today, and they deserve that celebration from us. However, we must learn lessons from all the stories that have led us to this point and ensure that, in future, we turn the land of Scotland over to the people.

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

I thank David Stewart for giving us the opportunity to debate an important subject. In his opening remarks, he said that we have some half a million acres in community ownership. It may be as well to give a sense of perspective on that: 20 per cent of the Westminster constituencies in Scotland exceed that size.

We might have made a great advance from where we were, but there is a heck of a lot still to do. I welcome the formation of the new group that will look at what has been done in the past and seek to build on it.

I was an active and enthusiastic supporter of the 2003 act. Indeed, my greatest achievement was to add the single word “add” to the access provisions, which protected from obliteration the existing access rights and ensured that the new act only added to those rights. It took me a heck of a long time to get that, but there we are.

Jamie McGrigor suggested that there is no need for further legislation. I thought that Rob Gibson was quite uncharacteristically kind to the Tories in his contribution—during the passage of the 2003 act, Bill Aitken consistently described it as leading to a Mugabe land grab. I do not think that any members in the chamber—not even Jamie McGrigor—would suggest that that has happened. On the contrary, progress has perhaps been more glacial than we might have hoped that it would be.

The Isle of Gigha is God’s island—it has that name for good reason. I first visited it at five past 1 on 20 May 1993. Members might ask why that time is so accurate; it is because I flew in, so by looking at my log book I can see exactly when I landed.

I found an island in the feudal grip of a landowner who subsequently had to flee to Switzerland and was pursued by the authorities for money. It was not a happy experience. However, he built the landing strip, which had been open for some six weeks when I landed there.

It caused the islanders of Gigha no great grief when the landowner brought his own plane in—which was registered Golf-India-Golf-Hotel-Alpha because the registrations have five letters—and crashed it, writing it off on his own landing strip. That was no great tragedy whatsoever, as no one was injured.

Enormous changes have happened on Gigha. I read on the island’s website that there are now 13 children there. If only communities of that size around Scotland had that proportion of youngsters, because they are the foundations for the future of the community and guarantee the future of the school.

The website also says:

“We ... have virtually full employment on Gigha.”

We should move the whole of Scotland to Gigha—maybe that would be the answer.

Gigha has been blessed by nature. I flew into Gigha one February and found the tar melting on the roads and people sunbathing in their swimming costumes on the beach. However, the community—in particular, the McSporrans—has been absolutely key to changing the dynamic of Gigha. At the end of the day it is always about people, and the people of Gigha have risen to the challenge. What we, as politicians, must do is deconstruct the barriers and help them to do what they do best—manage their communities.

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I associate myself with Claudia Beamish’s kind words regarding Andrew Riddell from East Lothian. We all share that sentiment.

I thank David Stewart for bringing this important subject for debate today. All the speeches have highlighted the transformational impact that the community ownership of land can have on communities, in this case on the Isle of Gigha. I congratulate the islanders and particularly the Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust on their achievements and wish them every future success in their efforts to deliver a sustainable economic future for the island. Let it be an inspiration to all of us.

Gigha provides an excellent example of a community that recognises and grasps a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Through determination and vision, it has succeeded in transforming its community. Gigha has developed a vibrant and enterprising community whose confidence in its future is increasing and, crucially, whose people are in control of their destiny. As we have heard, Gigha has an increasing population and “virtually full employment”, as Stewart Stevenson has just mentioned. It also has better housing and living conditions and a full community life in which the community and the people in it are brought together. I could go on.

However, Gigha is not alone. Other communities throughout Scotland have recognised the importance of community ownership for their future development and success, and they have taken steps towards community ownership of land and land assets. Community Land Scotland’s members, many of whom are in the Highlands and Islands, now have—as David Stewart said—some 500,000 acres of land in their ownership. That is 2.6 per cent of all the land in Scotland. Nevertheless, Stewart Stevenson is right to say that the Government would like to see more communities follow that example, and we have provided financial support for that process. To pick up on a point that was well made by John Mason, we want the process to extend to urban areas as well.

Let us remember that community ownership is not only for the Highlands and Islands, where the movement started. There is also a great deal of activity in lowland Scotland, and more than half of all the applications to register a community interest in land under the community right to buy are in the lowlands. They are scattered throughout the area, with some counties such as Perth, Renfrew, East Lothian and Roxburgh each having three or more registered interests. However, some counties—for example, Selkirk, Lanark and Kincardine—have none, and I therefore urge communities in lowland Scotland to consider seriously whether a community buyout would help to transform them, too. There are plenty of examples of communities from which to draw experience and inspiration, but there should be more.

Learning by example is important and was important for Gigha in the early stages of its buyout. As Claudia Beamish stated and other members have repeated, had a couple of residents not visited Eigg, where they were able to see the results of a buyout, Gigha’s future might have been quite different. As the Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust notes on its website, “they came back inspired”. Ensuring that communities across Scotland share that inspiration is, therefore, important.

Community buyouts do not just happen; they take vision, dedicated individuals and teamwork, resilience, community support and resourcefulness. Communities also require support. A wide range of assistance is available to help communities through the process, and Gigha has acknowledged the important role that was played by the public sector, through Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Argyll and Bute Council, in funding the buyout as well as in providing assistance in developing its plans.

David Stewart asked about housing. The correspondence between my colleague Margaret Burgess, the new housing minister, and Mike Russell, the constituency member, indicates total funding from the Scottish Government and Argyll and Bute Council of about £2 million for refurbishing 29 houses. I am also aware of a current application for funding for new build on Gigha.

Support for communities continues to be an important theme that runs through community buyouts. There are significant resources to help communities through the process, whether from the Scottish Government, Highlands and Islands Enterprise or local authorities.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Does the minister agree that HIE’s social remit might be developed in South Scotland, for which he is a member, to give support throughout Scotland?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I agree that that could be considered. The business gateway and rural direct also work outside the Highlands and Islands. The land reform review group could, of course, consider support for land reform infrastructure from the enterprise networks, local authorities and others during its consideration of how further land reform can be promoted and secured, but that is for the group to decide. However, I share Claudia Beamish’s sentiment.

Let us not forget that we have a new Scottish land fund, which is jointly delivered by the Big Lottery Fund Scotland and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. In that respect, the funding landscape has changed since 2006, when the original land fund ended. The new land fund will deliver £6 million to rural communities throughout Scotland, not just in the Highlands and Islands. I anticipate that the first awards from the fund will be made in November.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To be technical about it, the land fund was mainstreamed into the HIE budget and the Scottish Enterprise budget. It did not disappear.

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I take David Stewart’s point.

Once the first funding announcements are made, I will be particularly interested to hear about the communities involved and will watch how they develop their plans.

Much has already been achieved in the two decades since the crofters of the North Lochinver estate took their land into community ownership. Community land ownership has undergone a radical transformation in that time. Even when the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was introduced in the Scottish Parliament in 2001, the policy memorandum stated:

“Community ownership is still comparatively rare, though there have been several developments in the past 5 years.”

However, much can still be done, and community land ownership has much potential to contribute to the present and future success of Scotland. There is an increasing body of evidence, including work by Sarah Skerratt and others, that shows that community land ownership has an important role to play in the long-term stewardship of, investment in and growth of Scotland’s communities. In addition, the opportunity could be extended to urban communities through the proposed community empowerment and renewal bill. We need to take forward the debate on land reform for the coming generations.

I appreciate that my time is running short, but I want to highlight the fact that I met the land reform review group and the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment this week to discuss the group’s work plan.

If we are to make full use of the potential of land reform—including community buyouts of land—it is important that we be radical, and I reassure members that the review is, rightly, intended to be radical. I look forward to hearing the review group’s evidence.

I urge anyone who has an interest in land reform to submit evidence to the review and contribute to the debate on land reform. The review group has announced its remit and is publishing details of its work plan. I also hope that, for the benefit of the Parliament, it will shortly publish details of the advisers that it has appointed.

I commend David Stewart’s motion and thank him for bringing the issues to the Parliament.

West Coast Main Line

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is a statement by Keith Brown on the west coast main line. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement; there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a statement on yesterday’s decision by the Department for Transport to cancel the award of the intercity west coast franchise. I wanted to provide as much clarity as is possible in the circumstances on the impact on passengers and on the refranchising of rail services in Scotland. My immediate concern is that passengers are not adversely affected by the Department for Transport’s decision.

The department’s handling of the procurement process has been incompetent and shambolic. Most important, it has caused a great deal of confusion and speculation about arrangements for west coast services after the franchise handover date of 9 December.

Neither the Scottish ministers nor officials were made aware of yesterday’s decision in advance of the announcement. I have yet to see the detail of the DFT’s contingency plan and it is still not clear who will be operating train services in December. However, after finally managing to speak to the United Kingdom rail minister, I have his assurance that services will run to timetable, using the same trains and staff, and that tickets and bookings will be valid. DFT ministers said yesterday that our Administrations have a common interest in ensuring that there is no break in the service for passengers after 9 December.

In light of the mishandling of the franchise, I can understand that many people might be reluctant to give too much weight to DFT assurances. Although our powers in regard to rail remain limited, I and my officials will monitor the assurances carefully and offer all necessary assistance to ensure that passengers are not disadvantaged. I hope that that offers some reassurance for passengers, especially as we will be approaching the festive and holiday period at that time.

Let us be clear. What has happened represents a huge failure in public procurement. I want to be clear about the anger and frustration that I feel on behalf of passengers who rely on the west coast main line. The Secretary of State for Transport conceded that there were “completely unacceptable mistakes” in evaluating bids for the west coast franchise. The mistakes were so serious that he has been forced to cancel the current franchising competition. I understand that the flaws were discovered after detailed examination by Department for Transport officials and evidence gathering in preparation for legal proceedings that Virgin Trains brought after the decision to award the franchise to FirstGroup.

