Scottish Parliament, 21 November 2013

246 contributions from 66 members. The official report.

Aberdeen City Council (Transport)

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

1. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with Aberdeen City Council regarding transport issues. (S4O-02612)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The Scottish Government has had regular recent discussions with Aberdeen City Council over a number of transport issues, which include public transport, road and rail infrastructure, hydrogen infrastructure, and learning technologies and electric vehicle infrastructure.

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

I understand that Aberdeen City Council is asking the Scottish Government for funding for preparatory work or a feasibility study in order to introduce trams to Aberdeen. Given the fiasco that happened here in the city of Edinburgh over trams, the on-going work on the Aberdeen western peripheral route and the introduction of hydrogen buses in Aberdeen, would it not be wiser to wait and see the impact of those three projects before committing scarce taxpayers’ money to that request?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The member will be aware, of course, that the Government did not support the Edinburgh trams project at the outset. Following a vote of the Parliament, however, it supported the project to the tune of £0.5 billion. I am aware that Aberdeen City Council has instructed its officers to open discussions with Transport Scotland officials on proposals for cross-city transport connections in the council’s strategic infrastructure plan.

We will of course consider any representations that the council makes. However, at this stage my view is that this is a purely Aberdeen City Council initiative. The Scottish Government’s transport priorities are clearly set out in our strategic transport projects review and our infrastructure investment plan.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for those comments and I am sure that Aberdeen City Council will approach him on those terms. Does the minister accept that the options on the table need not be confined to one particular form of rail link and that a rail link that could be built economically and effectively could make a real difference to the connectivity of Aberdeen airport? Will the minister agree to join the council in considering the feasibility of different options, clearly recognising that if he does so, he will have an opportunity to influence the terms of that study?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As I said in my response to Maureen Watt, I think that this is purely an Aberdeen City Council initiative but I have gone so far as to say that Transport Scotland officials will discuss the council proposals with the city council officials. That is as far as I would want to go in relation to that.

Lessons can be learned from the experience of a tram project in a busy city such as Edinburgh—lessons that to some extent are relevant for Aberdeen City Council. It would be an Aberdeen City Council initiative should the council choose to go forward with it, but obviously Transport Scotland officials will discuss the proposals with council officials if the council wants to bring them forward.

Environmental Noise

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to meet its obligations under the European Union directive relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise. (S4O-02613)

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The Scottish Government is currently consulting on noise action plans that are required under the environmental noise directive. Those plans set out a suite of proposed actions, building on the strategic noise maps that were published earlier this year for the principal agglomerations: Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen; main airports; and major road and rail networks. The consultations close on 18 December.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The Edinburgh draft noise action plan identifies Calder Gardens in the Sighthill area of my constituency as an Edinburgh road candidate noise management area. The directive requires member states to bring about measures intended to avoid, prevent or reduce exposure to environmental noise. Is the minister concerned that further house building in the west of the city and the resulting traffic increase in the Calders area will add to the environmental noise problem?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I remind members that I have previously provided advice—as noted in my register of interests—regarding education aspects of proposed developments in the west of Edinburgh.

The strategic development plan for south-east Scotland, which was approved by Scottish ministers in June 2013, makes strategic housing land allocations that require to be reflected in local development plans. Planning applications for housing development proposals require to be determined in the normal way by planning authorities taking into account all material considerations that may impact on the local environment. Those include noise impacts as well as the previous issue raised by Mr MacDonald regarding air quality.

Minister for Town Centres

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what the remit is of the minister for town centres. (S4O-02614)

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

As Minister for Local Government and Planning, I have ministerial lead for town centres and responsibility for the delivery of the town centre action plan, which was published on 7 November. That plan is a cross-Government response to the recommendations in the external advisory group report, “Community and Enterprise in Scotland’s Town Centres”. The plan will stimulate the debate on the future for Scotland’s town centres and encourage and support action from across the wider public, private and community sectors.

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

I welcome Derek Mackay’s appointment as the minister for town centres. I appreciate his taking the time to speak to the cross-party group on towns and town centres, and I wish him well in his new role.

The town centre action plan has been largely well received and I endorse many of the points in it. However, I ask the minister how he will respond to the criticism from the Federation of Small Businesses and others that issues such as business rates and the state of the property rental market have not been fully addressed. What is there that the business community can sink its teeth into that would address the cost of trading in town centres as opposed to out of town?

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

I welcome Margaret McCulloch’s welcome of my appointment to that dedicated post, to which I will give 100 per cent attention. I engage with a range of stakeholders on the town centre agenda because it is so important to the people of Scotland, and I congratulate the member on the work that she does in the cross-party group, which I was delighted to attend.

I will shortly meet our partners, including the FSB, to discuss what they believe are shortcomings in the report and enable them to identify further actions that we can take. However, the areas that the FSB highlighted were matters for local government and not necessarily the Scottish Government, so I will continue to engage with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and individual local authorities.

The FSB whole-heartedly welcomes the fact that the Scottish National Party Government has delivered the most generous range of rates reliefs in these islands. It also welcomed the retention and continuation of the small business bonus scheme and the expansion of the fresh start relief that incentivises landowners to open up properties rather than keeping them closed.

I look forward to further engagement with all partners, not least the FSB.

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

I, too, had better welcome the minister to his position, or I will be in trouble.

In my constituency, there are several town centres—such as Penicuik—that require a helping hand. Given the constraints on the public purse in Government and in local authorities, will the minister consider providing an information website that is dedicated to helping communities to establish—if it is appropriate—development trusts, social enterprises or whatever to lever in lottery funding, for example, to regenerate their town centres?

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

There is some welcome news on retail sales in Scotland, but our response should involve more than just retail. Our plan is about community action to deliver innovative solutions to town centre issues, among a range of other actions that we will undertake. I commit to fulfil Christine Grahame’s request to deliver such a website to support our community groups in progressing their local plans.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The minister will be aware that South Ayrshire Council has in the past gratefully received support from the town centre regeneration fund. Are there—or will there be—further funds available to concentrate on a high street where regeneration is still much needed?

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

I remind John Scott that the concordat with local government ensures that the de-ring fencing of a substantial amount of funds has given local authorities the ability to deliver their local economic development function. As part of the town centre action plan we have announced new resources, not least the town centre housing fund, which aims to increase the residential footfall in our town centres.

We will look at further resources, but the package of business rates relief is now worth more than £0.5 billion, which is a substantial contribution that will help businesses in town centres. We will continue to work with councils throughout Scotland in delivering on the agenda.

I launched the town centre action plan in Kilmarnock—not in South Ayrshire, but East Ayrshire, which is close enough—because of the importance of the issue in that area. I welcome the fact that East Ayrshire Council has become the country’s first “town centre first” council, and I encourage other councils to follow in that vein. They will get a warm welcome from the Scottish Government, and we can look at further investment decisions to support our town centres at what has been a very difficult time.

Superfast Broadband

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

4. To ask the Scottish Government when it will announce the next set of locations to receive superfast broadband. (S4O-02615)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Contracts for the delivery of next-generation broadband were awarded earlier this year. A dedicated website—www.scotlandsuperfast.com—was launched in October to provide up-to-date information on deployment plans throughout Scotland. The first areas that will go live, in Inverness-shire and Moray, were announced recently; those will be among the first areas to be able to access fibre broadband services from early next year.

We plan to provide regular updates on our website, including the first announcement of deployment in the rest-of-Scotland intervention area, with a postcode checker facility, in early 2014.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

The cabinet secretary will know that a number of my constituents have expressed disappointment at the speed of their broadband. Earlier in the year, Fife Council stated that it hoped that more than half of the deployment of superfast broadband in the area would be completed in the early stages of the project. Can the cabinet secretary advise whether Fife Council’s targets are realistic and confirm that North East Fife will not be left as a technological white space by 2015?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Rod Campbell is assiduous in representing the interests of his constituents on this issue. Our current plans suggest that large areas of Fife will benefit earlier in the project. We are not able to confirm precise percentages at this stage, because the plans are subject to survey and will change as broadband is rolled out, but we are absolutely clear that we want no area to be left behind, including North East Fife. We want to ensure that as many people as possible have access to next-generation broadband. Where that is not possible, we have committed to ensuring that everyone within the project’s intervention area has access to at least a basic level of broadband connectivity. There is real ambition and determination behind the project, and I am happy to keep Rod Campbell updated as further detail of the roll-out plan becomes available.

NHS Grampian (Primary Medical Facilities)

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with NHS Grampian regarding the provision of primary medical facilities for expanding communities in the north-east. (S4O-02616)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Scottish planning policy makes clear that, when identifying locations for new housing, planning authorities must take account of the availability of infrastructure, including community facilities. Under Scottish planning legislation, health boards are key agencies in the preparation of development plans and should be actively engaged with planning authorities in the process of planning for new development and the growth of communities.

Regarding discussions on the provision of primary medical facilities for expanding communities in the north-east, there are no confirmed plans for medical facilities at present. However, NHS Grampian has been in discussion with the local authority on the matter, and those discussions will continue.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

General practitioner practices in the north-east have some of the largest patient lists in the country, and many serve growing populations. Chapelton of Elsick could provide 8,000 homes but, as the cabinet secretary has just acknowledged, there are no confirmed plans to build medical facilities in the new town. Developers have offered a retail unit for a GP surgery for the first 800 houses and will set aside ground for a medical centre as the community grows. However, a medical centre would cost millions and it is unclear where the funding would come from. Residents therefore fear that existing healthcare services such as Portlethen medical centre, which is already among the busiest in the country with nearly 14,000 patients, could be overwhelmed. Given that health boards were recently stripped of their powers to allocate capital funding, will the cabinet secretary take responsibility and act to ensure that residents in and around Chapelton of Elsick can access high-quality healthcare in future?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Alison McInnes raises a number of valid points, particularly regarding the new development at Chapelton of Elsick. As I said in my first answer, the health board and local authority are in detailed discussion. The matter is for discussion between the health board and the local authority. If, after those discussions, the health board has to come to me to request additional funding, we would obviously look at any proposal, but the priority is for the responsible local organisations—namely, the health board and the local authority—to agree a way forward. We can then see whether Scottish Government intervention is needed and how we can help in implementing any proposals that are agreed.

Children’s Dental Health

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making on improving children’s dental health. (S4O-02617)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Significant progress is being made on improving the oral health of children in Scotland. For example, the national dental inspection programme has found that the proportion of primary 1 children with no obvious decay experience had increased to 67 per cent in 2012, compared with 44.6 per cent in 2003, and that the proportion of primary 7 children with no obvious decay experience has risen to 72.8 per cent in 2013, compared with 52.9 per cent in 2005.

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his comprehensive response and welcome the improvements and the progress that are being made. The success of the Government’s child oral health programme goes hand in hand with access to dental services. In Dumfries and Galloway there was a period before 2007 when accessing routine NHS dental treatment was almost impossible. What steps has the Government taken to increase access to NHS dentists?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

This Government can be very proud of the steps that it has taken to improve access to NHS dentistry. For example, from 2007 to 2013, the period in question, the proportion of children and adults registered with an NHS dentist increased to 89.5 and 79.9 per cent. That compares to 67.2 and 46.2 per cent in 2007. Dumfries and Galloway has also shown a similar improvement from 2007 to 2013.

The number of dentists working in the NHS also reflects our success. From 2007, the number has increased by 670, which is an increase of 27 per cent. There are also specific initiatives in place to support areas such as Dumfries and Galloway. I confirm that grant funding through the Scottish dental access initiative has been critical in providing funding for a range of new practices in South Scotland, including in Dumfries and Galloway, for the period in question. I also draw attention to the new dental school in Aberdeen. That will ensure a sufficient stream of newly qualified dentists for the NHS.

Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what trading and co-operation opportunities there are for Scotland arising from its participation in the recent Abu Dhabi international petroleum exhibition and conference. (S4O-02618)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Last week, I led Scotland’s largest-ever delegation to the Abu Dhabi international petroleum exhibition and conference. More than 40 Scottish companies and higher education institutions were represented at one of the largest oil and gas events in the world.

To date, five Scottish companies—Doosan Babcock, FoundOcean, PEAK Global Consultancy, Safehouse Habitats and Scotmas—have confirmed new partnerships with local Emirate organisations, cementing the companies’ foothold in a key global market. In addition, one other Scottish company, MJB International, announced that it had secured a contract from the French company, Air Liquide.

I also had meetings with the United Arab Emirates energy minister and the head of the Abu Dhabi petroleum institute. The discussions reiterated the significant opportunities that exist for partnership and collaboration between Scotland and the middle east. In addition, my visit to ADIPEC has led to a pipeline of opportunities for us that, despite that dreadful pun, officials will pursue in the coming weeks.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

I thank the minister for that comprehensive reply. It does not leave me an awful lot to follow up on, although I know that he has much more information in the pipeline. What future design and engineering work opportunities will there be for companies based in areas such as my Glasgow Anniesland constituency? Are we looking to training opportunities specifically as a consequence of the minister’s ADIPEC visit?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I will not attempt to lower the tone even further with another pun. Everywhere I went in ADIPEC, people had heard of the expertise and training for the oil and gas sector not only in Aberdeen but across the whole country. In fact, the UAE energy minister had been to Aberdeen on occasions in a previous life and knew exactly what expertise the country has.

There will be significant opportunities. Closer collaboration between Scotland and the middle east has already seen supply chain into the Gulf increasing by 82 per cent since the previous year. My officials and Scottish Development International would be happy to meet the member to discuss the outcomes of what we achieved at ADIPEC and see exactly how companies in his constituency could benefit from that closer collaboration.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Given Scotland’s expertise in training offshore workers, what is the Government doing to support training companies to attract international clients?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the member for that question. Some higher education institutions attended the conference with us and, on top of that, we had representatives from the energy technology partnership. We have some of the best training academies for vocational on-hand training and we are working with them to put them in touch, through SDI, with companies from the middle east that have a huge investment in the North Sea, such as TAQA, to see how they can use that expert training that they will not get anywhere else. If those companies get that level of training and their workers are trained to drill in the North Sea, they will be able to drill anywhere in the world and that will help their global operations not only in Scotland, but in Canada, Nigeria and wherever else they take place. The Scottish Government, including Fergus Ewing and other ministers, take those training opportunities extraordinarily seriously. Scotland’s expertise will help companies across the world and we look to do that through the energy technology partnership, Nigg Skills Academy and the many other great training institutes that we have.

Engagements

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01690)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

This week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a respected independent think tank often quoted by the First Minister, said that because of falling North Sea oil revenues and an ageing population, an independent Scotland would face significant tax rises or public spending cuts.