The Department for Transport has spoken to the four bidding companies, whose bid costs will be reimbursed. That scandalous waste of public money could have been avoided if the franchise had been awarded properly. A fresh competition will be started as soon as the lessons of the episode are learned.

The secretary of state has announced a review of the handling of the process, which will report at the end of the month, and a review of the DFT’s wider franchising programme, which will be led by Richard Brown, chair of Eurostar, and will report by the end of the year. DFT’s three live franchise competitions have been suspended.

The decision to cancel the award of the franchise has, of course, direct consequences for Scotland, for rail passengers and for the rail industry. The UK Government offered no discussion or advance notice of a decision that directly affects people who travel to and from Scotland on services that are crucial to the economies of our major cities.

I have been asked a number of times whether the DFT’s actions have implications for our rail franchise procurement. Let me be clear. Yesterday’s announcement is focused solely on failings and incompetence in the Department for Transport, not in Transport Scotland.

We are keen to offer our support for the wider review of franchising. The Deputy First Minister will seek to meet the Secretary of State for Transport as soon as possible, and the First Minister has already spoken to the secretary of state. The reviews and the recommendations that are made will provide lessons for us as well as for the DFT on how risk can be better assessed and on bidding and evaluation processes.

I reassure the Parliament that although lessons will be learned, our franchise procurement process is led by an expert team in Transport Scotland, which is free to draw on external expertise as and when required. That can only be right given the scale of taxpayers’ money involved and the importance of passenger rail services to Scotland’s economy and its communities. The franchise is the largest single Government procurement exercise that we conduct. No corners are being cut in that process; no false economies are being made.

On our current timetable, we are allowing at least 20 months to conduct the formal competition and, when the consultation that was launched last November is included, our process will last more than three years in total. In comparison, the DFT originally conducted a consultation in January 2011 in order to let a contract in April 2012, which is less than half the time that we have allowed for our process. It then delayed the process, but it still allowed only seven months from formal invitation to tender to contract award.

We are still awaiting the consultation on the trans-Pennine franchise, including on services to Scotland, despite the fact that that is due to hand over at the same time as the ScotRail franchise, the consultation for which took place last year. That is more than a year behind our timescale. Only last January I wrote to Theresa Villiers, who is no longer at the department, expressing concern over the timescale for the east coast main line franchise, which is also a vital service for Scotland.

As I set out in June, I will announce more details on the specification of our franchises around the turn of the year. Our more realistic timeline allows us to factor in any lessons that are learned as a consequence of the DFT debacle and the recommendations that are made by the independent review commissioned by the DFT.

I am confident of the competence and professionalism of Transport Scotland staff. This Government has an excellent track record on procurement, and recent examples of that are the M74 and the Airdrie to Bathgate rail line. We will, of course, draw on yesterday’s events and the forthcoming reviews to maintain our strong record but, without pre-empting the review, I do not think that it is credible to lay all the blame on civil servants. The new Westminster franchising policy has been changed to a preference for 15-year contracts with no break or revenue review clauses. That policy ignores the difficulty of accurately forecasting revenue over 15 years.

When I announced the details of the next ScotRail contract, I made it clear that the 10-year contract would have an option for a break after five years. That will address one of the difficulties that the DFT is experiencing. We will ensure that the sleeper franchise contains appropriate provisions to address the forecast risk and that the Scottish Government shares in the return on its investment.

I urge the Secretary of State for Transport to take the opportunity of the review to address those wider questions, as it would be a missed opportunity to narrow down the reviews simply to issues of technical process. Rather than another patch and mend, a different model is required.

The current legislation—primarily the Railways Act 1993—envisaged a railway that was specified and funded in the public interest, but which was provided by the private sector. The result is a fragmented and inefficient model. We are doing all that we can in our powers to make that model work as best it can. We are committed to a deep alliance between the operator and Network Rail for the next franchise, and we are proceeding with the franchise process in a timely and competent manner. However, in 2012, the current model is not fit for purpose, and I have repeatedly raised that concern with the UK Government.

Our powers to give Scotland the rail services that it needs are limited by UK legislation. Giving this Parliament competence to have full legislative control for rail would be the simplest and most effective way to ensure that Scottish ministers have the flexibility to consider the full range of options to deliver rail services in Scotland, including public sector models. The UK Government’s decision is further evidence of why Scotland needs the powers of an independent Parliament so that it can take full responsibility for its own rail services.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

I thank the minister for an early copy of his statement. This is a fiasco of jaw-dropping proportions and begs the question how much David Cameron knew before he reshuffled most of his transport ministers out of their brief.

The west coast main line is a vital artery that transports passengers into Scotland, but enables people who live in places such as Lockerbie in my constituency to access work and leisure opportunities in Glasgow, too. I hope that the minister will represent all passengers, including those who travel within Scotland, in his discussions with the UK Government.

The minister said that he wrote to Theresa Villiers last January about the east coast main line service. Given the concerns about the franchising of the west coast main line and its importance to Scotland, when did he first try to contact UK ministers about that? Did he just wait for UK ministers to get in touch with him?

Will the minister join UK Labour in supporting a Government takeover of the west coast main line, at least while the contract is being retendered? Does he agree that the debacle strengthens the case for our public rail service to be run on a not-for-profit basis?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The points that Elaine Murray makes about political ramifications at Westminster are important, but what concern me are the interests of passengers in Scotland, which she also mentioned, and the implications for the ScotRail franchise.

Elaine Murray asked what representations we have made. I mentioned the letter to Theresa Villiers. We also wrote to Justine Greening, in May 2012. We asked for additional rail powers, not least because, as we have said previously, the franchising process is extremely expensive and the level of risk involved means that we cannot get the best return for rail passengers. We have made those points.

We were told that we had no say in and no ability to influence the process for the west coast main line, although we were asked for our comments. The comments that we made were based on improving services to Scotland. Within the limited powers that we have, we have done everything that we are allowed to do to influence the process. If we had been more involved in it, we could have offered the benefit of the experience that people at Transport Scotland have from dealing with the ScotRail franchise, which might have helped to avoid the present situation.

I hope that future Westminster Governments that have any control over Scotland—if there are any such Governments—will listen to what we in Scotland say. The fact that the UK Government did not listen to what we said is exemplified by the fact that the first that all of us heard of its decision was on the airwaves yesterday. It cannot be right that the memorandums of understanding that we have with the UK Government—and the so-called respect agenda that we were told that David Cameron would follow—were thrown out of the window at the first chance. We must be kept informed, not because we are important people, but because the people whom we represent have a right to proper services.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement and congratulate him on the way in which he has managed to spend much of the past 36 hours stirring up unjustified concerns about the continuity of the west coast rail service.

I invite the minister to restate what he said in his statement—that he has now received full assurances that there will be full continuity of service through and beyond the present hiatus. Further, does not the minister feel a bit guilty about the way in which he has criticised the UK Government for not informing him, in his view, quickly enough about the problems? I contrast that position with the minister’s recent behaviour in managing—quite deliberately—to forget to tell Parliament about the changes to the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme. Instead, he made a press announcement four days after the start of the recess. There is an issue about pots and kettles here.

I turn to the serious process of tendering for such contracts. Is it not a little ironic that the minister should be so critical of the west coast main line process when, only two weeks ago, he announced that there would be a three-year interim contract to deal with the delay in the awarding of new contracts for the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services? Such foot-dragging and political manipulation leave the minister in a very difficult place, which must, at least, be spoiling his view from the moral high ground.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The obvious thing to say is: good try, but it is not going to work. I see that we have an uncommonly—almost uniquely—good turnout of Tory back benchers. I wonder why that can be.

Alex Johnstone says that the concerns about the process are unjustified when it is quite clear that people across the country are extremely concerned about it, not least because £40 million of taxpayers’ money has been thrown down the drain—and that is just the start of it. The suspension of the other processes may give rise to substantial claims against the taxpayer, not the UK Government. There has been a massive squandering of public resources. When there is the slightest hint of what Alex Johnstone believes to have been misuse of resources in this place, he will shout from the rooftops, but he has nothing to say about what the UK Government has just done. People will be appalled by the lack of concern that the Scottish Conservatives have shown for people here.

I do not know how Alex Johnstone has managed to drag ferries into the proceedings. What he calls the interim contract, we call the new contract. Can he be certain that the UK Government will not go to the European Commission and ask for another contract for Virgin Rail on this service? If that happens, will he criticise the UK Government?

It would have been extremely important for the Scottish Conservatives to have said, “This is wrong. Whatever else is going on here, it is wrong that the Scottish Government was not told. It is wrong that the people of Scotland did not have that level of involvement.” It is a real missed opportunity on the part of the Scottish Conservatives that they have not done that.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

I share the minister’s anger at this shambles and waste of public money. Is the minister concerned that the UK Government’s incompetence in its handling of the tender could discourage much-needed investment in infrastructure? How will the Scottish Government ensure that that does not affect Scotland?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

That is an important point, given that the system we have in relation to rail franchising relies on interest from the market. If we treat the market with the contempt that has been shown by the UK Government, and if we do not put in the resources to run the procurement exercise properly, the market will of course take a look at that. The real worry now is what we do if we are to continue to have, under the current Government, a market-led, franchise-based system for procuring these services. Who would want to get into a contract with a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition when it runs things so shoddily? It is not just me saying that; anyone who was watching the television coverage last night would have heard all sorts of industry experts say it.

John Pentland (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Virgin had promised investment in new services and station upgrades at Motherwell in my constituency. Naturally, I am keen to ensure that that takes place whatever the outcome of the current debacle. Will the minister ensure that support for that development is prominent in any representations that he makes?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The key issue in that regard is that the process by which we were to have the stations investment fund, which was the new franchise, is seen to be sound. If the review that has been commissioned by the UK Government comes back in a couple of months’ time—when we will have taken the leap into the franchising process here in Scotland—and suggests fundamental changes to the franchising process, that is where the uncertainty lies. That is crucial.

Notwithstanding that, it is my intention that we will run a proper, sound process that has the time and the resources that are necessary to make it go through without risking challenges to it. If that happens, and we have that level of certainty, the stations investment fund—to which I think that John Pentland was referring—should be secure.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Following on from John Pentland’s question, Virgin had also suggested that if it had secured the franchise, it would have run a service to London that would have called at Cumbernauld station in my constituency. That would have been greatly welcomed by my constituents. Whoever ends up securing the franchise, will the Scottish Government work with them on whether such a service can be operated?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Yes, we will. It is in our interests and the interests of rail passengers to do so. As I have said before, during the process we made a number of representations to the DFT about improved services in Scotland. We do not even know whether those representations were listened to, because we do not get that kind of response under the current process. However, it is my intention to work with whoever operates the service, and indeed with the UK Government, because there is a great deal that it could learn from us. Unfortunately, we are likely to get more co-operation from the UK Government than we are from the Scottish Conservatives.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

I thank the minister for sight of the statement. The minister spoke repeatedly about the regrettable waste of taxpayers’ money resulting from this episode. He is absolutely right. However, I remind him that last year it was revealed that his officials wasted millions of pounds over a tendering process for the relatively small Borders rail project. With that in mind, what procedures has he ensured are in place to guarantee a smooth and cost-effective bidding process for the vitally important ScotRail franchise in 2014?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Having heard from Tweedledum, we now hear from Tweedledee. This is a real chance for the coalition parties in this Parliament to say, as Patrick McLoughlin has said, “There has been a major mistake here. We are sorry.” Instead, ferry contracts and everything else are being dragged in as they try to distract people from what has happened.

We will work to ensure that the ScotRail franchise proceeds in the way that it should and that there is no lack of certainty for the bidders, because they need that level of certainty that the process that they are entering into has some integrity to it. However, it is not all in our hands. First, we have to run a franchise operation despite the fact that we have major misgivings about that process. Also, the review by the UK Government, which I have mentioned, could fundamentally affect that. If Jim Hume is able to put any pressure on the UK Government and his colleagues in that Government who are responsible for this situation, that would be helpful in ensuring that we get the right services for Scotland.

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

Has the minister been in touch with FirstGroup, given that it is a major transport company headquartered in Aberdeen that employs thousands of people in Scotland and the rest of the UK and has taken a severe blow on the stock exchange as a result of UK Government incompetence?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Of course, the Scottish Government, not least because we have not been part of the process, cannot talk about preferred bidders. Also, because we are about to have a new process for that contract, we cannot talk about the particular improvements that might be possible as a result of that. However, yes, I spoke both to Virgin and to FirstGroup not just immediately after the award of the contract, because there are implications for both, but because we had a good working relationship with Virgin previously and we have a working relationship with FirstGroup.

As the member suggests, it is an absolute scandal that because of this issue a prominent Scottish company lost a fifth of its stock market value in a few hours yesterday. It is right that we continue to work with FirstGroup, not least because it currently runs services here in Scotland.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

The minister said in his statement that we require a different model going forward. Can he give us any indication whether it is likely that in the interim period a non-profit Government-controlled company will run the railway? Will he be seeking powers for Scotland so that we could run railways with a non-profit method in future?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Richard Baker learned from my lips yesterday that we can accept non-profit bids under the current process, although he had denied that in an interview beforehand. I can confirm to John Mason that it is possible for non-profit organisations to come forward. They have to be able to demonstrate a level of expertise and experience of running rail services and there are people in Scotland who can do that. I cannot go out and invite them to come forward, but they have the ability to do that.

As to what the UK Government will do, I really do not know as we do not have any more information. As things stand, I have received no communication about the reviews other than a letter from the UK minister. I tried to get hold of him all yesterday morning and when he eventually phoned back—I was told that he was phoning in the next three minutes and then in the next five minutes—he said, “I want to talk to you because”; I thought that that was bizarre, given that I had been trying to talk to him. I got no more clarity on the process of the reviews other than the fact that they will be decided fairly soon, so we still do not know what the scope of those reviews will be.

To return to John Mason’s point, of course we made representations about the nature of franchising and the ability to open that up. We do not have the power to do that, but the UK Government does—although there are still European criteria requiring the separation of track and train, which is another constraint that we have to observe. However, not-for-profit organisations are perfectly free just now to bid for the ScotRail franchise.

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

In the space of a week, the Government has gone from defending the process to suspending officials over a blunder that has cost £40 million. Does the Scottish Government agree that the only way to rebuild confidence in the Department for Transport and its tendering process is for there now to be complete and total transparency? Should the UK Government disclose all the relevant documentation, will the transport minister here in Scotland do likewise?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We do not have any documentation relating to this particular bid because we have not been involved in it, but I think that the member’s general point about the need for transparency on how the UK Government has ended up in this situation is a good one. Given that the first of the two reviews that have been called for will look at this particular process, we will wait and see what information is put in the public domain.

The member may be aware, as I am, that apparently two of the main problems were the fact that passenger numbers were not properly calculated and, incredibly, that inflation was not factored into the figures. Those seem to me to be basic requirements of a tendering process—especially if as many people as we are told were involved were involved, including not just civil servants but consultants, as well as a great deal of scrutiny by a great number of ministers. I think that it is right that we see as much transparency as possible, not least because we are obliged to follow more or less the same process that they followed and we want to know what mistakes were made so that we can learn from them.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

It is interesting that more humility on the subject seems to have been shown by Patrick McLoughlin MP than by some of his Tory colleagues in this Parliament. Nevertheless, can the minister seek assurances from the United Kingdom Government that whatever inquiry is set up will be robust and independent, given that it will be led by Downing Street and rail industry insiders?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

That is a real concern. As I mentioned, the Deputy First Minister will be meeting the secretary of state and I imagine that one of the items on the agenda will be to ensure that the review processes that have been ordered are robust. We have to do that because there is a real job to rebuild the confidence of the industry, as well as that of the public, that these processes can be conducted properly. That is a very important point. As I said, the First Minister has already spoken to the secretary of state and the Deputy First Minister will have an early meeting with the secretary of state, at which I am sure that point will be raised.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement and I share his dismay at the complacency that is being shown by members on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat benches over this issue. The fiasco of the franchise arrangement is indication—if we needed more indication—that rail lines on the east and west coast should remain in the public sector. With regard to the last part of his statement, will the minister confirm—[Interruption]. Members should take the matter seriously. Will the minister confirm whether the Scottish Government intends to remove the legal barrier to public sector train operating companies, if it acquires the powers for this Parliament to do so?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Patrick Harvie is absolutely right on his first point. It is a very serious issue that involves a huge amount of money, and yet all we have from the Opposition parties are attempts at distraction.

Within an independent Scotland we would acquire powers that would open up a range of different opportunities to all the parties, who could put them to the electorate.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Unfortunately for your timetable, my question is relatively brief. I will keep it so for the benefit of members.

My questions follow on from John Mason’s question. What discussions has the minister had with his officials in Transport Scotland about the possibility of a not-for-profit model of delivery of rail services? Does he have any plans to promote that type of service in Scotland?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

There have been substantial discussions on that in the run-up to the process. It was also canvassed in the consultation process that we carried out well in advance of the procurement exercise that we are about to enter into. The option was canvassed and I spoke about it with officers and others. There were also discussions with the trade unions, who were very interested in that particular aspect.

We have made it clear that legislation allows us to accept a bid from a not-for-profit body, although that body has to be able to demonstrate experience in running a rail services. Not many in Scotland can do that, but members can probably think of one or two. If a body can do that, there is nothing to prevent it from making a bid—there is no barrier. However, I cannot promote a particular bid. The Government cannot do that and it has to be seen to be impartial, but the possibility is there.

I will help out the Presiding Officer by making a final comment about the point at which we were told about this. I see in today’s Daily Mail—a fine newspaper indeed—that a Downing Street insider spoke about why the announcement was made at one minute past midnight. They said:

“It was unusual”—

I think it was—

“but the Secretary of State decided to act as soon as he was made aware of the facts. It had to be done outside of financial markets. Calls had to be made and key people alerted.”

I do not know who the key people were, other than perhaps Richard Branson and one or two others, but I think that the people of Scotland should have been among them. That ready contempt for the interests of the people of Scotland is one of the most disturbing aspects of this episode.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

From the discussions so far, are there any immediate lessons to be learned for the Scottish refranchising?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I know this only from reading the media, of course, but two of the obvious points—I have mentioned them already—are passenger numbers and the calculation of inflation. Those are two things that seem to have caused some trouble and which have made it into the public domain.

As the member can imagine, I have had a number of discussions with Transport Scotland officials and, as I mentioned earlier, with the minister of state. There are some things that industry insiders would say are of concern. The DFT is considering a vast number of franchises. It has changed the franchising process and there are question marks over whether sufficient resource went into managing that process in the DFT—that comes from industry insiders.

Another point concerns the length of time. We had our rail consultation last year, well in advance of the franchising process. We have given ourselves a further 20 months. We are very close to starting that process, although obviously we have to take stock of what has just happened. Of course, we will take on board for our franchise any lessons that can be learned from what has happened in this case.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the minister recall the fact that, in our TV interview yesterday, it was I who reminded him that it was completely within his powers to pursue a not-for-profit model for the railways in Scotland? He cannot promote any one bid for not-for-profit delivery, but he can promote the concept. I ask him actively to promote the concept of a not-for-profit model in Scotland, as I encouraged him to do only yesterday. He seems to have forgotten that.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The camera does not lie and everyone can see what happened yesterday. Richard Baker was blissfully unaware of the fundamentals of rail franchising, which is quite worrying. I was happy to set him straight then and I am happy to say now that, of course, we welcome bids if they come forward from not-for-profit organisations, but we cannot promote individual bids. He should also know that a fundamental of public procurement when the exercise is competitive is that we cannot favour one bid over another. We would welcome not-for-profit bids as we would any others.