I do not suppose that any of us here imagines that we are going to get an answer, but with a cock of the head and an indignant sideways look, could the First Minister tell us why the IFS is scaremongering like that?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

We would do what the IFS report itself indicates: we would increase the Scottish tax base by growing the economy and generating extra revenue.

I do not know whether Johann Lamont is aware that the model that the IFS used, which is the Office for Budget Responsibility model, suggests that the United Kingdom will be in deficit for every one of the next 50 years—the next half century. It indicates that UK Governments will have to raise taxation or reduce expenditure to meet that sustained position. That is what the model tells us.

Instead of looking at that, we should be looking in Scotland at how we change the circumstances of this country by using investment to grow the economy, to generate more jobs and revenue and to give us a sustainable future.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The IFS is just asking us to look at the real world. Why would we bother with all that malarkey when we can just make things up as we go along? How will we deal with an ageing population? Presumably we will all just get younger under independence. There will be £300,000-worth of Oil of Olay for each man, woman and child.

Of course, the IFS said that even in its most optimistic of forecasts, income tax would have to go up by 8p or VAT would have to rise to 27 per cent to fill the fiscal black hole.

Chuckling at his own jokes, as he likes to do, and selectively quoting lines that suit his argument—I am sure that he is looking for them right now—could the First Minister tell us why the people of Scotland should believe him rather than the evidence of their own eyes?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Let us talk about what is agreed in the IFS report. Page 9 confirms that Scotland pays more tax per head than the UK at the moment. Page 11 confirms that Scotland is in a stronger fiscal position than the rest of the UK.

To quote exactly, the report says:

“the average revenues raised per person in Scotland (£11,079 in 2013–14 prices) were higher than for the UK as a whole (£9,342 ... )”.

The IFS has validated an argument that I have brought to the chamber many times, from the “Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland”—GERS—forecast, that Scotland more than pays its way in the UK. In the past five years, that has amounted to many billions of pounds that could have been invested in Scottish public services, used to lower the rate of borrowing, or used to do a combination of both. However, because of our position with the UK, those resources have not been available to the people of Scotland.

Our case is a simple one: instead of not having those resources available, why not invest in the economy? Why not grow productivity—grow our exports—and ensure that we have growth in the economy, which generates more revenue, so that we do not have the dreadful future that has been forecast for the UK by the IFS, which says that it will be in deficit for the next 50 years?

Johann Lamont talks about changing the age structure of the country in an independent Scotland. How would we do that? Perhaps we could do it by allowing young Scots who want to work in this country the opportunity to stay here—or perhaps we could do it by not kicking out, as the Border Agency does, the many skilled young people who come to study at our universities and desperately want to work either for a time or permanently in Scotland. Would that not help to change the population’s age structure? Of course these things must be right because they are controlled from London and Johann Lamont backs control from London of the immigration policy that would consign us to that prospect.

The IFS’s central forecast, which has been taken from the Office of National Statistics, postulates 4 per cent population growth in Scotland over the next 50 years. The population of Scotland has grown by 5 per cent over the past 10 years but, as the IFS tells us, if we remain trapped in the policies that are governed from Westminster, Scotland faces a very poor prospect indeed. If we grow the economy and put the investment in, we have a bright and certain future.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Another of the First Minister’s tricks is to go on and on answering a question that he was not asked. When the IFS says that in its most optimistic forecast income tax would have to go up by 8p or VAT rise to 27 per cent to fill the fiscal black hole, only the First Minister could say that the IFS validates his position. It does not.

Indeed, I would not be surprised if convicted Enron executives across the United States were, at the moment, planning their appeals, saying, “I know we fiddled the figures, but Alex Salmond has taken it to a whole new level.” With every economic paper the First Minister publishes, Fred Goodwin must feel a day closer to redemption; each prospectus must make Bernie Madoff spit out his breakfast in admiration.

Feeling free to quote a former Labour chancellor in a falsetto voice, to dig up a blog that he was trawling through last night or to give us some more selective quotes like the last few we just got, can the First Minister explain to us why the fiscal black hole exposed by the IFS does not actually exist and why there is nothing to worry about after all?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I point out to Johann Lamont that I quoted from the IFS because I think it very useful in agreeing the current position. The IFS backs the Scottish Government GERS figures in showing that Scotland more than pays its way in the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] I hear from the Tory benches that that it is not true. I have already given one quote; page 11 of the report points out that

“Scotland exceeded revenues by £1,550 per person”.

Given that direct quote from the IFS, let us agree that over the five-year period Scotland has more than paid its way within the UK.

I have pointed out to Johann Lamont that I do not think that the population structure of this country is a given; I think that it would be enormously improved if we did not refuse young Scots an opportunity to work in their own country and if we allowed other skilled people, many of whom we have educated, to work in Scotland. That, to me, would bring about a substantial and important change with regard to the sorts of challenges that the IFS has indicated and which face all European economies.

I have substantial admiration for the IFS, unlike Westminster politicians, including Alistair Darling, who have dismissed its various reports. Indeed, I see that the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has

“taken the highly unusual step of attacking the ... Institute for Fiscal Studies, describing its methods of measuring the fairness of the coalition's controversial spending review as ‘distorted and a complete nonsense’.”

That is exactly why I have pointed out that on the basis of the IFS report we can now be reasonably certain that the arguments that we have been putting forward about Scotland being in a stronger fiscal position than the rest of the UK have been validated with regard to the past five years.

What happens over the next 50 years will depend on the policies that are pursued in this country, which, in turn, will depend on whether we have control of the policies that are pursued in this country. I say that we should get control of the economic levers, increase productivity, increase our exports and invest in our economy. Let us grow the Scottish economy and move forward to that better future.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The First Minister is guilty not just of selective quoting, but of selective thinking. The First Minister says that the IFS is helpful, but only to the extent that it agrees with him. We know that SNP back benchers are helpful to the First Minister only when they agree with him, but he ought to look at the whole of the IFS study and take it on board.

Just like at the start of his campaign, the First Minister is going to the cinema on Tuesday. What is he going to see—“Historic Day V” or “Honey I Shrunk the Fiscal Gap”? If the First Minister is to be believed, we will not just be a new country after independence, but he will invent a new arithmetic. While the choice in every other country in the world is between tax rises and cuts in spending, Alex Salmond will have us believe that we are the only country in which the future is this: how big a tax cut can we give to big business and how much more can we spend on good things? Is it not the case that at the very heart of next week’s white paper and at the heart of everything that the Government does is the belief that if the First Minister and his colleagues say something confidently and often enough, no matter how wrong it is, the people of Scotland will be daft enough to believe it?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Let me try another quote from the IFS. Johann Lamont will say that I am being selective, but I think that it underlines the points that I have been making. The IFS acknowledges that

“These factors”—

in the report—

“are inherently uncertain and could also evolve differently if Scotland were independent rather than part of the UK; in addition, they could be substantially affected by the policies chosen by the government of an independent Scotland.”

That is basically what I am saying.

Johann Lamont says that the choice is between cutting spending and increasing taxation. That would be the Labour Party’s position, with, according to the IFS/Office for Budget Responsibility analysis, a deficit in every single one of the next 50 years. We now know exactly what, if Johann Lamont has any influence, the policy of the next Labour Government would be on that issue.

I do not think that Johann Lamont is in a particularly good position to talk about either economic advisers or the real world. Fred Goodwin was the economic adviser to Alistair Darling, not to me, and the current economic adviser to the Labour Party is the Rev Paul Flowers. I do not think that that gives us a tremendous indication of what the future should hold.

In addition, in the real world at present, Labour figure after Labour figure is saying exactly what they think of the Labour Party’s current coalition with the Tories. For example, according to the Scottish Labour Party chairperson, Labour activists “simply cannot stomach” working alongside the Conservatives in the no campaign. In the real world, key Labour figures such as Alex Mosson are coming out in favour of the yes campaign. That is what is happening in the real world.

As the white paper is launched next week, the yes campaign will be reinforced. Why? Because this party and this Government have ambition for this country. We think that we can invest in the future, grow our economy and give all our people a decent future.

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-01685)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

No plans in the near future.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

Nothing that has been said in the past quarter of an hour takes away from the fact that the Institute for Fiscal Studies report said clearly that an independent Scotland would start life with such a gap in its balance sheet that either taxes would have to rise or spending would have to be slashed. Those are similar findings to those of the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Centre for Public Policy for Regions, the National Institute of Social and Economic Research, the Confederation of British Industry, the David Hume Institute and any number of academics and economists whom one cares to mention. Why does the First Minister think that the IFS came to such conclusions? Was it part of some vast right-wing conspiracy, or had it just done the sums?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I think that Ruth Davidson’s interpretation is entirely wrong. The IFS’s point is not that the current budgetary fiscal position of Scotland is worse than that of the United Kingdom, but that it is, as I have just read out, better than that of the United Kingdom. Indeed, under that optimistic scenario, it will be better until 2040, according to the IFS figures.

What the IFS argues is that Scotland faces the challenges that every European economy faces because, it says, an ageing population will cause considerable difficulty. I argue that the answer to that is to grow the Scottish population by allowing people who have grown up in this country the opportunity to work in their own country and by allowing the many thousands of skilled people who want to work in Scotland to do so, as opposed to their being thrown out by Ruth Davidson’s colleagues south of the border.

If we are to address the long-term challenges that the IFS mentions, we know full well what awaits us in the United Kingdom. Perhaps some of those things would come to pass here, if they were to happen in the United Kingdom, but with the policy levers of an independent Scotland and with ambition for this country we can create a new and better future for ourselves.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

To pick out half a sentence from page 11 and repeat it again and again might be a life raft of a debating point, but it does not change the headline message of the IFS report, which is that in order even to begin to balance the books, there must in an independent Scotland be either a huge spending cut or a tax rise equivalent to VAT of 27 per cent or a 9 per cent hike in income tax.

The inconvenient truth for the First Minister is that the IFS is not alone in its analysis. Independent think tanks, academics, economists, financial experts, business groups and trade bodies are all lining up and saying the same things: the books do not balance, the currency is not secure and oil is a finite resource. All of them—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order. Let us hear Ms Davidson.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

All of them are on one side of the argument, while on the other, all alone, is the First Minister, sticking his fingers in his ears, making fag-packet promises and with an economic plan that has more holes in it than Rab C Nesbitt’s string vest. All the independent experts are saying one thing and Alex Salmond is saying another, so let me ask him this: Why should voters close their eyes, cross their fingers and take a punt on the First Minister’s far-fetched claims?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The only thing that Ruth Davidson has worked out is that she should not say that we will not get “Dr Who”, which I understand she said in The Sun newspaper this morning. Unfortunately for Ruth Davidson, according to the BBC, “Dr Who” is simultaneously broadcast in 50 countries—

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Seventy-five!

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am sorry. It is broadcast in 75 countries—I was underestimating—which is an increase of 25 since I started the sentence.

All the dismal forecasts of Ruth Davidson require to be challenged, but let me just say that I know that the Tory party, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have attacked the IFS’s figures in the past, but I am not doing that. I am just pointing out what the IFS itself has said.

Ruth Davidson has cited the IFS report, which in fact validates something that she has never publicly admitted, as far as I know: that Scotland more than pays its way in the United Kingdom. Over the past five years, many billions of pounds that we could have used to invest in the Scottish economy have gone south—in every sense of the term. That is in the IFS report. I know that it is an inconvenient truth, but there it is, in the IFS report.

Let us talk about what the IFS says about the future. Paul Johnson, the director of the IFS, said:

“what this is saying is in order to avoid problems somewhere down the road you need to make some changes in the short run. These are perfectly plausible changes—a few per cent of national income, smaller actually than what happened or what is happening at the moment over this current period. ... As I say, this is not unusual among developed countries. Developed countries as a whole are facing these kinds of challenges”.

I have indicated how we in this party and this Government would face those challenges in an independent Scotland. We would grow the economy; we would grow the tax base of the country by growing the economy. If we stay with the United Kingdom, if we allow the Home Office to fling out talented people who want to work in this country and if we deny young Scots the opportunity to work in their own country, I have no doubt that the future will be dismal for Scotland, as is indicated in some of the IFS’s forecast. However, there is an alternative, and that alternative is to believe in the resources and the ability of the people of this country, to invest in that future and to grow the economy.

Ruth Davidson—remarkably for a Conservative Party politician—said that she felt that I am alone in these forecasts. The reason why I am here is that the substantial and overwhelming verdict of the Scottish people was to elect this Government, who have given their verdict time and again on the prospects of the Conservative Party in Scotland. When Johann Lamont talked about the ageing profile of Scotland’s population, I thought that she was talking about the Conservative Party’s support.

The reason why the Government was elected is that the people of Scotland have the nous to know that this is a country that has ingenuity and ability; our people are an ingenious people, and we have ability among our people. They also know that having vast natural resources in oil and gas is an asset and not a liability. If we combine those two things—an ingenious population and vast natural resources—we can make a success of our economy. That ambition and belief will be reflected in the white paper and reflected in the votes of the people of Scotland next year.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The First Minister will be aware that due to the reckless conduct of metal thieves on Tuesday, 280 homes in Greenock lost their power and four houses were set on fire, which put people’s lives at risk. The consequences go on, in that the circuit boards of all the central heating boilers have been blown and will have to be replaced, possibly with significant investment by the social landlord and homeowners. As the First Minister knows, this is part of a growing trend. Scottish Power has reported that more than 800 substations have been subjected to attacks since 2011, and that 70,000 homes in Scotland have been affected.

We appreciate that the Scottish Government is looking at legislating to address the issue, but can the First Minister assure us that it will be brought forward as soon as possible and, in the meantime, that there is co-ordinated action between the police and Scottish Power against the reckless people who are putting lives in danger?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am very much aware of the incident, and I am aware of not just the inconvenience but the danger that was caused to Duncan McNeil’s constituents by a disgraceful theft of metal that affected power lines and power supply. I assure him that we will at the earliest opportunity bring forward legislation through the forthcoming licensing bill. More than that, there is current police action that is co-ordinated by Police Scotland and the British Transport Police, and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will shortly meet Scottish Power specifically on the issue of protection and security of power lines. Action will be taken.

I agree with Duncan McNeil that it is a very serious situation. What makes it all the more galling is that the actual value of the theft was some tens of pounds, although it put hundreds of people to substantial inconvenience and some families in substantial danger, which makes the theft all the more deplorable.