Employability

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-04365, in the name of Angela Constance, on employability.

It may be helpful if I remind members that most of our debates are follow-on debates, so if a statement or debate finishes early, we get to the next item of business earlier.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I am very grateful for the opportunity to open the debate on employability policy.

Let me first provide some context. When workforce plus was launched six years ago, there was a focus on developing capacity in seven areas that faced the greatest employment challenges. Since then, I am pleased to say that local employability partnerships have voluntarily grown up in all 32 local authorities. Those partnerships, which are supported and often led by local authorities, include all the agencies with an interest in improving employability, ranging from Skills Development Scotland and the Department for Work and Pensions to health boards, colleges and, of course, the third sector. As such, they have been well placed to create more joined-up and effective services for people who are out of work.

At the same time, the Scottish Government has done some joining up of its own. For example, we created Skills Development Scotland out of four separate agencies to act as our national skills body. We have also improved the service for unemployed people by making clearer links between the work of Skills Development Scotland and that of the DWP through Jobcentre Plus. Last, but not least, our introduction of single outcome agreements has significantly strengthened the partnership between national and local government in Scotland.

I believe that those changes put us in a strong position to achieve the jobs and sustainable growth for which we aim. A lot has changed since the introduction of the original employability policy in 2006. Austerity cuts and the global economic downturn, combined with sweeping welfare reforms at United Kingdom level, have greatly changed the nature and scale of the challenge that we all face. Those factors emphasise the need for a fresh approach to employability—one in which the continuing challenge of helping people into work is matched by an equal determination to stimulate growth and hence the availability of jobs.

That is exactly the focus of “Working for Growth: A Refresh of the Employability Framework for Scotland”. The document was launched only two weeks ago by my colleague John Swinney, when he addressed the welfare to work convention in Glasgow. As the title suggests, “Working for Growth” has a clear focus on jobs within the context of economic recovery. First and foremost, that means that we must simplify and enhance our offers to employers.

I understand the frustration that employers still often express about the difficulty of navigating our employment and skills system. I spoke to a range of employers at a business breakfast prior to the launch of the document, emphasising our desire to work closely with employers during these difficult times and beyond—in particular to harness the significant talents of our young people. That commitment is far reaching and is underpinned by our on-going development of skills investment plans for the key growth sectors in the economy.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

When the minister gave evidence to the Finance Committee in June, she mentioned an online one-stop stop that SDS was developing, which would be available in September and is an effort to allay some of the fears of employers. Can she update the chamber on that—either now or in her closing speech?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Yes, absolutely. I was going to come to that point later on. Announcements about our skillsforce are imminent.

It is important that skills investment plans are developed in partnership with the public, private and third sectors. I am pleased that two plans—for energy and hospitality—have already been developed.

As I indicated to Mr Brown, SDS is also developing our skillsforce—a new service that will pull together a range of information related to employers’ workforce needs. Importantly, the service will feature details of national and local offers. To complement that, we will look to employability partnerships to develop and enhance their own collaborative offers to employers.

We have a clear strategic focus on jobs within the context of economic recovery. The next step is to ensure clear and effective leadership in support of those goals. As we highlight in “Working for Growth”, working through the strategic forum and the economy board will be key to embedding employability more deeply into our efforts to revive the economy. The work of the reconstituted Scottish employability forum will also be key—it meets for the first time this month, and it will be chaired jointly by the Scottish and UK Governments and local government. The revised forum will exert much stronger political leadership than before and as such it will be well placed to set the national direction on employability in the coming years.

As those joint arrangements recognise, collaboration with the UK Government and its providers remains essential if we are to be effective in helping people into work. For example, the introduction of the work programme has been one of the biggest changes to the employment system in recent years and we will continue to monitor closely how that is being implemented in Scotland.

We also recognise that greater flexibility has been afforded to DWP districts recently and we see that as an opportunity for more effective integration of services at a local level. Of course, we are ultimately trying to help people—people who, even at the best of times, may struggle to find and sustain employment. For that reason, a large part of “Working for Growth” focuses on our desire to help as many people as possible to enjoy the benefits of work.

There is only time to highlight some of the things that we are doing, or will be doing, in conjunction with a range of partners. To begin with, as the Minister for Youth Employment, I naturally recognise the disproportionate impact that the downturn has had on our young people. Action for jobs, our youth employment strategy, sets out the range of short, medium and long-term actions that we are taking and will take to ensure a better future for all Scotland’s young people.

We recently announced £15 million for a new employer recruitment incentive for young people and we will use that to leverage in additional funding—members will also recall Alex Neil’s announcement to Parliament on the additional £25 million of European social fund money. That comes on top of the £30 million that we had set aside previously to tackle youth unemployment in the period up to 2015.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I welcome the statement that the minister gave about the creation of 10,000 jobs. I am looking for a little bit more detail about what that will involve. I appreciate that it will not come on stream until next April, but can the minister tell us today whether it will be a job subsidy scheme or will it take a different tack?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

In effect, what we have in mind is a wage subsidy scheme that will be targeted at the smallest employers. We will look to subsidise employment for, say, six months. However, that level of detail is not battened down yet. It is important that I continue my discussions with our partners in local government—because it is important that the scheme is delivered at a local level—and the Federation of Small Businesses, which I met this morning.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That support will obviously help the employee and employer at the time, but will the employee then have an opportunity to move into, say, a modern apprenticeship, or will they be barred from doing that because they have had the support of a wage subsidy?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

There are many potential models. I am certainly familiar with pre-employment training that then links into a wage subsidy programme, whether the subsidy relates to employment or to a modern apprenticeship. One thing that we will have to discuss with our local partners is how to ensure that there is no duplication of resources or services but that there are opportunities to have a pipeline and a progression whereby we maximise opportunities for young people, first and foremost to get them into work or to secure them on a journey towards work.

We will also take forward actions to improve female employment, following the success of the recent women’s employment summit and our helpful debate on the subject earlier this week.

Disability continues to present a challenge, even though it is well documented that minor adjustments in the workplace can, for many people, make all the difference in the world. Figures suggest that the access to work facility is underused in Scotland, and I am keen that we work with the DWP to address that.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

A recent freedom of information request that I made to Skills Development Scotland showed that just 0.02 per cent of modern apprenticeships are going to people with disabilities, and the figure is on a downward trend. I appreciate that it is a difficult task, but has the minister put some thought into how she might increase the opportunities for people with disabilities to access modern apprenticeship programmes?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Absolutely. There is a range of equality issues that we need to take on board in discussion with our partners and stakeholders. This is work that I have already begun with stakeholders in terms of disability and race. It is not an easy nut to crack in the sense that, with some employers, we are trying to change cultures and attitudes within the workplace, but there is definitely more that we can do. Much will hinge on our raising employers’ awareness of the programmes that the Government offers and making them aware that it is in their interest to have a diverse workforce. There is a positive business case for supporting diversity, whether in relation to young people, women or people with disabilities.

Mainstream employment is, of course, the ideal, and we will continue to promote the merits of the supported employment approach. However, we recognise that it may not be appropriate for all disabled people, so we recently commissioned a review of Scotland’s supported businesses, to be completed by next spring. The review will focus particularly on how the sustainability of such businesses can be improved in a difficult economic climate.

Finally, I highlight the continued importance of skills in helping people from all backgrounds to access and sustain employment. Evidence suggests that the possession of skills and qualifications is increasingly important in achieving employment of any kind. For that reason, we are not just maintaining but increasing our investment in skills during the current session of Parliament.

Those are just some of the ways in which we aim, with the help of our delivery partners, to improve people’s chances of gaining and sustaining employment.

Speaking of delivery partners, I confirm that local partnerships remain central to our goal of improving performance. That is why we launched “Working for Growth” in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. For example, we are well aware of the potential positive impact of community benefit causes. Increasingly, they are being used to good effect in public sector contracts to secure training and employment outcomes for local residents. In “Working for Growth”, we encourage local partnerships to share and learn from the examples of good practice that are available.

For our part, the Scottish Government will introduce a procurement reform bill, as announced in the legislative programme. Among other things, the bill will set an expectation that community benefit clauses be considered for all major contracts in the Scottish public sector. That is a major step forward.

“Working for Growth” sets out key ways in which we will target our national resources better and includes details of a new approach to employability funding that is better tailored to the needs of people and local labour markets. The new employability fund will from next year bring together our existing employability investments through Skills Development Scotland and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council in a new partnership-led commissioning process. In developing the fund, we will learn from this year’s pilot scheme, through which SDS has commissioned job-focused learning from colleges.

There is much work to do, but we are well placed to achieve our goals. Alongside our youth employment strategy, “Working for Growth” is a vehicle through which we can maintain our focus on jobs and growth for Scotland in the coming months and years. I commend the framework to members and look forward to a constructive debate on how we can help more of Scotland’s people into work.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that supporting those who are unemployed into work is key to economic recovery and reducing poverty in Scotland; welcomes the publication of Working for Growth: A Refresh of the Employability Framework for Scotland, which recognises the importance of linking employability support with actions to support economic growth in Scotland and the value of further developing a more integrated employment and skills offer to both the unemployed and employers; also welcomes the agreement for shared political governance of the Scottish Employability Forum at UK, Scottish and local authority level and the development of an employability fund, which will move away from a limited range of training programmes and enable regional employability partners to work together to identify and respond effectively to gaps in existing pre-employment support; agrees that measures to support young people into work should remain a priority for the Scottish Government, and further welcomes the announcement of an additional £15 million in funding to develop further employment and skills interventions for young people in the draft budget statement of 20 September 2012 in addition to the £30 million already allocated for 2011 to 2014.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I thank the minister for bringing forward the debate. As is often the case, I cannot say that I disagree with much that is in the Government’s motion. Improving people’s employability is not just helpful to individuals but—potentially at least—of wider benefit to business, industry and our productivity as a country. We will therefore support the motion, the Labour amendment and the request in the Conservative amendment.