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-01688)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the First Minister think that police officers are being taken off the streets to backfill civilian jobs?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

No. I agree with what the chief constable has said on a number of occasions. That is not the policy of Police Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the First Minister had actually read what the chief constable said yesterday, he would not have said what he has just said to Parliament. He was actually a lot clearer about this before, because he has said in the past that it was “utter nonsense”.

Yesterday, the chief constable said that it is happening “on a daily basis”. Now it is confirmed by the chief constable that police officers are being taken off the streets. We can add to that list police stations being shut to the public, control rooms being closed, Audit Scotland being scathing, chiefs being at loggerheads and the Scottish Police Authority saying that it just does not know where the savings will come from.

This grand mess is something that Kenny MacAskill said was “a once-in-a-generation opportunity”. Is that not a warning that, the next time they try to sell us something that is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, people might not believe a word that they say?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Unfortunately for Willie Rennie, I have read the report about the Public Audit Committee yesterday and have the full quotation before me. He quoted four words of it. The actual, full quotation is:

“We do not have a policy or strategy to backfill support staff with police officers. Of course it happens on a daily basis, but it’s not part of a plan.”—[Interruption.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

That goes along with this quotation:

“I must repeat that we do not have a strategy or plan to backfill Police Staff Roles with Police Officers. “I want as many officers as possible to be on the street in an operational role.”

Those are quotations from the chief constable—they are not just the words that Willie Rennie tried to take out of context. [Interruption.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The difficulty for Willie Rennie on police reform is that most people would regard the advent of Police Scotland and the ability to merge 10 organisations into one as very substantial achievements indeed. Most people would regard the record numbers of police officers on the streets and in the communities of Scotland—if it was up to Willie Rennie, they would not be there—and a 39-year low in recorded crime as substantial achievements.

If people want to look for an alternative to the policies that are being pursued in Scotland of reinforcing the front line and of emphasising not the back office but the front line and people in communities, they need only glance at what happens under the control of Willie Rennie’s colleagues south of the border, where England is about to lose almost as many police officers as the record numbers that Scotland now has.

Fiscal Sustainability (Independent Scotland)

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies on the fiscal sustainability of an independent Scotland. (S4F-01711)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As I said, given that the same forecasts from the IFS and the Office for Budget Responsibility say that the United Kingdom will run a fiscal deficit in each of the next 50 years, we should not be surprised at the long-term nature of the forecast.

Independence is the key to changing the outcome. I pointed out earlier that the IFS acknowledges and reports that the overall 50-year prognosis would be substantially affected by the policies that the Government of an independent Scotland chose. We choose policies for growth and achievement. That will make the difference.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I spoke to Paul Johnson, the IFS director, on Tuesday. He admitted that the IFS has carried out no work on the impact of the UK leaving the European Union following the proposed 2017 referendum. Does the First Minister agree that that would be a better focus for the IFS than attempting to predict Scotland’s economic circumstances half a century into the future?

Does the First Minister also agree that what the IFS got right was confirmation that Scotland’s economy performs better than the UK’s at present, with a relative budget surplus of £12.6 billion over the past five years, and that an independent Scotland could reform the tax system to boost the economy and increase growth?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

That—in particular, the first bit, which was validated in the IFS report and is now, presumably, universally accepted across the chamber—is exactly what Scotland has lost out on over the past five years. We have been in a consistently stronger fiscal position than the UK as a whole but unable to use those massive resources for the benefit of the Scottish economy.

As we have already discussed, I believe in changing the parameters of the population forecasts by investing in the future of the economy. There are any number of young Scots who want to work in the Scottish economy if they are given the choice to do so. It is a foolish and mistaken policy to fling people out of the country when they want to commit themselves to Scotland.

We can rise to the challenges. We can invest in the future and grow the economy. That is an altogether more convincing prospect than the dismal prospects offered by the unionist parties, who would keep us in the current box of low growth and low aspiration in Scotland.

Wilful Neglect of Patients

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

5. To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government will bring forward plans to extend legislation to make wilful neglect of patients a criminal offence. (S4F-01705)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I thank Rhoda Grant for giving me the opportunity to address the question, because it is hugely important.

The recommendation on wilful neglect becoming a criminal offence was made by the world-renowned patient safety expert Professor Don Berwick in relation to how the safety of patients in NHS England could be improved in the wake of the Mid Staffordshire scandal.

Rhoda Grant will be aware that wilful neglect is already an offence when it relates to mental health patients in Scotland. We are examining the best legislative manner in which to extend that protection to all patients. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will update Parliament before the end of the year on how we can take that forward.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister will be aware of Scottish Labour’s proposal to create an integrated health and social care inspectorate that is independent of Government, is accessible to staff and patients to allow them to raise their concerns and has the powers to take tough, decisive action. Will he explain to us why he has failed to consider our proposal so far?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

All proposals are considered. The integration of health and social care is hugely important, and we will look at all proposals as we carry forward that policy.

I think that Rhoda Grant is being very unfair to the Scottish health service, in the light of its achievements on patient safety. Given that the recommendation to which she refers was made by Professor Don Berwick, perhaps we should look at what he said about patient safety in Scotland. He said:

“The Scottish Patient Safety Programme is without doubt one of the most ambitious patient safety initiatives in the world—national in scale, bold in aims, and disciplined in science ... aligned toward a common vision, making Scotland the safest nation on earth from the viewpoint of health care.”

That is the view of the person whose recommendation Rhoda Grant has asked us to consider. Obviously, we will consider it favourably. Nine of the 10 key recommendations have already been put in place in Scotland as part of the patient safety programme, and the 10th one, which Rhoda Grant asked me about, is one that we will consider positively, so that we can live up to Professor Don Berwick’s estimation of patient safety in Scotland.

Police Scotland (Statistics)

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that statistics presented by Police Scotland are accurate. (S4F-01695)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Scotland is now a safer place, as we know, and that is supported by the 1,000 additional officers that we have provided, in contrast to what is happening south of the border.

There is a well-established system in place to ensure consistent and accurate reporting of police data from the eight legacy police forces and Police Scotland. The Scottish crime recording standard, which was introduced in 2004, provides a victim-orientated approach and ensures uniformity in crime-reporting practices throughout Scotland. Compliance with the standard is reviewed by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland. That is why we are working closely with the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland to ensure that published Police Scotland management information is always robust.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the First Minister for his response, but he will know that, this week, senior police officers have spoken out against a target culture in the centralised Police Scotland. What assurance can he give us that techniques such as gaming are not being used to present a picture of police activity and recorded crime that is less than accurate?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I can give Murdo Fraser the assurance that, because of what I have said to him, we can have confidence in the statistics that Police Scotland produces and, indeed, in the statistics that the former forces produced.

Given the excellence of those statistics, perhaps Murdo Fraser might just accept that there are more than 1,000 extra police officers on the streets of Scotland, whereas thousands have been made redundant south of the border; that recorded crime is at a 39-year low; and that police officers throughout the country are doing an excellent job on behalf of the people of Scotland.

I do not want to comment on the trials and tribulations of Conservative Party Cabinet ministers, but there is a fundamental breakdown in trust between the UK Government and the police service, just as there is a fundamental breakdown in trust between the UK Government and the fire service. Has Murdo Fraser ever realised that the reason why that trust is intact in Scotland is that, unlike his colleagues south of the border, we value and regard the work of our uniformed services?

John F Kennedy Assassination (50th Anniversary)

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-07824, in the name of Richard Lyle, on the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament acknowledges the 50th anniversary of the assassination of the 35th President of the United States, John F Kennedy, on 22 November 1963; remembers what it considers his great achievements as a political leader especially with regard to foreign affairs, civil rights and economic policy; commends what it believes were his efforts to limit the threat of nuclear weapons through diplomatic measures, most notably by signing the limited test ban treaty with the UK and Soviet Union; considers that he was instrumental in progressing the civil rights movement through open public support and executive orders, which resulted in interventions such as the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity; applauds what it believes was the recovery of the US economy under his presidency and understands that it enjoyed its longest sustained expansion since the second world war; recognises what it considers his ambitious vision of safely sending an American to the Moon by the end of the 1960s; believes with sadness that his time in office was unjustly cut short, and honours with sincerity and respect the memory of President Kennedy who, it understands, travelled through central Scotland in 1939 before delivering a speech in Glasgow on behalf of his father, Joseph, who was the USA’s ambassador to the UK at that time.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I thank all members of the Scottish Parliament who supported my motion, which allowed the debate to take place, and I welcome to the chamber Zoja Bazarnic, who is the principal officer at the United States consulate general. I also thank my American intern, Dana Cullen, who aided me in preparing my speech.

Today, we remember former US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Tomorrow, 22 November, is the 50th anniversary of his tragic assassination. I want to take this opportunity to reflect on the accomplishments of President Kennedy, who was one of the most noteworthy political leaders of the 20th century.

America’s youngest elected President, who had served just over 1,000 days in office, was shot dead on 22 November 1963 while being driven in his presidential limousine through Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas. It was a shock to all. Most people of my generation remember where they were on that fateful day.

Kennedy’s assassination has been the focus of conspiracy, mystery and intrigue for the past 50 years. In countless books, articles, films and research, people have analysed and debated the information, producing unsatisfactory explanations for why a man with such enormous promise met such an untimely death. Questions about the gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald—did he act alone? How many bullets were fired? Where were the shots fired from?—continue to plague people who are fascinated by President Kennedy and the almost Shakespearian drama that surrounds his life, family and legacy.

In a recent newspaper article, it was suggested that President Kennedy foreshadowed the exact means of his death in a conversation with his wife, Jackie, on the morning of the assassination. Over 50 years, official reports have concluded that there were three bullets and one man and that the President’s death was the result of a horrible, random act of violence. However, the public have been unable to accept that. People have constantly sought to give Kennedy’s life meaning and are unable to believe that such a historic figure could be brought down by one lowly man.

That is testament to the man that JFK was and to his political accomplishments. The theories around his death might be provoking, but ultimately they detract from his presidency and accomplishments. Prior to being sworn into office, Kennedy had received a purple heart for service in world war two and a Pulitzer prize for his non-fiction book, “Profiles in Courage”. He was a young, exuberant, handsome man with a glamorous wife, all of which, along with his wit, intellect and charisma, fitted the family for celebrity in a way that was perfect for the age of television. He easily defeated Nixon in the first televised presidential debates and he was the first President to use the television to address the American people. In that way, Kennedy was able to connect to the public and appeal to Americans on a personal and emotional level. He has been described as having had a unique ability to combine substance with style and wisdom, particularly on significant issues such as war, peace, space and civil rights.

As most presidencies do, Kennedy’s presidency faced turbulent times. It was the era of the Cuban missile crisis, the early years of the Vietnam war and the construction of the Berlin wall. However, despite political obstacles, he emerged to initiate the first Apollo mission to the moon, displaying his visionary spirit. In foreign policy, he was instrumental in negotiating a nuclear weapons test ban treaty with the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, and he committed to a phased withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam. With a view to containing hostile relations, his presidency gave birth to the Peace Corps, and he was the first President to vocalise support for the civil rights movement. He drafted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which called for an end to voter discrimination, segregation of schools and other forms of discrimination.

Those were the achievements of a mere 22 months in office. What more might Kennedy have done had he lived? Some people suggest that his current popularity among politicians and the public is based more on the promise of what might have been than on the reality of his short term in office. Historian Dr James Boys has written:

“more than any other president, JFK is judged to a great extent on his promise, as opposed to his specific achievements in office.”

That might be true, but we must not overlook or underestimate the sense of joy that Kennedy brought to the presidency, which ultimately convinced the public of his greatness. He served at a time when cynicism towards the White House was at a minimum. Perhaps that helps to explain the longing for the days of Kennedy’s Camelot.

Kennedy was a man whom the public could stand behind and support. Through his handling of the Cuban missile crisis, he emerged as a heroic leader. Republicans and Democrats in America have sought to bask in Kennedy’s glory and often try to emulate his speeches and draw on him as a symbol. As we know, it is nothing less than extraordinary to find common ground between those two parties, so the fact that that happens speaks to the importance of Kennedy’s presidency. Unfortunately, many politicians today have failed to realise that Kennedy’s public image and persona were not just for appearance but had real substance as their basis.

Had Kennedy continued to live, he would surely have been elected for a second term. His presidency was on track to be the champion of the civil rights movement and to promote peaceful relations abroad, especially with the Soviet Union. Vietnam might have taken a far different course, as he was adamant about not committing more troops on the ground. However, we will never know about those possibilities. We will continue to wonder what could have been when we think of Kennedy and lament the loss.

Kennedy’s death has forever shaped how we remember him. Instead of remembering him for the myths of his death or his unrealised potential, we should remember him for being the man who inspired a nation, for the spirit that he brought to the presidency, for the accomplishments that he achieved in such a short time, for being a symbol for peaceful diplomacy, and for the duty that he gave to his country.

I will end with an excerpt written in the weeks that followed Kennedy’s death that aptly captures the essence of the late President. The excerpt was on display in the recent Andy Warhol exhibition in the Parliament. It says:

“And so the 35th President of United States was laid to rest, the four days that shocked the world came to an end, and the great and near great from around the world turned back to their own worlds. And in all the speeches, in all the eulogies, in all the comforting messages, nowhere was the world’s sentiment more clearly expressed than in a brief inscription on the back of a picture of the late president which was handed out at St. Matthews cathedral: ‘Dear God, please take care of your servant, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.’”

Sadly, years later, on 19 May 1994, Kennedy’s wife, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, died at 10.15 pm eastern standard time of cancer at her Fifth Avenue apartment in New York. So ended the Kennedy dynasty.

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

It is a cliché to ask, “Where were you when Kennedy was assassinated?” but some of us have a reply. I asked some colleagues.

John Pentland was in a house listening to the radio. He could not be more specific than that—or perhaps he was just being evasive.

Roderick Campbell pled the fifth amendment.

Nanette Milne was in the medical school library at Foresterhill in Aberdeen.

Mini-skirted Mary Scanlon was back-combing her hair in Montrose, ready to go to the Locarno to dance to Brian Poole and the Tremeloes. It was cancelled.

Elaine Murray was playing with her junior chemistry set and listening to the radio.

I was in the Cameo picture house, also in a mini-skirt, watching a Jacques Tati film. The film stopped. We thought that the projector had broken, but then, across the black screen came the words, “John F Kennedy has been assassinated.” Stunned to silence, the cinema emptied without people having been given any instruction to leave, and I felt that the world was a very bad place. Why?