Unfortunately, as is also often the case, our greatest concern is about what is missing from the motion. The real problem that faces our country and our workforce is not employability but employment—or rather, the lack of it. We should support measures to improve employability, but much of that effort will be wasted if we do not do more to help to create jobs.

A line in the motion talks about

“linking employability support with actions to support economic growth in Scotland”,

but where are those actions? We have just had one of the most half-hearted budgets that I can recall in my time in the Parliament. It contains little by way of economic stimulus and it began to fall apart within hours of Mr Swinney’s statement.

I will return to the central issue of unemployment and our wider economy later, but I will first discuss something else that is missing. A gap exists between what the motion says about employability and the actions that the Scottish Government has taken, which fail to match the rhetoric.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I hope that Mr Macintosh will set out in a properly costed fashion what the Labour Party would do that was different, as an alternative to the budget proposals that he has just criticised.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

As the cabinet secretary knows, all amendments to the budget must be framed so that they are properly costed. I wish that the Government had taken the same approach in producing its budget, instead of having a budget that fell apart under examination by the Scottish Parliament information centre within a couple of hours of being placed in the library.

How does cutting £38 million from the further education budget improve employability? How does reducing the number of students at colleges by 80,000—that is 80,000 fewer people accessing a college education under the Scottish National Party Administration—help unemployed Scots back into the workforce?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

As Mr Macintosh well knows, the Government is committed to maintaining and is maintaining college student numbers at the full-time equivalent of 116,000. That is the most robust figure that is available.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

That is the full-time equivalent figure, but the minister did not respond to the point that, under the SNP, 80,000 fewer people are going to college now than went two years ago. That means that 80,000 people have been denied a place at college—80,000 people have been denied the help that they need, and businesses have been denied the trained employees whom they need. Worse than that, 1,000 staff have been laid off at colleges.

Members should not take my word for it. They should look at evidence that the Educational Institute of Scotland has provided and at the evidence to the Education and Culture Committee this week from Mary Goodman of the Federation of Small Businesses, who called for more—not less—flexible provision from Scotland’s colleges.

As always with the cuts agenda, the most vulnerable are hurt. Across Scotland, parents of children with special needs feel frustrated and anxious as the few development courses that are available are being restricted, closed or removed altogether. The young adults who are affected are among the furthest from the job market. They want to make an economic contribution and they are desperate to improve their employability and to find work. They want to be valued for what they are capable of and not to be excluded because of the extent of their disability.

College cuts are an immediate and pressing concern, but they have the potential to cause even greater damage to our society and economy in the longer term. In recent years, one of the most important policy developments—which I thought at one point was generally a cross-party development—has been the drive to reduce the gulf between vocational and academic educational options. People should have a genuine choice about how to make the most of their abilities and how to make themselves more employable, rather than simply being forced down the university route.

For that to mean anything, there should be a move to narrow the funding gap between the two sectors. Instead, we are witnessing the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning’s naked elitism. There is a brazen promotion of universities over further education, and colleges are being forced to merge, lay off staff and close their doors to tens of thousands of Scottish students. That is all euphemistically called positive reform in order to disguise the truth of what is happening.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Does Mr Macintosh accept—as I do—that college education is not just for working-class young people, but for everybody? I certainly resent the implication that college education is second best when we are striving for parity of esteem through a reform programme that meets young people’s needs in terms of outcomes.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I am not sure that the minister is aware of what is happening in education on her watch. The funding for colleges is being slashed, and there is no parity of esteem—the drive towards it has been lost.

Colleges certainly are for everyone, as they are about lifelong learning. However, under the current Scottish National Party Administration, they seem to have become solely the preserve of 16 to 19-year-olds, and we are reversing all that we have achieved in the past few years. That is not the way to create a knowledge economy, to promote skills and manufacturing or to improve employability.

I ask the minister why there is such a lack of partnership between the Scottish Government and the Department for Work and Pensions on the work programme. I accept her assurance in the motion that she is keen to promote employability partners. However, as I understand it, anyone who starts on the work programme is automatically ineligible for Scottish Government assistance or any other support such as skills or literacy training.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Will the member give way?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

The cabinet secretary is keen to intervene—perhaps he can answer that.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I encourage Mr Macintosh to think carefully about the arguments for ensuring, at a time of enormous constraint in the public finances, that one Government does not duplicate the activities of another Government.

I invite Labour members to speak to United Kingdom Government ministers, whom they would find perfectly prepared to explain that we address our programmes to certain groups of the population for which we have responsibility while the UK Government takes forward its programmes for the population groups for which it has responsibility, thereby avoiding duplication. That is a sensible use of public money.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

There is a difference between avoiding duplication and partnership. The key point in that regard is that, if a young person in Scotland who is getting ESF funding for skills and training has to go on a work programme, they automatically stop the training and lose the skills, and are forced on to the programme. That is not a partnership approach.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Will the member give way?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Before I take an intervention, I suggest to the minister that the Scottish Government has now entirely and effectively pulled out of employability for all the long-term unemployed. She has left the future of the long-term unemployed solely up to the UK Government.

I will take an intervention now.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The work programme is designed by the United Kingdom Government to tackle the issues of long-term unemployment for people who have been out of the labour market for more than nine months. I am sure that the Auditor General for Scotland would have questions for me about why we were putting in place a programme that duplicated one that was available from the United Kingdom Government under its competence. That is a sensible and efficient use of public money—that is why we can balance a budget. That lot have not got a clue how to do it.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Why is it that when the cabinet secretary intervenes yet again, it sounds not like a reason but like an excuse? Young people in Scotland want a joined-up approach from all Government agencies but they do not have that. What they have is the Scottish Government abdicating responsibility and saying, “We will not help young people in this situation”, although long-term youth unemployment is a serious problem that is facing our economy.

Scotland’s unemployment rate is higher than that for the rest of the UK and long-term youth unemployment is now four times greater than it was just a year ago. There can be nobody in this chamber who has not heard about the long-term scarring effect of a prolonged period of unemployment on a young person’s life, yet the Scottish Government is pulling out of that programme entirely.

We agree that improving the employability of young unemployed adults can help and that there is a need to tackle some of the barriers to unemployment such as transport and the provision of childcare, yet there is a gap between what the Scottish Government says about childcare and what it is doing, which is very little.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

rose.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Surely, the most important priority for the Government is to boost the economy and reduce unemployment, but that is not happening.

We are yet to hear any detail about the national employment programme, although there is a lot of eagerness to find out what is in it. It matters a lot whether it is a flagship Government programme or whether it has been pulled together hurriedly at the last minute for the budget. It sounds more like the latter than the former. However, it is important that we have a flagship employment programme—a wage subsidy programme—to get young people back into work. Employability helps, but employment is the biggest answer of all.

I move amendment S4M-04365.3 in Kezia Dugdale’s name, to insert at end:

“; supports the need for ambitious employment and employability programmes at both local and national level; is concerned, however, that the Scottish Government’s rhetoric is not matched by the decision to cut £38.2 million from college budgets, nor the £86 million cut to the housing budget in 2011, which coincided with the loss of 12,000 construction jobs; notes that Scotland’s unemployment rate is now higher than that of the UK as a whole, with one in five young people out of work, and that long-term youth unemployment is almost four times greater than a year ago; is concerned that the Scottish Government’s modern apprenticeship programme is failing to produce the necessary skills base for the growth industries of the future, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that its final 2013-14 budget is amended to genuinely promote jobs, growth and fairness in order to ensure that actions on employability can translate into actual employment.”

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

This is an important debate. It is timely that the Scottish Government has put the matter before the Parliament, given the state of the economy not just now but as it is predicted to be for the rest of this year, the next year and possibly beyond.

There is a high level of unemployment in Scotland, the UK, most countries in Europe and the United States, but we have a particularly high level of youth unemployment both here and in the rest of the UK. The figures are pretty stark. The unemployment rate is about 24 per cent for those aged 16 to 24, 7.5 per cent for those aged 25 to 34, and 5.4 per cent for those aged 35 to 49. The stark contrast between the age groups is poignant when we look at the size of the youth unemployment cohort.

Any Government, whether in Scotland, the UK or elsewhere, has a difficult balancing act to achieve in the actions that it takes. All of us want quality and quantity at the same time, but within the finite funds that are available in the budget given to the minister, there is a decision to be made about how much should be invested in quantity—getting as many people as possible out of the dole queue and back into work—while trying to focus on the people whom we have heard about, who are furthest away from the labour market and who have been out of work for months or years. At times such as these, when there is such a high level of youth unemployment, those who are furthest away from the labour market have a real problem and are swept away by the tide of other people moving into unemployment.

I accept the Scottish Government’s good intention in appointing the Minister for Youth Employment. I acknowledge the budget and the figures that the minister mentioned in her opening remarks. I also acknowledge that many areas that affect unemployment and youth unemployment in particular are not under the control of the Scottish Government or, indeed, even the UK Government—we are affected by what goes on in Europe and the rest of the world. However, for the purpose of the debate it is worth focusing on where we have powers and the various schemes that have been put forward by the Scottish Government. I will go into a bit of detail on some of those initiatives and pose some questions, not putting criticism out there for the sake of it but looking at how things might be applied in 2013-14 and 2014-15 as opposed to what has happened in this year.