When JFK became President, it seemed that a new world had a chance. He was charismatic and refreshing, with his stylish wife and charming children. The court of Camelot, as the White House and the entourage became known, seemed a breath of fresh air and promised so much to the impressionable teenager that I was: an end to wars, for a start. Wars have continued even up to today, of course. I recall what became known as the Cuban missile crisis: the 13-day confrontation in October 1962 between the Soviet Union and Cuba on one side, and the United States on the other. That crisis is now generally regarded as the moment in which the cold war came closest to turning into a nuclear conflict, and is the first documented instance of mutual assured destruction, which is aptly shortened to MAD, being discussed as a determining factor in a major international arms agreement. MAD—how appropriate. I truly thought then that world war three was inevitable. That was a chilling moment.

The Camelot court was not, of course, as clean as a whistle and the idyllic family was not so idyllic, but those were the days before the internet, texting, 24-hour news, satellite broadcasting, and people documenting events with their mobile phones.

When I review the reality of the Kennedy years—some good, some bad—with the benefit of historical appraisals, I recognise his achievements, but sometimes it is chalk and cheese. However, that does not detract from the promise that was snuffed out so brutally.

We can compare the election of JFK with the election of Barack Obama, not simply because of the means of reaching the electorate and the funding but because some of the hopes that rested on the shoulders of JFK seemed to transfer to and come alive again with the current first family. However, the current personable and eloquent President, though exuding some glamour and style to western eyes at least, has had a much tougher time from his electorate and the fourth estate. That is not necessarily a bad thing, although the results might sometimes depress us, but how would JFK and his family have fared today by comparison?

The assassination of JFK remains a seminal moment in international history, and it was followed five years later by the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy in the same year. Those three murders put a brutal stop to the influence of three substantial figures and, for the very young Christine Grahame, the promise of a different and better world.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I congratulate Richard Lyle on introducing this debate and I welcome the American consul to the gallery.

I tweeted last week that everyone of a certain age would be obsessed with the assassination of JFK this week, not surprisingly, because we can all remember where we were on the night of Friday 22 November 1963. I can go further than that, because 1963 was a momentous year in many ways as it was really the beginning of the 1960s in terms of the cultural shift, the first Beatles records and so on, and it was also a momentous year in politics. However, I can remember only one sentence that I heard in 1963. I was at a club at my secondary school on the evening of 22 November when somebody came into the room and then, 10 seconds later, the person in charge stood up and said—I can hear it as clearly as if it was yesterday—“President Kennedy has been shot three times in the head and he is dead.”

I am told that 40,000 books have been written about that event and about President Kennedy more generally. I must say that I have not read any of them, so I will not deal with who killed him. However, I have been convinced that the ballistic evidence shows that it could not have been just Lee Harvey Oswald. Clearly, many people speculate about who else was involved. I am told that JFK’s nephew, Robert Kennedy Jr, is going to write a book, which will come out next year, saying that the Central Intelligence Agency was involved.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the member give way?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I do not have time.

The best way to get mythologised is to die young, but I suppose the most interesting question for this debate is, what was John F Kennedy really like? What was he all about? He had a lot going for him, as Christine Grahame has reminded us, because he was not just young but glamorous, charismatic and eloquent, and he talked the language of change. There was a remarkable contrast between the politics that he represented in America and what was happening in the United Kingdom at the time. Conservative members will probably agree with that point, because it was the end of the old Conservative party when the grandees in 1963 picked the 14th Earl of Home as the next prime minister; after that, the Conservative party modernised itself.

JFK had a lot that contributed to the myth, but there have of course been many debunkers since then, although I think that some people have gone too far. I think that the feminist critique of his attitude to women is probably valid—in fact, it is certainly valid. However, others have gone too far. George Kerevan, for example, said in an article in The Scotsman a month ago that JFK was a fraud and liar, and that he generated cynicism about the effectiveness of democratic politics—I think that all that went too far. George Kerevan also said, quite strangely, that JFK won the election in 1960 through denying millions of black Americans the vote. In fact, the exact opposite of that is the truth. I urge people to read a really interesting article in The Guardian yesterday by Candace Allen, who said that it was basically the black vote that won Kennedy the 1960 election. That is also what is stated in Theodore White’s book “The Making of the President 1960”.

It is true that, in retrospect, Kennedy can be criticised for not moving faster, but he tried to get the civil rights bill through and, of course, Congress blocked it. A book that has recently come out—I have only read a review of it—“The Letters of John F Kennedy”, apparently has many letters between Kennedy and Martin Luther King that show the former’s commitment to the civil rights movement. Of course, partly out of respect and in memory of John F Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson made sure that the civil rights bill went through Congress the year following JFK’s assassination.

A lot has been written about JFK’s role in foreign affairs and nuclear weapons. I think that he learned a lot of lessons in that regard from the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs invasion. The correspondence with Khrushchev that is in the book of JFK’s letters shows them both trying to hold the line against their respective hard-liners. That resulted, for example, in the test ban treaty of 1963, so there were positive aspects to JFK’s role in foreign affairs and nuclear weapons. Christine Grahame referred to MAD, but let us be honest: MAD is a lot better than the first-strike madness that many of JFK’s advisers advocated.

I think that I am more or less out of time. There is a lot of controversy about whether JFK would have got involved in Vietnam. Part of his appeal is that people feel that he might have been able to stop the disaster of the Vietnam war. That is suggested by some evidence, which I have no time to go into. I do not really know the answer to that question.

There are many uncertainties and controversies about JFK, but it is absolutely appropriate to commemorate today a defining moment of the 1960s and a key moment in modern American history.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

I thank Richard Lyle for bringing to the chamber the motion to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the assassination of American President John F Kennedy. I was only two years old when President Kennedy was assassinated. I do not remember the feeling in the air after it happened. I do not remember the powerful reaction of the whole world to that earth-shattering moment. I do not even remember how upset my parents and other family must have felt afterwards.

However, we do not have to be able to remember that day to understand the profound impact that President Kennedy had on our world. JFK’s numerous achievements on the domestic and international stages created an image of a man who deserves our utmost respect. One can only imagine how different our world would be if his life had not been cruelly cut short.

JFK had a vision for peace and prosperity the world over. He loved his country and cared deeply and passionately about civil rights, economic prosperity and scientific innovation through space exploration. However, given the nature of the times, much of his focus was on world politics and, in particular, on relations with the Soviet Union.

A reminder of JFK’s humanity is that his presidency experienced many highs and many lows. One of his lows was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion near the beginning of his presidency in 1961. The attack had been largely planned before he took office, so he was briefed after being elected and he approved the plan without having much time to think about it before the invasion was launched. From that experience, Kennedy learned that he would have to develop a better strategy for US and Soviet relations than rushing into armed conflict.

The desire to avoid superpower skirmishes helped JFK to bring the world back from the brink of nuclear war in 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis. He had been involved in that conflict from the beginning. He was able to remain calm, even while the world was preparing to duck and cover and when an American plane was shot down, killing the pilot. The achievement of a resolution through direct negotiation with the USSR reinforced his view that reconciliation was achievable.

Kennedy’s new views were on display in his commencement address on 10 June 1963 at the American University in Washington DC, which was also 50 years ago this year. He said:

“I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace ... not merely peace in our time, but peace in all time.”

He went on to announce his willingness to negotiate with the Soviets

“toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty”,

which resulted in the nuclear test ban treaty later that year. He also declared that he would not conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere as long as other states refrained from testing there as well. As he said, that was an attempt

“to make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on this matter.”

That speech signalled the climax of a dramatic growth in President Kennedy’s character over his short, incomplete presidency, and it showed his aspirations for world peace, which we could all stand to take some time to refocus on.

I would like to take a moment to share with members an excerpt from one of President Kennedy’s final speeches. On 13 November 1963—only days before he was assassinated—the Scottish Black Watch band during its American tour performed for him and more than 1,000 guests on the White House south lawn . JFK shared with the gathered crowd these words on the importance of American and Scottish connections. He said:

“We’re proud to have them here because they are a Scottish regiment, and that green and misty country has sent hundreds of thousands of Scottish men and women to the United States, and they have been among our finest citizens. And we’re proud to have them here, because, speaking personally, the history of Scotland captured me at a very young age. The United States, and in fact all of us, love, I suppose, lost causes, and on occasion the history of Scotland has been a lost cause, but in some ways they have triumphed—perhaps more today than ever before.”

It is no surprise to me that Richard Lyle felt compelled to lodge this motion on the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination, and I thank him again for it. President Kennedy felt a deep connection to our great country, just as many of us felt a deep connection to him and his unparalleled leadership. Let us take this anniversary of his death to reflect on the many leadership lessons that we can learn from him and to renew our faith in our cause and our country, as he would have us do.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

Presiding Officer,

“From Dallas Texas, the flash, apparently official: ‘President Kennedy died at 1 pm Central Standard Time.’ 2 o’clock Eastern Standard Time, some 38 minutes ago.”

I think that most people have seen Walter Cronkite’s broadcast, in which he brought to the world the official confirmation of the President’s assassination. I was only four years old and surprisingly I can remember where I was when I heard about Kennedy. It was the following day and I could not understand why my grandparents were so uninvolved in the first episode of “Doctor Who”. I was enthralled. “The President has been killed,” they told me by way of explanation. Yeah, well, who? Whatever.

Then, blow me, because of “That man Kennedy” the first episode had to be repeated the following week and it was a whole fortnight before I could find out what had transpired. That was the perspective of a four-year-old at the time.

Back to Kennedy. I have read plenty about him and his family since, and, despite all that, I remain fairly unimpressed. His father was a fascist-supporting ambassador to the United Kingdom who did all that he could to frustrate any US involvement in disrupting the progress of Hitler and the Nazis. His mother acquiesced in his father’s sanctioning of a lobotomy on her sister. His younger brother abandoned a woman to drown in a car crash. When in office, he and his brother Bobby shared women, took drugs and behaved reprehensibly and in a way that would lead to their being hounded out of office today. They gave J Edgar Hoover all the material that he needed in effect to blackmail the presidency of the United States. His father fixed votes in the presidential election in 1960 that saw JFK elected as President. He initiated America’s substantive involvement in Vietnam. He was responsible for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. It was his successor, Lyndon B Johnson, who did all the heavy lifting on the landmark civil rights legislation. He did not do that just in memory of JFK. LBJ was personally hugely committed to driving through that civil rights legislation and it was LBJ who drove through most of the social legislation that remains at the heart of the US today.

To Kennedy’s credit, he conducted himself heroically when the ship that he was commanding, PT109, was attacked and sunk in the second world war. His single-handed rescuing of members of his crew demonstrated outstanding and immense personal courage. Although there are some who carp over the details and the cold war consequences, he deserves every credit for the way in which he managed the Cuban missile crisis.

Deborah Devonshire, the dowager duchess and the youngest and only surviving Mitford sister, knew him well. JFK’s sister Kathleen, known as Kik, married Deborah’s brother-in-law. Kik and her husband were to die in an air tragedy, the consequence of which was that Deborah’s husband acceded to the dukedom. The Devonshires and the Kennedys stayed in touch. The Devonshires attended the inauguration and JFK, when President, visited Chatsworth to the wide-eyed astonishment of the people who were queuing up to tour the house on that day. In her autobiography, “Wait for Me!”, Deborah Devonshire testifies to JFK’s immense charm, vitality and sense of purpose. For those of us under a certain age, that is something that we never saw, but I defer to her assessment. The Kennedys had charm.

That charm was manifested in Jackie—Jackie, who created Camelot and captured the imagination of the wider world. Like Camelot, though, it was an idealised fiction. In my view, JFK is remembered because his assassination was the first globally televised news event of its kind. In 1963, people in the US and across the world shared the shock and raw emotion of his assassination, of Dallas, of Lee Harvey Oswald, of Jack Ruby, of the flight home to Washington, of Jackie’s blood-spattered suit, of the horse with the reversed boots, of John junior’s salute to his father at the funeral, of the Zapruder film footage. This was a President who represented the youth, glamour and ambition of the post-second world war generation. They mourned the “what might have been” of all that youth, vigour and purpose being cut off so dramatically before their eyes and in his prime, but it cannot disguise that he was flawed and must remain a largely unknown quantity.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I thank Richard Lyle for bringing the debate to the chamber. The question, “Where were you when Kennedy was assassinated?” is often posed. I should declare that I was not born for another 15 and a half years, almost to the day, so I have no personal memories of the incident. However, it is one of the most pivotal moments of the mid-20th century, and I welcome the chance to reflect on that. A four-minute speech—and indeed a whole member’s debate—probably would not do justice to any life, let alone that of Kennedy, but it is worthwhile for us to have the debate.

Kennedy did not have many links to Scotland, although the motion refers to the incident in which his father, as the Ambassador of the United States to the Court of St James, sent him to meet those US citizens who had been caught up in a German attack on a ship that was sailing for America.

Another connection, which David Torrance highlighted, appears in today’s Daily Record. There is an interview with the last remaining member of the Black Watch pipe band that played at President Kennedy’s funeral, which had been planned so meticulously by his widow Jacqueline Kennedy; the origins of Camelot lay therein.

There is a tendency in assessing the life of President Kennedy to oscillate between hagiography on the one hand, and demonisation—as we just heard from Mr Carlaw, if I may respectfully say so—on the other. The truth is somewhere between the two. It is probably fair to say, for example, that Kennedy did not exhibit exceptional moral qualities in his personal life. However, in his public life, there were many achievements.

I will reflect on one of those achievements, which has been mentioned. In those 13 days in October 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy ignored the more bellicose demands of the American military leadership—epitomised by the head of the American air force, Curtis LeMay—for military action. He charted a different course with more sound counsel from some wiser heads and avoided the mutual assured destruction to which Christine Grahame referred, which would have obliterated the entire world. We should reflect on the fact that Kennedy’s greatest achievements were probably never fulfilled. As the title of Robert Dallek’s biography states, his was “An Unfinished Life”.

The assassination was a pivotal moment and we have to ask what would have happened if Kennedy had lived. That is, of course, necessarily revisionist. The first thing that we can accept is that he would definitely have won the 1964 election. His assessment that Barry Goldwater would be the Republican candidate was correct; Johnson decisively defeated Goldwater, and Kennedy would have done too.

There are indications of how things might have been different. The first is in the commencement address at the American University, to which David Torrance referred and from which I will also quote. In talking about relations with the Soviet Union, Kennedy made the salient point:

“For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”

Those are only words, but they were well received in the Soviet Union. Indeed, the speech was made available in its entirety in the Soviet press, which was very unusual at that time. Khrushchev received it well, and it was followed up by the nuclear test ban treaty.

We know that Kennedy’s last executive order—to which Richard Lyle referred—planned the beginning of the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam and that he had established a back channel to Cuba. There was discussion of normalising relations between Cuba and America and we could perhaps have avoided the 50 years of strained relations that have followed since then.

We do not know what would have happened if Kennedy had lived, but I think that there is enough evidence to suggest that a different course would have been charted and there would have been an ambitious agenda for global peace. That was all lost in the street on 22 November 1963 as a result of an assassin’s bullet. Of course, that event is shrouded in mystery, and will—sadly—probably remain so for ever more.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Richard Lyle was right to say that most American politicians, even to this day, still pray in aid John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and many around the world do so, too. That has led to some of the greatest put-downs in American politics. The one that I remember best was from the 1988 vice-presidential debate, in which the Republican Dan Quayle was holding forth about his experience in office compared to Kennedy’s when he entered the White House. He was up against Senator Lloyd Bentsen, who was quite a bit older than Quayle. Bentsen pulled himself up to his full six foot two, looked over the podium and said:

“I knew Jack Kennedy ... Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

I suspect that many of us would have been pretty proud of that kind of political put-down.

Thirty years ago, I spent some time in an American history class with students of my age discussing presidents. The class teacher asked us to name the president that we would most like to study, to learn about what they had done for their country. Inevitably, many chose Jefferson, Lincoln, Eisenhower or of course Washington. I said Kennedy, for two reasons. First, there was the fascination that members have described with the kind of person that he was—yes, he was flawed but in many other ways he was utterly magisterial—and with what he brought to his politics and his country. We have to remember that that time of change was about the new frontier, the new beginning and replacing the war hero, Eisenhower, who had served his country in many ways. America was changing and Kennedy epitomised that, grabbed it and drove it in a way that I do not think anyone else could have done.

Just five weeks ago, for the first time in my life, I got to Dallas and took my family to Dealey Plaza. We went into the book depository, which is now a museum, went up to that sixth floor and looked out of that window. My son said, “Dad, are those two crosses on the road what I think they are?” They are—they mark the spots where the first bullet hit Kennedy and where the second one hit some yards further down the road. We walked round Dealey Plaza and behind the picket fence. I confess to Malcolm Chisholm that I have read quite a lot of the books and the conspiracy theories, but I still do not know what I believe. However, having been there, I know that it is an awful lot closer when you are there than when you see it on television or in a Kevin Costner movie.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the member give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Forgive me, but I will just make my speech.

We will never know who killed Kennedy, and I suspect that, even after reading the Warren commission’s report, neither will America.

As members have mentioned, Kennedy brought forward civil rights legislation. I point out to Jackson Carlaw that, in Robert Caro’s incomparable book about LBJ, he describes how the legislation passed through Congress and what Johnson did to get it through, particularly against his party’s wishes, but the point is that it would never have got through had it not been for Kennedy’s death. The sad conclusion that Caro comes to in that important text about American political history is that the only reason why the legislation passed through Congress was because Johnson was able to twist, cajole and make senators and congressmen recognise the importance of the legacy that was the civil rights legislation and therefore rightly get it through the legislative and lawmaking systems.

The other enduring legacy of Kennedy is his speech making. His inaugural speech in 1961 is, for many of us, the defining text on how to write a speech. Believe me, most of us, including me, will never get there but, as an ex-speechwriter, it is nice occasionally to try. Obama does that. His speech in Chicago when he won the election was up there with Kennedy’s, although not quite as good. Many fine men and women will seek to get to the top of the rhetorical Everest that Kennedy created. On the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg address—when we remember that a speech can be two minutes and not 22—it is important that we remember Kennedy’s legacy of the power of speech and words to swing an audience and to move a country. That is possibly his most enduring legacy—the one that the world will never forget. Whether we can remember what happened or, like many of us, we cannot, we will certainly always remember JFK.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

James Kennedy? I was a bit concerned there, Presiding Officer—I thought that somebody would be following me who I could not compete with.

I thank Richard Lyle for securing the debate. Like Jamie Hepburn, I was not born at the time—I was born in 1969. I often hear stories from my mother and father about where they were at the time.

Why would someone of my generation be inspired by the legacy of John F Kennedy? His Administration was indeed glamorous and it was different. It was younger. Kennedy was the first person to hold office in the White House to have been born in the 20th century. Much has been said about the Camelot legend, too. Kennedy’s Administration actually believed that it could change the world. With that youthfulness came an ideal of trying to change the world and make it a better place.

Tavish Scott is quite right: his words are extremely important. These are the things that inspire us. I saw one quote earlier today:

“The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were.”

Nowadays, we would also say “and women”. When we hear that as a young man or woman, it inspires us, especially if we are a politician, to want to be involved in the process and to try and change the world. Who in my generation would not have been interested? Who would not have wanted to get involved in all that and to see what it was all about? Was it the glamour? Yes, there was glamour involved. The important part, however, is what Kennedy said and many of the things that he did.

When I define myself and my politics, I think about another quote:

“Economic growth without social progress lets the great majority of people remain in poverty, while a privileged few reap the benefits of rising abundance.”

Those are relevant words for debates that we have in this chamber here and now. President Kennedy said them in the 1960s.

In my constituency office, my constituency manager, David McCartney, loves Bobby Kennedy—that is his hero. He sees Bobby as the one he would aspire to be like.

A constituent came up to me and my wife Stacey after the election and said, “Here’s the first lady of Paisley.” She was thinking about Jackie Kennedy, not any other first lady whose husband was in office after that.

In referring to some of the things that John F Kennedy did during his short time in office, people have mentioned the Cuban missile crisis, when the world was on the brink. I have a personal or constituency connection there. Ken McGinley, a campaigning nuclear veteran, was on Christmas Island—he was one of the soldiers who was experimented on by the British Army. He wrote to Mrs Kennedy after that. He was inspired when John F Kennedy had the nuclear test ban brought in a year after the Cuban missile crisis. Ken McGinley wrote because of that and he got a letter and a picture back from Mrs Kennedy, which said that she thanked him for his support and everything else. Those are the things that make a difference to people’s lives. There is a man who is now in the later years of his life and he is still talking about it—that remains a major part of what he did.

Kennedy was a man of change. He believed in changing things. During his time in power, women in the federal Government were paid the same amount of money as men. That was radical in the 1960s. In some places, that is quite radical now in the private sector. That was something that the Kennedy Administration pushed for. Another thing in the 1960s was that only 0.0035 per cent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a Government body, were African American—and they were nearly all chauffeurs. The Kennedy Administration tried to ensure that that part of the population of America could get that opportunity—that they could aspire to be members of the FBI or get involved in other things.

Kennedy’s death came as a great shock to everyone. We only had to look through the Andy Warhol exhibition that we had in the Parliament to see how much of an effect it had on him.

How can we sum up Kennedy’s legacy? Oliver Stone’s “Nixon” movie has a line where Nixon looks at a picture of Kennedy on the wall. This probably never actually happened, but he says that Kennedy reminds people of

“what they want to be”,

whereas he reminds them of

“who they really are.”

That was the difference. Whether he was good, bad or indifferent, because of the difference in the legacy of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, he inspires us to be what we want to be and to achieve everything that we can. That, for me, is what makes the difference.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I congratulate Richard Lyle on bringing his motion to the chamber. The variety and depth of the speeches show how much Kennedy inspired many of the members in this chamber and the great deal of interest that there is in not just Kennedy’s assassination but his political legacy.

I was only a month old when John F Kennedy was assassinated, so I do not remember the incident. My parents—I am the oldest of seven children—were always very interested in politics, although not actively involved. I was very aware of the virtues and positive aspects of the Kennedy Administration, which has always greatly interested me.

Pupils from Burnside primary are with me today and are sitting in the gallery. Before I came to the chamber to give this speech, one young pupil asked me, “What was it that made John F Kennedy famous?” There are two aspects to the answer. The first is the assassination itself. We will see more of the photographs and images tomorrow, but there is no doubt that the image of an American President driving down a street and being assassinated in front of thousands is one that shocked people at the beginning of the television age, as members such as Christine Grahame have said. People were also shocked that the life of the President, pictured in an iconic image with his wife and young family, had been denied. Such images add to the fascination of the conspiracy theories.

From a political point of view, Jackson Carlaw did the debate a service by bringing an alternative critique to the table. Although I did not agree with much of it, he was right to point out that perhaps all that glisters is not gold.

I would say two things about Kennedy. In yesterday’s debate on same-sex marriage, a lot of people spoke about how the world has moved on. I was talking to my 13-year-old daughter Erin recently about a project that she was doing on America. We talked about the challenges that black and Negro people faced in America: they were not allowed to ride on certain buses; there was segregation; and people were murdered and beaten up. Kennedy took a stand against all that and moved things on. Perhaps if he had not done that, and if Lyndon Johnson had not carried that work on, we would not have got Barack Obama as President in 2008. Kennedy did the world a real service.

Kennedy also showed real leadership during the Cuban missile crisis. If people read up on what happened at that time, they will see that there is no doubt that we were on the verge of world war three. He was right to stand firm and provide leadership at that time.

The real lesson for me is that politics matters. I return again to yesterday’s meeting of the Parliament, when we had tributes to Helen Eadie. Sadly, that was the third occasion in recent months when we have had to pay such tributes; Brian Adam and David McLetchie also died recently. Although we have different views and visions, the thing that brings everyone in this chamber together is that we are in this because politics matters.

What John F Kennedy achieved in his life and political career shows that we can make a difference in politics. That is something that all politicians should carry forward in their political careers.

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

I join colleagues in thanking Dick Lyle for bringing the motion on President Kennedy to the debating chamber and for providing the Scottish Parliament with an opportunity to remember one of the most influential and charismatic political leaders the world has ever known.

Those of us who were around at the time remember where we were at the moment of the assassination. Even though I was five, I still recall the moment vividly; when the newsflash came on the TV, I was in the house with my mother, sitting at the fireplace. I knew something awful had happened but I was not sure exactly what it was. I recall being incredibly saddened by my mother’s reaction to the news and knew that what had happened was important. Fifty years on almost to the day, I am privileged to be able to stand here in our Parliament and give something back to honour the memory of a man who changed the world.

The cold war between the west and the Soviet Union was probably at its coldest during Mr Kennedy’s presidency, and the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 would probably have finished the careers of lesser Presidents than JFK. Yet he prevailed, won the support of the American public and successfully faced down Khrushchev during the Cuban nuclear missile crisis of 1962, succeeding in persuading the Soviets to dismantle their nuclear capability there in return for a reciprocal agreement from the Americans in Italy and Turkey and a promise not to invade Cuba. Diplomacy certainly averted disaster for the world.

At that time, America was a racially divided country and the civil rights movement was struggling to gain momentum. President Kennedy must have watched in horror the events in May 1963 in Birmingham, Alabama when state-sponsored brutality put down a civil rights event led by Martin Luther King, who was to be assassinated himself only five years after the President. Perhaps JFK could have done more earlier to rid America of apartheid, but his executive orders prohibiting racial discrimination laid the groundwork for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In many ways, the Kennedy Administration was years ahead of its time. As my colleague Dick Lyle has pointed out, in 1961 JFK established the Peace Corps, as a result of which US volunteers worked in third world countries to build roads and hospitals and educate their citizens. He promoted his new frontier programme, promising federal funding for education, medical care for the elderly, economic aid to rural regions and Government intervention to halt the recession of the time. He also declared to an unsuspecting world that America would put a man on the moon before the end of the decade, which of course happened in 1969. Averting a nuclear world war three while planning to expand the scientific achievements of mankind beyond our dreams were pretty impressive achievements in his all-too-short term in office.

Presiding Officer, you would expect us to find some story connecting Jack Kennedy to Scotland. As Jamie Hepburn made clear in his speech, in 1939, as a 22-year-old, President Kennedy made his first public speech in what I know as the Baird hall of residence in Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow, after the Germans had torpedoed the Athenia passenger ship, killing 28 Americans. Glasgow’s reaction to that incident and the way in which its people looked after and cared for all who survived it, particularly the American citizens, must have left a hugely positive impression on the young Mr Kennedy and might well have influenced him in his later years as President. We would like to hope that it did.

I feel privileged to be standing here talking about President John F Kennedy and the important legacy that he left us, after such a short term of office. He touched the hearts and minds not only of the American people but of people throughout the world, including in Scotland. I might have been only five when he was taken from us but he certainly made an impression on my life. He said

“A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on.”

The ideas and vision of John F Kennedy certainly live on and I think that the world is a better place because of him.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I, too, congratulate Richard Lyle on securing the debate. Although I was not born when President Kennedy died, I have felt the impact of his life throughout my own, and this very interesting and poignant debate has made it clear that 22 November 1963—the day on which President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas—will forever be marked as a pivotal moment in world history. He was human and had flaws but he was also a leader who provided hope, which is the most precious currency for any political leader.

I want to touch briefly on a couple of examples of JFK’s vision and his impact on Scotland and the world, because that vision is what makes his death as tragic today as it was 50 years ago. In doing so, I want to recognise and celebrate the strong bonds of friendship between Scotland and the US. Indeed, on this sad anniversary, we join our American friends in honouring the memory of their young President and a legacy that lives on to this day.

JFK was as famous for his Irish roots and Boston brogue as he was for being a product of the American dream. However, as the motion states, it was here in Scotland that the 22-year-old son of the US ambassador to the UK first demonstrated his potential as a politician and leader. He made his first public speech on behalf of the US Government when he addressed the American survivors of the German U-boat attack on and sinking of the passenger ship Athenia, who were being cared for in Glasgow—as we have just heard from Willie Coffey.

As US President, JFK had the vision to recognise the perils of nuclear weapons, as a number of members have said. In recognising the threat, which is as profound today as it was following the Cuban missile crisis, both he and Khrushchev realised that it was insane that the power to spark nuclear war should be controlled by two individuals. They privately began to exchange letters that reopened their earlier dialogue on the banning of nuclear testing. That was followed by the limited nuclear test ban treaty, which was signed on 5 August 1963 in Moscow, one day before the 18th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. It took Kennedy two months to convince the US public and the Senate to support the treaty in a demonstration of how strongly resolute he was on doing something about the peril of nuclear weapons.

As US President, JFK had the vision to imagine a society in which people of all races and religions were treated equally. When he was elected in 1960, civil rights were a key issue in the US and there were high expectations of the new President. Reluctant to lose support among the southern states, having only narrowly won the election and barely holding control in Congress, instead of trying to pass legislation Kennedy appointed a large number of African Americans to high-level positions and worked to strengthen the Civil Rights Commission.