The first part of our amendment calls on the Government to think carefully about the initiatives that it puts forward and the criteria for deciding which initiatives to run with. There will be dozens of potentially good ideas, and if the Government had a budget of £1 billion to focus on the problem it might run with all of them.

If we total everything that Angela Constance mentioned, we are looking at a budget of about £70 million, including the European money. That is not a lot of money with which to try to fix an enormous problem, which is why we must weigh up carefully what it is spent on.

When Angela Constance appeared before the Finance Committee, I asked her about the decision to give £9 million—which was, I think, about half of the year 1 budget—to six councils. That decision may turn out to have been a good one. Once the money is applied and the results come in, we may look at it with hindsight and decide that it was a great decision and that we should have done more of the same or that we should do more of it in following years.

The difficulty that I have is that the decision was taken to give the money to the councils before any agreement was reached on what would be done. Simply giving money, whether to councils or any other part of society, without working out what we are trying to achieve with that money is not wise policy or practice. I would like to know what else was considered.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

For the record, as I am sure I would have reported to the committee, I was participating in conversations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We already have a good grasp of the type and nature of programmes that work. We also have an imperative to get money quickly to the areas that are most acutely affected. I accept that there are always lessons to be learned but, given Mr Swinney’s stewardship of public finances, the allocation was not made in a vacuum.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

I will merely quote from the Official Report. It is an important point. When Angela Constance was at the committee with her colleague Hugh McAloon, the response that was given was:

“It was made clear at the time that we would work with them after the announcement on what they are going to do with the money.”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 13 June 2012; c 1328.]

To be fair, the record speaks for itself on that.

I will not dwell on that one decision. The point that I am making is that, when we take decisions on how money will be allocated, because of the scarcity of the available money we must be robust about what it will achieve and not make an announcement just for the sake of it.

The second part of our amendment focuses on the evaluation of interventions that are made. Will the evaluation be robust, independent and carefully applied? We have heard various announcements, such as the £15 million that will be made available from April for small and medium-sized enterprises to take on staff. That is of course a welcome announcement, but it is critical that that project be put in place properly, so that there is no duplication with the other existing schemes.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I certainly support evaluation, but does Gavin Brown agree that there is a challenge with it? Earlier, he mentioned that those who are further away from the job market need help. The danger with evaluation is that we will emphasise too much those who get a higher national diploma, degree or other qualification. What about the people who are further away?

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I can give you about another minute, Mr Brown.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

I am grateful for that, Presiding Officer.

Nobody suggests that evaluation is easy, but my critique thus far of the various schemes that have been proposed is that the evaluations that we have seen have been incomplete. In some cases, there has been no evaluation at all. In many cases, the evaluations are carried out by those who fund the initial project and, of course, all basically say that the project was a great idea. Mr Mason sits on the Finance Committee as well, and he will know that the committee has found it hugely frustrating trying to work out what evaluations have taken place or will take place at the end of the various projects.

We must avoid duplication. With the SME scheme in particular, we must ensure that the money for the 10,000 jobs is not simply given for six months to businesses that were going to take on somebody anyway. That is not an easy problem to fix. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth is shaking his head. We agree that it is not easy but, if the money goes to businesses that were going to take on somebody anyway, the end result will be no difference. That is a really important challenge. I do not think for a second that it is easy to get right, but it is critical that we do so.

I move amendment S4M-04365.2, to insert at end:

“, and calls on the Scottish Government to explain in greater detail the reasoning for allocating employability funding in the manner that it has as well as the alternatives that were considered and to outline clearly what evaluation mechanisms are in place to assess the effectiveness of respective interventions.”

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

The Labour Party’s position this week has been quite intriguing. Yesterday, it was tax, tax, tax; today, it is spend, spend, spend. Yesterday, Labour talked about taxing learning, health, the elderly and the disabled; today, it is talking about spending commitments after spending commitments.

Let us consider Labour’s amendment. It can only be assumed that Labour wants to commit further spending of £124 million for next year’s budget. I will take that as read unless there is an intervention.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Yesterday we heard a series of invented figures, and today started with further fantasy. Where does Bruce Crawford get the figure of £124 million from?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

If Ken Macintosh adds up the two figures in Labour’s amendment, he will find that figure very easily. It is very easily found: it is a bit like the gap in Labour’s budget. The gap in Labour’s knowledge of its amendments is pretty obvious. [Interruption.]

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Ken Macintosh talked about gaps. The single biggest gap in Labour’s rhetoric is the fact that we never get a single concrete suggestion about where the money to finance its commitments will come from. The commitments in its amendment come on top of a plethora of other commitments, of course. I have a list of them with me, and if any Labour member wants to intervene I will say what they all are.

Let us deal with the facts about colleges. We have heard a lot of nonsense from Ken Macintosh. Between 2007 and 2014-15, we will have invested £5 billion in colleges. That is 45 per cent more in cash terms than was invested under the two previous Liberal-Labour coalitions in the Parliament. Since 2006-07, the Scottish National Party has increased baseline college student support by 25 per cent, from £67.3 million to £84.2 million.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

If there is so much money in our colleges, why is Mr Crawford suggesting that the £38.2 million cut that I have identified is correct? Is there a £38.2 million cut or is there not?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Whatever is done and however the matter is dressed up, there is one irrefutable fact as far as college places are concerned. The bottom line is how we get value for money, and it is a fact that there will be 116,000 full-time-equivalent students, which is the same number as there is in this financial year.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Let me make a wee bit of progress first.

At least Gavin Brown approached his position in a more measured tone. It is depressing that, as is usual from Labour, there is not a single innovative idea in its amendment about how to do things differently. The Parliament was brought about to be a hotbed for generating ideas, not a moanfest for negative people who lack positive ideas of their own. It would be a refreshing change to have innovative ideas emanating from Labour.

Last week or the week before at a Finance Committee meeting, we heard from a witness that—God forbid—the current downturn might last for around 20 years. Gavin Brown and perhaps other members who are in the chamber were at that meeting. If Kezia Dugdale, who lodged the Labour amendment, remains elected to the Parliament and we are still in the economic downturn over the predicted period, I hope that her party will contribute much more positively to debates. Otherwise, Labour’s tone will mean that it is consigned to opposition for another 20 years.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Does the member recognise that we are representing the views of constituents who are currently finding it hard to get into college or find jobs in the construction sector? That is what we are here to do. Is the member seriously telling us that no one in his constituency is awaiting a college place?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

The college sector in my constituency has led the way in reorganisation in the past and is robust and strong. Just a couple of weeks ago, I attended the opening of a fantastic new £29 million college in my constituency of Stirling. The Scottish Government is making that investment in the Stirling area.

If I have got things right, Kezia Dugdale will be over 50 by the time her party becomes electable again in 20 years. I know that I will not be around in the Parliament to see that, but that will be the situation if Labour continues the way that it is going.

Joking aside, I want to get on to a more positive agenda and speak about what we can do about employability.

I very much welcome the debate and the additional £15 million of funding to which the minister’s motion refers. I welcomed the announcement last week about the Government’s third sector and social enterprise challenge fund to be spread across 24 organisations nationally. That means that more than 2,000 young people will be given a chance to improve their employability.

That fund forms part of the Scottish Government’s guarantee, unique in these islands, that all 16 to 19-year-olds will be offered a place in training or education. I am pleased that the Government has funded that range of projects, all of which have the aim of helping Scotland’s young people into jobs.

I was particularly pleased with the award of over £58,000 to Recyke-a-bike in my constituency. I congratulate Recyke-a-bike, which is an innovative social enterprise that does excellent work in reducing the number of bikes going to landfill while at the same time creating employment and training opportunities in the Stirling area. It is a success story that shows how innovative and out-of-the-box thinking can be used to create and maintain employment, and it is something that Labour can perhaps begin to learn from. I hope that Stirling’s Recyke-a-bike will inspire others to establish innovative schemes in order to provide training and employment opportunities. Other innovative approaches can also make a significant and positive impact on employability.

Let me move on to the issue of apprenticeships, which is referred to in the motion. Frankly, Labour is all over the place on apprenticeships. In her cuts commission speech last week, Johann Lamont said that apprenticeships should be cut. She said that

“apprenticeships should be as highly regarded as university education ... if this means fewer, but better quality apprenticeships, we need to be honest about this.”

That would be okay if it stood on its own, but Labour is all over the place in that regard. For example, despite the fact that the 2011 budget included provision for an additional 1,500 apprenticeships, which Labour had asked for, Labour voted against the budget. Now, during the deepest recession in years, when the SNP Government is delivering a record 26,427 modern apprenticeships, Labour is calling for cuts to the programme—it is simply incredible.

I commend the motion to members.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

The timing of this debate is fortunate as the Finance Committee had local workshops just last week as part of our employability inquiry. One of the workshops took place in Dumfries, and I was therefore able to listen to the views of the public, private and third sectors in Dumfries and Galloway and, very importantly, the views of local people regarding their own experiences of the obstacles in getting into employment.

One participant, who I think was from the private sector, referred to what they called the employability industry. There is a suspicion that there may be too many people creating work for themselves and sitting on committees talking about employability rather than creating work for people who are unemployed. If we have a look at the Scottish Government’s publication “Working for Growth: a Refresh of the Employability Framework for Scotland”, we will find mention of BASES—better alignment of Scotland’s employability services—skills investment plans, the strategic forum, the economy board, the Scottish employability forum, the national delivery group, the third sector employability forum, local employability partnerships and so on. It makes the reader wonder how all those organisations interact with one another and whether they avoid duplication.

Last Friday in Dumfries we heard about the Dumfries and Galloway local employability partnership’s action plan.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The member talks about duplication. I would like her to explain which of those groups and their help to get folk into employment she would abolish. We also heard a proposal for duplication earlier from Mr Macintosh around the work programme. Does the member agree with his view?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

I will ignore that intervention, because I have an argument to make and the member has made a spurious point.