On 11 June 1963, the President addressed the nation, promising to introduce major civil rights legislation following the attempt by the then governor of Alabama to block two black students from entering the University of Alabama. When I was in the US this summer, I had the privilege of meeting the current mayor of Alabama as part of this year’s civil rights anniversary celebrations. In 1963, not long after that address by JFK, 200,000 Americans gathered for the march on Washington when Martin Luther King delivered his momentous “I have a dream” speech. The march helped a comprehensive civil rights bill to clear several hurdles in Congress and win endorsement from both House and Senate Republican leaders. Unfortunately, Kennedy was assassinated on 22 November 1963, before the bill could be passed. Nevertheless, as we have heard, President Johnson was able to sign the bill into law as a tribute to his fallen predecessor.

Perhaps Kennedy’s most ambitious vision was to commit to putting a man on the moon. In 1961, the Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space, creating the impression among Americans that the US was falling behind in the space race. Kennedy understood that to restore the faith of Americans, the US Government would have not just to match, but to surpass the Soviets. In a speech on 25 May 1961, before a joint session of Congress, Kennedy called for an investment of billions of dollars to achieve the goal of putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Sceptics questioned the ability of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to deliver that but, as we all know, on 20 July 1969 the crew of Apollo 11 realised President Kennedy’s dream—the first spaceflight to land humans on the moon. My first memory of television was watching that event. It was a tremendous point in history, and its impact is a tribute to the work of JFK.

As Tavish Scott said, as well as for his vision we remember Kennedy for his powerful oratory and his ability to capture the mood of the moment. One of the finest examples of that came a few months before his death. During a visit to West Berlin, on 26 June 1963, amid the tensions of the cold war, Kennedy spoke about the United States’ support for West Germany some 22 months after the Soviet-backed East Germans had erected the Berlin wall. Although his message was aimed as much at the Soviets as at the people of West Berlin, it is best remembered for his compelling statement of empathy: “Ich bin ein Berliner”. In that simple phrase, spoken in their mother tongue, Kennedy conveyed powerfully how the United States would stand with the people of West Berlin against oppression.

In closing, I want to reflect on and use some other statements made by JFK. In 1962, Kennedy ignored advice from key advisers and tried to pass a social security measure on medical care for workers over 65. In a message to Congress in February 1962, he said:

“For one true measure of a nation is its success in fulfilling the promise of a better life for each of its members. Let this be the measure of our nation.”

Addressing the Irish Parliament in Dublin on 28 June 1963, President Kennedy said of Ireland:

“the achievement of nationhood is not an end but a beginning ... For self-determination can no longer mean isolation; and the achievement of national independence today means withdrawal from the old status only to return to the world scene with a new one.”

Finally, reflecting the remarks made by James Kelly in what I thought was a fitting and very good speech, I want to end with a quote that is perhaps most appropriate for this place and this time:

“So, let us not be blind to our differences—but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved.”

This has been an excellent debate with excellent speeches and has been a very fitting way to mark the memory of a man who made such an impact on the world.

College Courses (Gamekeeping and Countryside Management)

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

1. To ask the Scottish Government whether colleges offer courses in gamekeeping and countryside management that meet the demand for jobs across the sector. (S4O-02592)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Several colleges offer provision of that kind, including North Highland College, in the member’s constituency, many of whose graduates have been successful in securing relevant employment. That is a good example of a college designing courses to meet the specific needs of the local community, consistent with the aims of our reforms.

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

Will the cabinet secretary ensure that all gamekeepers and countryside managers can gain qualifications in, for example, deer culls, wildfire control and mountain rescue, as their job remits are set to broaden to provide public goods for the national economy and local environment?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The member asks a good and pertinent question. It is important that people who are trained in the area, who go on to find jobs in a variety of sectors, are aware of the changing needs in those sectors. I am aware of the concern of the member and the committee that he convenes about deer in Scotland. I think that his concern is widely shared in rural Scotland. Therefore, it is extremely important to ensure that people who are trained as gamekeepers are up to date on and can cope with the pressures and issues.

Colleges in general should ensure that their provision matches the needs of employers. I know for sure that that will be true in the area that we are considering, as it will be in many other areas.

Education (Health Promotion)

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what action the education sector is taking to promote good health and help tackle health inequalities. (S4O-02593)

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

In Scotland, the health and wellbeing of children and young people is a core focus of key national policies such as curriculum for excellence and getting it right for every child.

Health and wellbeing is one of the eight curricular areas that all children and young people will experience as part of their broad general education, and is one of the three aspects that all staff share a responsibility for developing—literacy and numeracy are the other two. That helps to ensure that children and young people will develop the knowledge, understanding and skills that they need for mental, emotional, social and physical health and wellbeing, now and in the future.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

The report, “Equally Well” and, more recently, Professor John Frank, of the Scottish collaboration for public health research and policy, said that if we are serious about tackling health inequality, we must provide early years education from the age of two. Does the minister agree? What steps is he taking to tackle health inequality through early years education?

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

As the member will be aware, health is at the centre of what is provided from the very early pre-school years.

The member mentioned an important report. NHS Health Scotland published another important report, in 2013, on the causes of health inequalities, which made clear that Government must tackle not just the symptoms of health inequality, however important those are, but the socioeconomic causes of those symptoms. However much the member and I disagree on this, my view is that it would be better if we had the powers to tackle social inequalities here.

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Does the minister agree with the steering group for general practitioners at the deep end, which is made up of 360 GPs who work in the 100 most deprived practices in Scotland, and which found that Westminster austerity and welfare reform are damaging communities and targeting the most vulnerable people in our society? Does he agree that the only way that we can tackle health inequalities in Scotland is by giving this Parliament the full powers of independence?

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

I share the deep-end GPs’ concern that the United Kingdom Government’s welfare reforms will impact on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. That can only widen health inequality, which in turn will blight all sorts of other opportunities that people have in their lives, such as education opportunities. For that reason, this Government will continue to press the UK Government on the need to protect the most vulnerable people in our society from many of its misguided changes.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Question 3, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, has not been lodged. The member has provided a satisfactory explanation.

National Exams

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the reported concerns of teachers regarding their workload in relation to the new national exams. (S4O-02595)

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

The Scottish Government takes teachers’ concerns very seriously and has listened closely to those who deliver in our classrooms. We established a short-life working group to tackle concerns about unnecessary bureaucracy arising from the implementation of the curriculum for excellence. The group’s report, which was agreed by all stakeholders in Scottish education, is released today and will directly benefit all those involved in implementing the curriculum for excellence.

Education Scotland, the Scottish Qualifications Authority and the Scottish Government have already delivered a wide range of support to help teachers to introduce the new qualifications, including over £5 million of additional funding and full course materials for all 95 national 4 and national 5 courses.

We will continue to listen and respond wherever that is needed. Our schools have made excellent progress in delivering the curriculum for excellence, and I have every confidence that next year’s qualifications will be delivered successfully and will benefit pupils across Scotland.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

I note the additional resources that have been put in and the work that has been done. Teachers are certainly to be commended for their efforts in trying to make a success of the changes.

Notwithstanding what has been done, I hope that the minister will have a listening ear to the concerns that continue to be expressed, because it is painfully clear that teachers across the country have an increased workload. With their developing entirely new materials for the new nationals, the change in study leave arrangements and a lack of in-service days, teachers are left to take their work home just to cope with the planning and developing demands of the new nationals. It is imperative that the materials are available and that more support is given. Will the minister commit to addressing any concerns that continue to be expressed?

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

As I have indicated, I am certainly more than willing to listen to teachers. It is notable that the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association commented that the Government was listening to teachers in areas around that subject today.

As I have mentioned, a lot of effort has already gone into providing support and materials, but if any areas of concern are outstanding, the Government and Education Scotland are more than happy to speak to people.

It is, of course, worth saying that one of the concerns that was expressed was about unnecessary bureaucracy. Some people felt that some local authorities were imposing unnecessary bureaucracy around the implementation of the curriculum for excellence. I am pleased that a wide group of stakeholders has agreed on a statement and an action plan to ensure that we minimise the unnecessary monitoring of teachers and allow them to do what they want to do, which is teach.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The cabinet secretary told the Educational Institute of Scotland in June that it would be “utterly unacceptable” for any school, headteacher or local authority to require unnecessary paperwork from teachers. Can he reiterate that view?

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

I am more than happy to emphasise what I have just indicated. We should all seek to eliminate unnecessary paperwork in the system. The group that was established to tackle bureaucracy reported today and has given key messages to ensure that that happens. Education Scotland will challenge any such practices that it finds in schools.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Can the minister confirm that the textbooks for every national 4 and national 5 course are now printed and in the hands of teachers?

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

If the member has outstanding concerns about somewhere, I will more than happily chase them up. Substantial investments have been made only this year. Another £1 million has gone into providing textbooks. As I have already indicated, I constantly speak to teachers and representatives of the teaching profession. If the member has somewhere in mind where she feels that provision is not happening, I am more than happy to intervene.

Edinburgh College (Meetings)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

5. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met the board of Edinburgh College. (S4O-02596)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I meet the chair and principal of Edinburgh College among others at various formal and informal events. For example, I attended the first birthday reception for the college that was held in the Parliament on Tuesday 1 October, which was jointly hosted by Colin Beattie MSP and Kezia Dugdale MSP.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I, too, attended that event.

Tensions and strain have been caused by the merger at Edinburgh College. The Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council has investigated concerns that were raised by the Educational Institute of Scotland branch, and it takes the view that the concerns that the branch raised on administrative assistance and staff morale are “real and serious”, and that new systems that were implemented due to the merger have exacerbated that pressure.

What lessons does the cabinet secretary think can be learned from the Edinburgh College merger in that regard? Does he have a view on how best to address the issue of staff morale going forward? For example, other colleges have drawn on the resource of the Scottish Government change team. Does he think that that might be helpful in this case to ensure that students and staff have the highest possible morale going forward?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I would urge both college management and union representatives to work constructively together in every college in Scotland because that produces success. The change team, among others, have been engaged in a range of situations, and what has been taking place has ensured that the necessary and important mergers, which produce colleges of scale—as those working in colleges at every level recognise needed to happen—go through by negotiation and discussion.

I can assure the member that the Scottish funding council has assured me that the Edinburgh College principal and her senior team are addressing the issues raised by the unions and the SFC’s report. The SFC will monitor progress on that and provide regular updates. However, that should not detract from the fact that the college is delivering substantial benefit for learners; for example, Edinburgh College is now the single largest supplier of students to the University of Edinburgh.

National 5 and Higher Mathematics Unit Assessments

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the effectiveness of the national 5 and higher mathematics unit assessments. (S4O-02598)

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

The Scottish Qualifications Authority is on track to deliver full support for all the new national qualifications, including mathematics, following an unprecedented level of engagement and partnership working with practitioners, national agencies, schools and local authorities. Assessment in the new qualifications is designed to sample learners’ skills, knowledge and understanding, and provide opportunities for deeper learning. The SQA is providing a comprehensive range of support for teachers to ensure successful delivery.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The minister will of course be aware that concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of the unit assessments in the national press and, perhaps more important, by individual teachers. A number of teachers have commented to me that the documentation for assessment is ambiguous and repetitive, layout is poor and marking instructions are poorly designed. Does the minister agree that the lack of detail is worrying in terms of consistency of marking across centres? What action will he take to ensure that the assessment process is improved?

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

As I have indicated, the Government is very willing to listen to any concerns from individual teachers. However, I should say that I have confidence in the system of unit assessment for maths and the SQA’s unit assessments for all its subjects. As I said, they were developed following very extensive consultation with teachers and others. The first round of quality assurance for each national subject, including maths, is happening right now across the country. I intend fully that it will continue to build teacher confidence. We are, as I said, always willing to listen to any individual who wishes to raise any concerns, but I have confidence that the system that we are operating for unit assessment is sound.

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

How will the new national qualifications enable young people to develop the skills that they need for moving into further education, employment or training?

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

Obviously, the thinking behind curriculum for excellence and the new qualifications goes back a long way, but it also goes back to a recognition across the Parliament that people’s lives in the 21st century will be very different from people’s lives in the 20th century in terms of the number of jobs that they will have, and their need to be flexible and adaptable in the workplace and to have lifelong learning. Gaining such skills is at the heart of what is done in schools, and skills are at the heart of the new national examinations and the curriculum for excellence.

Creationism

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will introduce measures to prevent the promotion of creationism in schools. (S4O-02599)

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

Throughout religious and moral education, and throughout religious, moral and philosophical studies, the understanding that the world’s religions have of creation will be explored, examined and critically reflected upon, not promoted. Similar objectivity is expected of teachers if contentious issues such as creationism are raised. Within the sciences curriculum, the concept of evolution is introduced through the experiences and outcomes at second, third and fourth levels. The concepts of natural selection and evolution are also widely explored from a scientific perspective in the national qualifications in biology. In addition, the big bang theory and the origins and expansion of the universe feature in the new physics higher.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I hope that there is no complacency on the issue in the Government. It is clear that whatever measures are in place have been inadequate to prevent some—shall we say?—eccentric ideologies from being promoted in schools. We are talking not about creation myths being presented in the context of myth and comparative religious study, but about the promotion of the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old and that human beings have in that time coexisted with dinosaurs or other such patently absurd rubbish. If even Michael Gove can get a grip on that, why cannot the Scottish Government?

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

I am not sure whether the member listened to what I just said. I indicated strongly that the content of biology and physics courses, for example, promotes none of the ideas that he listed. I therefore have complete confidence in our teachers to deal objectively with contentious issues as they arise. I make it clear that the science curriculum in Scotland is not dictated by any of the agendas that the member suggested influence it.

Colleges (Regionalisation)

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

9. To ask the Scottish Government how it is monitoring the regionalisation of colleges. (S4O-02600)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council monitors regionalisation and reports regularly to the Scottish Government on progress.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I have raised previously the sale of Woodburn house in my constituency, which was an annexe of the former Langside College. It has come to light that Woodburn house was given a European regional development fund grant in 1998. Such grants are typically given on the basis of a 20-year lease, which has not been the case in this instance. In the regionalisation process, has the granting of regional funding been considered? Was that considered in relation to Woodburn house?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

If the member writes to me with his concerns about Woodburn house, I will be happy to address them. The question of asset disposal lies with colleges. If asset disposal was undertaken in a way that was disadvantageous to a college, that would be a concern. However, the relevant relationship would be that between the funding council and the college.