The local experience that we heard about was that public sector partners had set themselves targets and launched an employer offer, tailoring services in recruitment, training and staff retention to organisations’ needs. I was impressed when I heard that, but in the next session, which we held with the private sector, we heard that unfortunately the private sector did not seem to have been involved in the discussions. In fact, the businesses felt quite threatened by the employer offer initiative, which they felt was treading somewhat on their toes. I felt that the public sector organisations may be working better together, but our impression is that they are sometimes not working quite so well with the private and third sectors, which they need to be able to do.

An issue that was raised in all four sessions was the number of training schemes and funding streams, which causes confusion. People said that it can be difficult to keep track of all the announcements of pockets of funding, and that sometimes it is unclear whether what has been announced is new or a refresh of previously announced funding. I commend the intention in “Working for Growth” to develop a single employability fund, which I understand is intended to make more effective use of public sector resources. I give credit where it is due.

People who are unemployed, particularly those who are experiencing long-term employment or who are young and have never experienced employment, might require employability support to develop the skills that employers expect. However, the focus should not be only on the supply side. Friday’s session in Dumfries with people who are experiencing unemployment highlighted the barriers that are faced by people who seek to work in rural areas. A constituent of mine from Kelloholm said that he had succeeded in being offered a job in Annan, some 45 miles away. He could get there in 50 minutes by train, but it would cost him £12.30 per day, which meant that, given the loss of benefits, he would have been working for £8 a week. It is understandable that he did not take the job.

Another participant, who works in a hotel in Dumfries but lives in Dalbeattie, explained that when she works shifts she has to hang around until 11 o’clock at night to get her bus home, whatever time her shift ends. Other participants reported difficulties in accessing and travelling to work. Childcare is also a barrier, particularly if a job requires shift or weekend working. It appears that some employers are still asking women about their childcare arrangements, which I thought was illegal.

On the Labour amendment, of course we will support initiatives to improve employability. We recognise the importance to the local economy of getting people into employment, but we need to look at the issue in the round. I am particularly concerned about housing. During yesterday’s debate, I tried to intervene on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, but he took an intervention from Gavin Brown instead. We talk a lot about completions, and the statistics on completions of social rented homes look reasonably good. However, I have had a look at housing starts in the social rented sector, which fell from 6,997 in 2009-10 to 6,099 in 2010-11 and then to 2,948 in 2011-12. It worries me that houses are not coming through the pipeline. At the same time, there is a real-terms decrease of about 47 per cent in the housing supply budget, which I do not think is a coincidence.

The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has submitted evidence that it does not think that it will be able to meet targets. SNP members say that we are always asking for more money but, if the Government cannot give SFHA more money, will it discuss with SFHA the possibility of increasing the subsidy? There is not much point in having a pocket of money if housing associations can no longer access it because they cannot get the rest of the financing package as a result of banks putting up interest rates and concerns about welfare reform.

I ask ministers to discuss the issue, because housing is so important. The issue is not just the construction industry’s importance to the economy but the fact that it is the people who live in poor housing and deprived areas who find it most difficult to secure employment. If we help to solve the housing crisis, we will help to solve employability issues, too—that is an example of preventative spend. I ask ministers to consider how such issues might be tackled.

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

Youth unemployment in Scotland is running at 24.3 per cent, which is clearly far too high a level. It is little comfort that we are doing better than some of our European neighbours, such as Spain, where under-24 unemployment is running at a painful 53.27 per cent.

The recession that is the primary cause of unacceptable employment levels represents a threat and an opportunity. There is an opportunity, because the recession forces us to align our training so that what we do produces the outcomes that are anticipated—the key outcome being a productive job.

The Government says in “Working for Growth” that the employability partnerships that were created in 2006 have advanced hugely and are a key element in efforts to develop employability. The approach has been strengthened through the use of single outcome agreements, sustainable procurement and community benefit clauses.

More use could be made of community benefit clauses in public sector contracts to secure local training and employment. Since 2008, when the Scottish Government introduced those clauses, great progress has been made but, from my experience as a councillor, I do not think that some local councils are sufficiently confident about the details to make full use of the opportunity.

The UK’s Government’s austerity budget is working against Scotland. With full fiscal powers we could increase capital investment, which would boost job availability, and the Scottish Government has repeatedly called on the UK Government to increase capital investment to grow the economy. That view is supported by a growing list of eminent economists, who are also calling for capital investment. I cannot understand why the UK Government lacks basic economic competence in that respect.

There has never been a recession in which a country has budget-cut its way back to prosperity. That approach failed in the early 1930s and it is failing again. We need to introduce capital projects and help our economy back on to a firm footing.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

The First Minister said that there has never been a recovery without a recovery in the construction sector, so what does Colin Beattie think about the housing programme cuts?

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

The cuts that we are suffering in Scotland are instigated by the Westminster Government. As I clearly said, no country that has had its budget cut has been able to grow its way back into prosperity. We need capital projects that put us back on a proper footing and enable us to expand our economy. We need to grow our way back into prosperity.

The finance secretary’s draft budget has made provision for £180 million of investment in construction, skills and the green economy, with an additional £18 million for skills training support for 10,000 opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises and £17 million for college education.

There has clearly been some success in the Scottish Government’s strategy: in 2010/11, a record 87.2 per cent of pupils leaving school achieved positive destinations, compared with 85.2 per cent the previous year. Modern apprenticeships are also at a record high, with 26,427 delivered at a cost of £72 million, against a target of 25,000 for each year of this parliamentary session. The Scottish Government’s opportunities for all initiative guarantees training or education opportunities for all young people between the ages of 16 and 19, should they need one.

A key way to achieve the necessary outcomes is the involvement of business, both local and national, in designing and implementing training and educational courses. With that approach, we can be confident that our young people will receive appropriate training and education that is meaningful to getting a job. There are encouraging signs that the partnership between businesses and those delivering training and education is increasingly productive and successful although, as always, more needs to be done.

Scotland’s economy benefits from improving productivity growth through innovation. There is a strong culture of collaboration and knowledge exchange between universities, colleges, and businesses. I am excited at the prospect of innovation centres being extended across Scotland. I recently had the pleasure of attending the launch of such a centre at Queen Margaret University, where the university has worked in partnership with East Lothian business gateway to set up the centre. I look forward to watching the centre’s progress in the months to come.

It is clear that there is no one road to successfully achieving employability. Much depends on the individual and their personal goals and abilities, and on the market. However, it not just young people who need support to improve their employability; there is a major job to be done in helping women into work. Childcare plays a major part in that and the Scottish Government is committed to transforming childcare. The children and young people bill will increase the amount of free nursery education from 475 to 600 hours for three and four-year-olds and looked-after two-year-olds. That is the best free nursery package in the UK, but it should by no means be the final aspiration. We must seek nursery provision of a Scandinavian quality; unfortunately, we are unlikely to reach that level without having control over our own affairs or the management our own economy.

Female employment figures are encouraging: between May and July the number of employed women increased by 12,000; that coincides with a 7,000 fall in female unemployment.

There are many strands to employability: there is provision for training and education, which the Government can achieve; there are delivery mechanisms, which universities, colleges, schools and a variety of training facilities can achieve; there are partnership and co-operation initiatives, which business can achieve; there is flexibility and a willingness to succeed, which the prospective employee can achieve; and, most important, there are shovel-ready projects totalling £300 million, which the UK Government can and must agree to, so that we can make real progress on all fronts.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the opportunity to speak about employability, an issue that is close to my heart and one that I focused on in my first speech in the Scottish Parliament, which was five years ago, although it does not feel like it.

I want to talk first about the nature of employment in Scotland, the calibre of employers that we have and the role of the public sector as an exemplary employer. We have some excellent employers and some high-skill jobs. Conversely, we also have many low-paid, low-skill jobs. The challenge that we face is finding people who want to go into work and finding them suitable employment routes that allow them to stay in work and to develop themselves as individuals and as employees. That is a huge challenge for us.

Another big issue that we are struggling with is the lack of availability of high-quality part-time employment. The women’s employment summit that was held a few weeks ago, which we debated earlier this week, looked at such issues. I know from Alison Johnstone, a constituent of mine whom the minister invited along to that event, that there is real concern about the opportunities that are available for people such as her. Although she has a clearly defined career path, is well qualified and has been in a high-skill job, she does not have the opportunity to go into a part-time, well-paid, high-skill job and balance work with the other pressures that she has in her family life. It is not necessarily Government’s role to influence such things directly, but Government and the public sector have a wider role to play in saying that we need to see more such opportunities being created in the workplace. If that does not happen, we will miss out on a whole potential workforce.

A rather worrying aspect of that issue, particularly for women who are trying to go back into employment, is that a job share might be seen as some sort of alternative career path rather than as high-quality part-time employment that is a normal part of someone’s career path, given the other pressures that we all face, particularly people with young families.

Another issue that is extremely important at the moment is how we develop the skills of people who are in low-paid jobs and develop a culture among employers of promoting skills development among their staff. In my first speech in the Parliament, I said that 70 per cent of the people who are in work at the moment will still be in work in 20 years’ time. The figure now is broadly the same. The workplace has changed a great deal over the past 20 years. Given the present pace of change and the likelihood that the workplace will change just as much, if not more, over the next 20 years, the Government faces a huge conundrum. It is down to private sector, voluntary sector and public sector employers to start doing something about the people that they have in work to ensure that they have the skills that they require and can move through the pipeline, so that people who are outside the labour market get the opportunity to move into work and there continues to be movement through the pipeline.

A big part of that is ensuring that we develop the leadership and management skills in our existing workplaces. How we better utilise skills in the workplace is an issue that was discussed at this afternoon’s meeting of the cross-party group on skills. To do that more effectively, we need leadership and effective management. In addition, we need to recognise that we must develop our leaders and managers to make that happen. That is a big challenge. That brings me back to the points that Ken Macintosh and Kezia Dugdale made in their interventions. Colleges and other learning providers are key in developing such vocational training opportunities, and we cannot lose sight of them in the current climate.

There is an issue about how joined up on skills the DWP and the Scottish Government agencies are. I have a constituent who was unfortunately made redundant because his employer went into liquidation. He got support from partnership action for continuing employment but, although that support was excellent in the first instance, it was reactive, not proactive. When he was trying to find an appropriate course, support was there for him from SDS, but he was unable to source a course locally and found himself in the work programme. There is a real challenge there. This is someone who worked in the same place for 25 years and never had to look for employment or think about the skills that he needed to develop his employment opportunities. Just when he needed a little bit of intervention at the right time, the system let him down. As parliamentarians we must bring examples such as that to the chamber in the hope that we can improve the system for people who are engaged in it. If we do not do that, much further down the road others will find themselves in the same situation as my constituent from Cowdenbeath.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment on procurement. I hope that there is compulsion on employers to train apprentices, through community benefit clauses and other measures. As part of that, we need to look at the issue raised earlier by Kezia Dugdale about disabled workers and workers who are underrepresented in the workplace. If we can find measures through procurement to ensure that those groups get opportunities and if we use Government spend to provide opportunities for them, we will be doing our job properly. If we do not do that, we will not maximise the potential of our workforce. If we do not do that properly, Scotland will be a far poorer place. As parliamentarians, we are in the best position to make that happen now.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

Aberdeenshire West is a diverse constituency. We have farming, tourism, hospitality and of course the energy sector. Unemployment in Aberdeenshire is down as low as 1.3 per cent; in parts of my constituency, it is 0.6 per cent. That may not reflect what is happening elsewhere in Scotland.

I would like to look at the link between education and employment. In my constituency, an excellent model is being taught in schools. Called your future in energy, it gives young people the opportunity to take a broad view of entering the employment market. It moves away from the stereotype. In the project, young girls can think about wearing a hard hat and overalls and going into the offshore market. We have got young people looking at the various sciences and what they can do within their school curriculum for a future in the broad area of energy. We have to move that culture forward to ensure that our young people have the appropriate opportunities.

I am delighted to say that positive initiatives have been taken. Universities and colleges in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire have set up a centre for excellence to look at the broad energy market. They are looking at the feed-in from schools and what the skills sector requires, and applying the courses that young people need to get into employment. Employers in the energy sector say that there is a skills shortage, and indeed there is. However, that problem is being addressed because it is so important to our overall economy in Scotland and the UK and globally. It is unfortunate that much of the return from that energy sector does not come direct to Scotland. It goes to the coffers down at Westminster and our return is very small indeed.

We are providing opportunities for our young people. The Government has taken a positive step by appointing the Minister for Youth Employment to look at the link between education and youth employment.

The minister mentioned access to work. One of the UK’s best-kept secrets is access to work. Who is it available for? What are the criteria? It keeps changing. I do not know whether access to work is available for young disabled people for apprenticeships or when they are trying to learn new skills, but I do not think that it is. Yet that is when support is most needed, during early training when people are learning new skills. It is there to help our young people achieve work. As has been mentioned, it is a challenge for our young disabled, and for all disabled people, in the employment market, so we must try to ensure that every opportunity is made available for them.

I am delighted that the cabinet secretary within his budget has managed to secure funding for social enterprises. That funding is there to enable and to give positive messages to the people of Scotland, not the negative rhetoric that we have heard from those on the Labour benches this afternoon. Bruce Crawford said that he may not be here in 20 years’ time. I say to Bruce Crawford that he will be 76 and will probably be most welcome here because he would have a more positive message than we have heard today from Labour members.

Let me end by saying that the models within Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, led by Aberdeen city and shire economic future, are models that could be replicated throughout Scotland. I commend the motion to the Parliament.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I, too, welcome this afternoon’s debate and the publication of “Working for Growth”. We will have no difficulty in supporting the Government’s motion at decision time.

The motion highlights a number of funding commitments, but there appears to be at least some confusion surrounding the way in which the funding is being committed. That frustration is felt to a greater or lesser extent by colleagues on the Education and Culture Committee—a point that I will return to later if I have time—so Gavin Brown’s call for greater clarity on the allocation of funding is perhaps sensible. Likewise, while Kezia Dugdale’s amendment is perhaps more strident in tone and certainly unduly critical of the modern apprenticeships scheme, she highlights a number of areas where the Government is not yet adequately walking the talk. For that reason, the Scottish Liberal Democrats will also support the Labour amendment this evening.

In general terms, this is an area of policy where genuine cross-party agreement exists. No one seriously disputes the challenge that we face, particularly though not exclusively in improving the skills and employability of our young people, not least given the stark statistics that Gavin Brown quoted. There is even little dispute among the parties over what the policy response to these challenges should be, which is perhaps reflected in the fact that none of the Opposition parties sought to amend the text of the minister’s motion—they seek merely to add to it.

In that vein, as I am sure that we will return to this and related issues many times in the months ahead, let me make a plea to the minister. Although she rightly highlighted the constructive partnerships that have emerged in all 32 council areas, she still seemed a little coy in acknowledging the role that the £1 billion youth contract initiative announced by the UK Government last year can play in enhancing the employability of young people in Scotland. As she knows, under that programme UK ministers committed to fund incentives to companies that take on young people and to provide extra support through Jobcentre Plus for unemployed 18 to 24-year-olds, so that there is an offer of work experience or a sector-based work academy place for every 18 to 24-year-old who wants one. I acknowledge that that may be reflected in the wage subsidies to which Ms Constance referred, but I hope that she will agree that, in future debates and motions, the importance of those contract initiatives could be exemplified.

On the modern apprenticeships scheme, as I said, I think that Kezia Dugdale may be overly harsh in her criticism, but I accept that there are concerns around some of the detail of what the Government is doing. The promise to create 25,000 modern apprenticeships each year is undoubtedly ambitious, but the minister has been worryingly vague so far on how that is to be achieved. What proportion of the overall number of apprenticeships will be taken up in the public or, indeed, the third sector? What demand is there in different parts of the private sector and among businesses of different sizes? The impression is that ministers have arrived at an eye-catching target but are less sure of how that target is to be met and where the demand is to come from. The risk is that the target will become the primary focus.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Does Liam McArthur accept that the Government not only achieved the 25,000 target but went over that and got to 26,000-plus?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I accept what Bruce Crawford is saying, but the point is whether the 25,000 target gives the correct make-up for growing the economy. Are we achieving the target for the sake of achieving the target, or are we putting the interventions where they are most needed? The target will not ensure that resources are invested in the most appropriate place or that ministers’ policy intentions are actually delivered. Indeed, the Education and Culture Committee heard hints to that effect in evidence earlier this week.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Will the member take an intervention?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I need to make a little progress. How much time do I have, Presiding Officer?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Does Mr McArthur acknowledge that the great strength of the modern apprenticeships programme in Scotland is its employed status? It is the part of the skills system that I believe responds best to employers’ needs, because employers inform the framework. He is looking at this from the wrong angle.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I do not accept that at all. Angela Constance will recall the exchanges that we had in the Education and Culture Committee when she was not able to set out in any detail the make-up of the apprenticeships between the public and private sector, which suggests that the target is being elevated above all else.

Changes in the funding arrangements for modern apprenticeships also appear to be creating some practical difficulties. Understandably, much of the attention has been on meeting the needs of 16 to 19-year-olds, although it is disturbing to note that long-term youth unemployment appears to be four times greater than it was a year ago. Many young people are into their 20s before they decide that they want to undertake an apprenticeship, yet changes to the funding rules that took place earlier this year appear to have reduced the level of support for 20 to 24-year-olds to half that available for 16 to 19-year-olds. It has been pointed out to me by a number of major employers in Scotland that encouraging more of those in the older age group to take up apprenticeships—and so progress—will free up opportunities for 16 to 19-year-olds. The minister may wish to consider whether further refinement of the scheme is needed.

In the time remaining to me, I will focus on the situation faced by Scotland’s college sector. In evidence this week, the Education and Culture Committee heard from a range of business organisations, all of whom acknowledged the critical role that our colleges play in providing the skills that our country and its economy need to emerge stronger from the current downturn. The consensus around the vital contribution made by Scotland’s colleges is matched only by the general confusion about funding in this area, as I indicated earlier. Professor Jim Gallagher referred to the problem as “biscuit-tin funding”, whereby bits and pieces of money were found to plug gaps or to respond to specific issues. He said that as well as making it difficult to see where and how funding was being directed, and for what purpose, that approach risks impeding delivery of broader objectives.

So far, the more the committee has delved into the issue of college and related funding, the more opaque the situation has become. What is clear is that the pressure on colleges is significant. As Scottish Colleges confirmed this week,

“the strong downward trend for teaching funds is a concern in terms of retaining student numbers, breadth of curriculum and quality of teaching.”

I acknowledge and welcome the funding that John Swinney announced last month, and the funding that, by all accounts, Michael Russell announced in front of colleges earlier this week. Nevertheless, as with last year, I believe that further work needs to be done.

Let us not forget that this is all happening at a time when colleges are going through enormous upheaval, with mergers and so on, while also being required to deliver a range of commitments.

The minister, along with her colleagues, needs to pay particular attention to the discrepancy between funding of higher education courses in our colleges and in our universities. As well as leaving our colleges short-changed, it sends a message to potential employers that is not helpful. It suggests that ministers attach less value to college courses and that they are somehow inferior. That perception risks undermining attempts to improve articulation from college to university and compromises our collective commitment to widening access.