I encourage the member to write to me. If he wishes to discuss the matter with me, I will be happy to do so, but it might be more appropriate for me to get the funding council to tell him its position on the matter.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I have raised in the past the top slicing of the budget for further education colleges, in the Highlands in particular. I understand that the regional board in Glasgow is recruiting policy officers and other staff and that it rents offices from Glasgow Caledonian University. Will the cabinet secretary ensure that the regional strategic bodies do not become expensive bureaucracies and will he therefore allow more resources for front-line education and training?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

How the Glasgow colleges decide to operate is a matter for them. The purpose of regionalisation is to ensure that resources are focused as closely as they can be on young people, youth employment, providing opportunities for young people, ensuring that retraining takes place at every level and ensuring that colleges compete effectively and work with local businesses. I recall that the member voted against regionalisation, but I am glad to say that it is going well and that front-line resources are benefiting.

Disabled Students Allowance 2012-13

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

10. To ask the Scottish Government for what reason there was a decrease in funding for the disabled students allowance in 2012-13. (S4O-02601)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Disabled students allowance is paid in response to demand, so costs reflect the number of claimants and their needs. Initial discussions with the disabled students advisory group suggest that the reduction in DSA spend in 2012-13 reflects a combination of a decrease in the number of claimants and institutions being in a better state of readiness to make the reasonable adjustments that are expected of them by the Equality Act 2010, along with technological improvements that mean that the functionality of equipment that students use lends itself much more easily to supporting students with disabilities.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

I thank the minister for that answer, but in England funding is increasing while in Scotland it has fallen to its lowest level since 2003-04. Does not the minister agree that the Scottish Government’s cuts to the education budget, which have led to 8,500 fewer students in higher education in just 12 months, and a 17 per cent cut to the disabled students allowance, are limiting the options that are available to disabled people who want to study now that they are confronted with fewer courses and less support to make their studies affordable?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No. There is virtually not a single word that I agree with in that, partly because there is not a single fact that appears to me to be justified or accurate. The reality of the situation, as I explained to Mr Hume—clearly he was not listening, so let me repeat my point—is that the budget is demand led. The budget has not been cut; the demand has reduced. Perhaps that is because support for students is better in Scotland; perhaps it is because students do not have to scrabble around looking for money in circumstances in which they would have to borrow it south of the border; or perhaps it is because the Scottish Government has been providing for and supporting changes in college funding and college support that will benefit students—all things that the Liberal Democrats could learn from south of the border.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

I take from what the cabinet secretary said that not only was it a demand-led issue, but there was a reduction in the number of disabled students making applications. Can the cabinet secretary tell us whether in fact there are fewer disabled students at colleges?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

What I said and what I will say again is that we believe, as does the disabled students advisory group, that the reduction has come about due to a number of things—a decrease in the number of claimants, which is because institutions are in a better state of readiness as regards the reasonable adjustments that are expected of them, along with technological improvements and better equipment.

As the relevant minister, I have also provided additional support to charities and to others to support disabled students and I have encouraged the charities to expand the activities that they undertake. All of those are positive moves and it is about time that members realised that what is happening in Scotland’s colleges is a major improvement in provision and facility, which has been welcomed across the college sector.

PPP/PFI School Contracts 2012-13

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

11. To ask the Scottish Government how much it spent in 2012-13 on costs associated with public-private partnership and private finance initiative contracts for schools. (S4O-02602)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government’s total funding specifically in support of local authority school PPP/PFI contracts in 2012-13 was £209.5 million.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Last year, Renfrewshire Council spent just under £15 million on PFI payments. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that that form of payday loan being used to pay for schools is something that the Renfrewshire Labour administration should be informing people about as it pushes forward with its school closure programme?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I agree with George Adam. I am quite sure that Mrs Henry, the Labour convener of education in Renfrewshire Council, will wish to inform people that the PFI approach that was used in the past has not delivered best value for the taxpayer, with excessive profits being made by the private sector. Councils should be clear with parents about the massive costs that the approach imposes.

Instead of paying a fair price for schools and nurseries, PFI mortgaged the financial future of Scotland’s councils. As a result, today’s pupils are burdened with PFI’s poisoned chalice, with nearly £400 million being top-sliced from council education budgets in 2012-13 to pay for PFI programmes. The mistakes that were made with earlier PFI contracts will not be repeated. I am sure that people from Renfrewshire—members as well—will want to make that clear.

Scottish Qualifications Authority (National Exams)

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

12. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Scottish Qualifications Authority regarding the roll-out of the new national exams. (S4O-02603)

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

The Scottish Government is in frequent discussion with the Scottish Qualifications Authority on the implementation of the curriculum for excellence and the new national qualifications. SQA is also a member of the curriculum for excellence management board and the curriculum for excellence implementation group.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In a previous answer to Hugh Henry, the minister acknowledged concerns among teachers about the workload that has been involved in that. I notice that in the discussions in Glasgow, Edinburgh and West Lothian councils, that has had something of a knock-on effect in respect of concerns about the new higher exams and whether they should be delayed for a year. Can the minister comment on that?

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

I do not think that there is any dubiety that the Government and teaching profession expect the norm to be that people will do the new higher when it becomes available. As the Government has already indicated today, professional judgment will obviously have to be exercised in some circumstances, but it will have to be exercised in the context of working with local authorities and parents.

Student Numbers

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

13. To ask the Scottish Government when it last discussed student numbers with Colleges Scotland and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. (S4O-02604)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

My officials and I meet regularly with Colleges Scotland and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council to discuss a wide variety of college issues. Our expectations on student numbers are set out in my letter of guidance to the funding council. The latest letter of guidance was issued on 21 October, and the SFC monitors progress through outcome agreements.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

College lecturers in my region have told me that, for funding reasons, student numbers are of paramount importance until 1 November. If students are kept on courses until that point, the college will receive funding, and lecturers have been told to do everything in their power to counsel, cajole, or persuade students to stay on until then. Does the cabinet secretary think that that is right? Is that being replicated across Scotland? Has there been a drop in the number of college students since 1 November?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

It is about time that Opposition members accepted that the college sector is working incredibly hard to promote opportunities for young people. That is what it does, and it is doing it better because this Government had the courage to implement a series of much-needed reforms that had to happen.

The portfolio in each college changes from year to year and from time to time in order to ensure that the communities that they serve are provided with access to the latest

“innovative, high quality, relevant learning”.

It was not I who said that; Cumbernauld College used those terms.

What is taking place is perfectly normal changes within courses. The college sector is going from strength to strength. It would be good to hear a regional or local member from the Opposition supporting their colleges rather than running them down.

Highlands and Islands (Education and Skills Provision)

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

14. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to align education and skills provision in the Highlands and Islands with the needs of local employers. (S4O-02605)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The Highlands and Islands skills investment plan has been prepared by Skills Development Scotland, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council over the past six months to provide an agreed framework for increasing alignment of education and skills provision with the needs of local employers.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister might be aware that Kishorn Port Ltd is progressing its development at Kishorn. There is no local college provision in the area. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that local young people have the skills that will enable them to take up the jobs that could be created at this exciting development?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The Highlands and Islands skills investment plan is the first regional skills investment plan, and it is very much looking to align education and training opportunities with skills needs and the needs of employers. The Highlands and Islands skills investment plan was discussed at the convention of the Highlands and Islands at the end of October and a number of suggestions were made before the plan was finalised.

I can go away and look at the specific issue that Ms Grant has brought up, but I assure her that the purpose of a skills investment plan is to enable young people to make the most of the opportunities that are available to them in their local economy. That is important for all Scotland, but particularly for rural Scotland.

Commission for Developing Scotland’s Young Workforce

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

15. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of Sir Ian Wood’s recent report on developing Scotland’s young workforce, what it is doing to support collaboration between schools and colleges. (S4O-02606)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I welcomed the unanimous support for the Wood commission’s report and its direction of travel when it was debated in Parliament on 8 October. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has asked the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council to discuss delivery of the commission’s interim recommendations on increased collaboration between schools and colleges with a range of partners, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, sector leaders, local authorities and Education Scotland.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

I welcome that positive approach, but in the light of the recommendations to join up activity, timetables, and resource allocation across schools and colleges in order to deliver effective vocational pathways, does the minister anticipate that the outcome of those discussions will be that colleges will be provided with additional resource in order to support collaboration with schools, or will they be expected to stop doing something else in order to prioritise that collaboration with schools on vocational education?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

We are certainly looking carefully at the funding implications of the Wood commission’s report. Sir Ian Wood said that “significant additional funding” would not be required, but it is stating the obvious to say that additional funds will be required, so we are looking at that in detail. The cabinet secretary has been very clear with the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. Some funding will be identified to enable the very important pathfinder projects, in which we hope to make progress apace for the next academic year.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Has the minister had any further discussions with the United Kingdom Government regarding its position on the European youth guarantee scheme, and whether the UK Government intends to continue to withhold access to the scheme from Scottish youngsters?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

There continues to be a strong disagreement between the Scottish Government and the UK Government with regard to implementation of the European youth guarantee. I last discussed that issue face to face with David Cameron and his colleagues at a joint ministerial committee on Europe meeting a few weeks ago.

The Scottish Government very much believes in early intervention, which is absolutely pivotal in preventing youth unemployment becoming long-term unemployment. Although we are making good progress in Scotland with our headline youth unemployment indicators, the proportion of young people who are in the claimant count for 24-plus months is rising. I have concerns about the failure of the work programme.

The other thing that I am really concerned about is the narrative that is emanating from down south, in which instead of having a debate about how we can enhance opportunities for young people, such as through the European youth guarantee, we are having a debate that is fuelled by welfare cuts and cuts to benefits to young people. I do not like that debate, which is emanating from the UK Government, and which in some regards has been emulated by the Labour Party at United Kingdom level.

Disabled Students

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

16. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that universities and colleges meet the needs of disabled students. (S4O-02607)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We ensure that universities and colleges, like all public bodies, meet the needs of disabled students through compliance with the Equality Act 2010. We also provide direct financial support through programmes such as the disabled students allowance, extended learning support and college bursaries.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Has the cabinet secretary commissioned any research into the needs of disabled students undergoing further and higher education?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I have met the relevant third sector organisations on a number of occasions. I have encouraged them to use funding that I have offered them to ensure that their services and their advice to the Scottish Government takes account of the real needs of students. I am very happy to meet the member if he wants to discuss this matter further with me. I attended a meeting of a cross-party group that discussed this issue as well. I am keen to see those who are deeply involved in this issue being very active in telling the Scottish Government and the colleges what more is required. If the member would like to have a conversation about that with me, I am happy to have it. I am also happy to make sure that the learning disability charities are involved as deeply as we can possibly get them involved in offering good advice and providing services.

Dyslexia

Margaret McDougall (Labour, West Scotland)

17. To ask the Scottish Government what work it carries out to identify and support people with dyslexia. (S4O-02608)

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

To help all teachers address the needs of pupils with dyslexia, I launched the enhanced dyslexia toolkit at the Scottish learning festival in September 2012. The toolkit includes materials on effectively identifying and supporting pupils, increased accessibility for teachers and information for education authorities on implementation of the toolkit.

Education Scotland, through its inspection programme, looks at the ways that schools and other establishments meet the needs of all learners, including those with dyslexia. In addition, education authorities have a duty to identify, meet and keep under review the additional support needs of all their pupils and to tailor provision to their individual circumstances.

Margaret McDougall (Labour, West Scotland)

It is estimated that one in 10 people in Scotland is affected by some form of dyslexia. The condition can present in various ways, which means that it can be difficult to identify. At a recent conference on dyslexia that I attended, it was said that trainee teachers spend only a few hours on the subject.

Margaret McDougall (Labour, West Scotland)

I am just getting to it. Early identification is paramount in giving extra confidence and support in education to those with dyslexia. Should more time be spent at teacher training colleges on techniques to identify dyslexia, to help trainee teachers identify the signs of dyslexia, so that pupils get the support that they need?

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

The member raises important issues about dyslexia. Although the Government does not lay down the detail of what universities do in initial teacher education, it is fair to say that the Government very much sees career-long development at the heart of on-going teacher training. Not everything can be fitted into initial teacher training, but it is important to note that the requirement for full registration as a teacher includes the need to identify the barriers to learning and respond appropriately. The Government and Education Scotland work closely with the teaching profession to ensure that, in the course of their careers, teachers understand the issues of dyslexia better than teachers in the past did, because dyslexia, if unrecognised, can blight people’s opportunities.

Commission for Developing Scotland’s Young Workforce

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

18. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the interim report of the commission for developing Scotland’s young workforce, what plans it has to pilot new pathfinder projects. (S4O-02609)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

As I said in response to an earlier question, I welcome the unanimous support that was expressed in the Parliament for the report. I also mentioned that the cabinet secretary has asked the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council to discuss with partners early progress on the identification of pathfinder projects.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Will the minister consider for pilots those colleges, such as Ayrshire College, that have engaged with employers and associated organisations, resulting in the identification of courses in, for example, performing engineering operations and aerospace skills?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

That is a matter for the Scottish funding council and its partners. I hope that it will be helpful to the member if I say that it is clear that, in the identification of pathfinder projects, they are looking for areas where there is existing good practice and where there is a strong focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects. Discussions are on-going. I am sure that Mr Brodie is well equipped to make representations, whether via me or direct to the Scottish funding council and other partners.

Academic Freedom

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

19. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the rights of academics at universities to express their views on the constitutional debate. (S4O-02610)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As Murdo Fraser would expect, I say with complete conviction that the Scottish Government fully recognises and supports the rights of all academics at universities to express their views on the constitutional debate.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I warmly welcome the cabinet secretary’s response. Can we therefore take it that there will be no repetition of the bullying approach by his ministerial colleague towards an academic at the University of Dundee who had the temerity to speak out in public in support of the continuation of the United Kingdom?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

It is such a great pity that the unanimity on freedom of speech and openness that that question and answer gave us has been broken by Mr Fraser. I have known Shona Robison for close on 20 years and, as the First Minister said from this very spot last week, I could not associate in the same sentence the words “intimidation” and “bullying” with Shona Robison. Clearly, Murdo Fraser does not know her very well; clearly, other members do not know her very well either. Let us find a way to agree on the matter. Independence is an important debate that we need to have—[Interruption.]—without jeering from Mr Bibby. We all need to be able to contribute without fear or favour, name calling or cat calling—[Interruption.]

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Presiding Officer has emphasised my point and I thank her for doing so. It is really important to have the debate. Yesterday afternoon’s debate showed that this chamber has the capability to be one of the best debating chambers in the world. We showed how we can come together in passionate, strong principled debate. If we do that for the next 10 months, Scotland will be a better place for it.

Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill: Preliminary Stage

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08259, in the name of Joan McAlpine, on the Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I am pleased to open the preliminary stage of the Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill and to provide the Parliament with some background on the bill. Before I do that, I thank the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre for the considerable work that they put into informing the committee about the background to the bill. Indeed, I thank all those who gave written and oral evidence, sometimes after travelling quite a distance. I also thank the staff of Pollok House for accommodating the committee at its first public sitting and the staff at the Burrell, who gave us a very interesting tour of the collection—both seen and unseen.

Private bills propose laws that allow individuals, groups of individuals or corporate entities to acquire powers or benefits in excess of or in conflict with the general law. The bill is the third private bill to be introduced in this parliamentary session and it is the first that I have worked on. It has given me an interesting insight into that side of the Parliament’s work.

Sir William Burrell was born in 1861 and worked from the age of 15 in the family’s shipping agency, in which he achieved great financial success. He developed a passion for art from a young age and as his wealth grew, so did his collection. Before his death in 1958, Burrell gifted an astoundingly broad collection of some 9,000 items, including stained glass, paintings, sculpture, furniture and even large pieces of architecture. Edinburgh and London were also considered as recipients for the collection, but only Glasgow would agree to the stipulations of the gift. To this day, the bequest represents the largest single gift of art treasures by one person to a single city.

Very many of us in Scotland are familiar with the Burrell collection. Visitor numbers reached 1 million in the years that followed its opening in 1983 and I confess that it seems like yesterday when I went to see the collection in the days after the Queen opened it.

Perhaps less well known is the buried treasure that is not currently on public display. The committee had the privilege of a behind-the-scenes tour of the collection, as I said, and we were amazed at the important paintings, furniture and architectural pieces that currently have no place on public display, as there is room to display only about 2,000 of the roughly 9,000 items in the collection.

Sadly, our tour also revealed the poor state of the building that houses the collection, which is of course a relatively new and modern building. It is now almost 30 years since its completion and, by some accounts, the roof has never been quite right and there is now no hiding the fact that the situation has reached a critical point. The conservators, whose work is to carefully preserve the priceless artefacts, put quite a bit of their energy into designing tarpaulins to catch the drips from the waterlogged ceiling. It was very distressing to see what a sad state the building has got into. Although it was not in the committee’s remit to look at the building’s history, it would be fair to say that all the members of the committee were concerned that there was a poor relationship with the architect and that problems that seem to have been there from the beginning have not been resolved.

Glasgow City Council now plans to renovate the building, not only to address the roof problems once and for all but to create more display space to bring some of that buried treasure into public display and allow more people in Glasgow, Scotland and beyond to enjoy Burrell’s collection.

The bill’s purpose is to alter the restrictions that Burrell placed on lending and borrowing when he gave his collection to the people of Glasgow. In short, Burrell was happy for loans to be made in Great Britain but not oversees. He also prohibited the display of items that do not belong to the collection alongside items that do. Glasgow City Council wishes to allow loans to be made outwith Great Britain and for the restriction on borrowing to be relaxed, to allow related works to be displayed alongside those in the collection. All that would be governed by a lending code: a publicly accessible document that would set out the decision-making process that would govern any potential loans and would guarantee the involvement of the Burrell trustees in any final decision.

The committee looked at the opportunities and risks of lending beyond Great Britain and tried to put ourselves in Burrell’s shoes and interpret what led him to place restrictions on his bequest.

At this point it is important to state that there were no official objections to the bill’s proposals.

There are many opportunities to be gained from lending the collection further afield. Displaying associated works side by side contributes to knowledge and we were reassured that lending in the future would be confined to a small number of items and would be for scholarly purposes only. We believe that the one-off tour planned by the bill’s promoter in association with the British Museum will help to raise the profile not only of the collection but of Glasgow itself, encouraging more people to come to see the collection and—I hope—raising some money for the building’s renovation.

It is time to put the collection on the world stage and stop hiding it away. We accept that lending is not without risk but most of our witnesses agreed that damage most often occurs not in transit but when works are being packed and unpacked and, as a result, the risk remains the same whether a work is being lent within Great Britain or overseas.

We had very particular concerns about moving and redisplaying the collection’s more delicate items, particularly pastels and textiles, but were reassured by the specialist evidence that we sought on the matter.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

You must draw to a close, please.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

It is impossible to know what was in Burrell’s mind when he placed those restrictions on his bequest. We know that he wanted to share his collection; after all, he lent regularly within Great Britain and, indeed, made a contribution to the great exhibition at Kelvingrove.

We endorse the view of the promoter and others who contributed to the bill’s scrutiny that a private bill is necessary and appropriate and that there was no alternative means of achieving the same result.

I again thank everyone who gave evidence.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill and agrees that it should proceed as a private bill.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

In my role as Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs, I want not only to offer some thoughts on the provisions in this private bill but to emphasise the significance of the Burrell collection as one of Scotland’s great cultural assets.

As members will be aware, the collection is one of the most prominent and varied in Scotland and its significance to the history of art and antiquities is such that it sits alongside the works of art in our national galleries and museums. The 9,000-strong collection was assembled by Sir William Burrell as he travelled widely across the world and, in 1944, was generously gifted to the city of Glasgow along with the funds to erect a new building within which to house his treasures. Nearly 70 years after his bequest, the bill is aimed at securing the building’s long-term sustainability while looking at new ways of promoting his collection to an even wider audience and allowing more people to learn about and enjoy them than ever have before.

However, to enable that to happen, the bill’s promoter, Glasgow City Council, has decided to overturn Sir William Burrell’s express wishes in entrusting his collection to the city. That has raised a number of questions about the council’s responsibilities as the collection’s custodian and the power of the dead to constrain the actions of those living in a time very different from their own. The parliamentary committee responsible for scrutinising the bill has had the unenviable task of considering those sensitive issues in its analysis of the evidence, and its members have weighed up the risks and opportunities offered by the bill and looked back at Sir William Burrell’s lifetime to ask what he might have done had he been faced with the same questions in a world where science and technology are markedly different from what he would have known.

The committee’s analysis led it to conclude that Burrell was a lender who wanted to share his collection with the people not just in Glasgow and Scotland but further afield through loans within Great Britain. He wanted his works of art to be seen and appreciated. The Government shares that belief, which is why a key aim of the national strategy for Scotland’s museums and galleries is to increase cultural participation by maximising the number and range of people who see collections and visit and enjoy museums. Allowing lending from the Burrell collection is consistent with that aim and would bring the collection to the attention of an international audience and enable people from all over the world to see and appreciate it. That, in turn, would raise the collection’s profile and put Glasgow—and Scotland—on an international stage.

However, like anyone who collects items that are of value, Burrell was also concerned about the protection and care afforded to his collection, particularly after his death. The committee has found that an interest in preservation shaped much of Sir William’s decision making, as, indeed, it is shaping Glasgow City Council’s decision making today.

Central to the bill is the need to raise much needed resources to fund the refurbishment and repair of the Burrell building. There is no doubt in the mind of anyone who visits the collection, as I have, that it is not currently housed within a habitat that is commensurate with its status. The committee has placed great emphasis on the need to correct that, especially as the building was central to Burrell’s wishes. That is consistent with our national strategy, which aims to improve and ensure the long-term sustainability of collections through care and preservation.

Some people will argue that there are risks to care and preservation posed by international travel and the transportation of art works. The bill committee’s meticulous report, for which it deserves our whole-hearted thanks, has had to balance those criticisms against the benefits that could be achieved by increasing access to the collection and raising the funds to support the restoration of the building.

The Scottish Government thanks the committee for its deliberations and supports its recommendation that the bill should proceed.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The Burrell collection is a fantastic asset to the city of Glasgow, but one that has been neglected. When the gallery first opened in 1983, there were more than a million visitors a year, but that number had halved by 1987 as the public’s pent-up curiosity about a collection that had lain in storage for so long was satisfied. Annual visitor numbers have declined steadily over the past 30 years and are now below a quarter of a million. The drop-off in numbers was inevitable once the initial curiosity had worn off, but the on-going decline is due to a number of factors.

The leaking roof has been an ever-present problem virtually since the gallery opened and has meant that it has remained a three-star visitor attraction. As one visitor stated in their feedback form:

“This place looks tired and unloved”.

There has been little rotation of the collection, and fewer than a quarter of the 9,000 pieces have been seen by the public. That might be because there is no dedicated team of conservators for the collection, as a result of which problems have been allowed to develop to the point that the gallery has posted a notice saying:

“Moth has been a big problem recently and vulnerable objects have been removed”.

There has also been a lack of promotion of the collection, with Glasgow Life stating that

“The collection is still a bit of a secret, both here and internationally”.

Indeed, a visitor survey suggested that more than 40 per cent of visitors had found out about the gallery through word of mouth.

The gallery needs to be totally refurbished, and a permanent solution to the roof problem must be found. In order for that work to take place, the collection will have to be removed. The question is whether it should be put in storage or be allowed to tour to publicise Sir William Burrell’s legacy to Glasgow. The will and agreement have always allowed the collection to be loaned within the United Kingdom, and Glasgow City Council has a record of being a responsible lender. The evidence that the committee received suggested that, on balance, the transportation of works of art has improved substantially since the collection was gifted. Glasgow Life also told the committee that

“apart from the one-off tour the possibilities of doing another major tour in our lifetime are not very high”.—[Official Report, Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill Committee, 9 September 2013; c 30, 25.]

The committee was assured that the lending code will offer a sufficient safeguard for delicate items and that loans will be granted on a case-by-case basis with conservation at the forefront of decision making.

The bill’s promoter has estimated that the museum would need to close for four years and that it would cost in the region of £45 million to refurbish it. It hopes that a third of that amount would be raised through the tour, either in donations or in sponsorship. However, it was highlighted in other evidence that it is unlikely that that amount would be raised. That is borne out by the refurbishment of the Kelvingrove gallery, the £28 million cost of which was borne largely by the Heritage Lottery Fund, European regional funding and the city council, with only £2.5 million coming from private sponsorship.

With that in mind, I refer to paragraph 91 of the preliminary stage report, which states:

“The Committee places a great deal of emphasis on the restoration of the building housing the Burrell Collection, particularly since it was so central to Burrell’s wishes and to his Agreement with the City Council. In recommending that this Bill be passed, we place our trust in the Promoter to ensure that the refurbishment takes place and would consider any failure to do so as a betrayal of that trust.”

I believe that the main benefit of touring the collection abroad in a limited number of places would be that that would raise the profile of the collection during the period in which the gallery was closed. When the refurbishment was complete, the tour would have stirred the public interest in this unique collection once again.

When the new gallery opens in around 2020, it will bring an economic benefit to Glasgow as visitors once again flock to see the collection. Who knows? Perhaps it will once again receive a million visitors a year.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

Let me start by thanking all those who have contributed to our consideration of the bill so far. In particular, I thank the convener, whose smooth running of the committee helped to ensure a consensual approach to the proposal.

The Burrell collection is a large collection of art and artefacts, but no one can appreciate just how large it is until they go down into the art stores and see the sheer volume of items that are not on display. The collection was gifted to the Glasgow Corporation by Sir William Burrell in 1944, and items were added to the collection by the Sir William Burrell Trust, which was established by Sir William’s will when he died in 1958.

The Burrell collection is housed in the custom-designed building in Pollok country park. As a result of a poorly designed roof, members of staff are constantly moving exhibitions to protect them from water damage. The fact that exhibition space must be closed to the public restricts the space that is available to display items. As we have heard, the tarpaulins that have been engineered into a giant funnel to focus water into a big green wheelie bin do not really add to the atmosphere of the place and detract from the many marvellous pieces of art that are on display.

Water continues to leak through the roof, as the source of the leak, or multiple leaks, cannot be identified. After the water penetrates the roof, it is absorbed by a layer of insulation that sits underneath, until the insulation is saturated and the water leaks out at random points. That threatens items in the collection all round the museum so, rather than focusing on what should be their core purpose of speaking to visiting members of the public about the items on display, the staff need to be more focused on looking for water flowing down the walls, which might have an impact on the pieces of art.

Experts have also told us that preserving the temperature and humidity of the building is of the utmost importance. As an engineer, I can understand how difficult it must be to keep a building at a set temperature and humidity when, in effect, there is a massive wet sponge in the loft.

Against that backdrop, there is an urgent need for renovation, and the bill would help by allowing lending for an international tour to raise funds. The estimated cost of the renovation is £45 million, and it is hoped that the tour would contribute £15 million to that figure. The committee was not quite persuaded that all the £15 million could be raised, but that is a matter for Glasgow Life in trying to balance its books.

The tour could have other spin-off benefits: it could increase the accessibility of the collection and raise awareness of it, for example. As Gordon MacDonald pointed out, visitor numbers have fallen from a peak of 1 million a year when the building opened down to less than a quarter of that. An international tour could increase awareness abroad, but it could also make us at home more aware of what we are missing, so it could encourage more local visitors.

The key issue for us was whether we felt that it would be appropriate for us to alter the will of someone who is no longer here. As Sir William clearly had no issue with his collection being loaned, the main concern is whether he would be content for it to be loaned overseas. The practice of transporting art is much changed since Sir William’s time and, as has been pointed out, the main concern is about packing and unpacking at the point of delivery. It is perhaps no more dangerous for a piece of art to go on an international tour than it is for it to travel across Britain, just as it is no more dangerous for us to travel abroad by plane than it is for us to travel across Britain by car.

I think that it is impossible for us to second-guess the motives for Sir William’s stipulation in his will. Given the requirement to carry out the essential renovation works and the probable reasons for Sir William writing his will in the way that he did, I support the committee’s recommendation that consideration of the Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill move on to the next stage.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Scrutiny of private bills is an important but often unrecognised function of the Parliament, and I thank the committee for its work. Like the committee’s evidence-taking sessions, this afternoon’s debate has focused on two key issues—the judgment on overturning the wishes of Sir William Burrell and the risks and opportunities of allowing a collection, particularly one that contains so many fragile items, to be transported across the world.

The committee is satisfied that the evidence shows that Sir William Burrell was not a possessive collector but, instead, would have welcomed the opportunity to show his collection to as wide an audience as possible. However, he was concerned about the risks of transporting artworks internationally. We have heard that that is still a consideration for Glasgow City Council and Glasgow Life, as custodians of the collection today, as presumably it is a consideration for any institution that engages in international lending. However, we have also heard that, by introducing a strict lending code and adhering to the highest standards of conservation and care, those risks, while they can never be completely eliminated, can be minimised and mitigated.

The question then becomes whether the risks are enough to prevent the collection from being accessed by a whole new international audience and to hinder efforts to raise funds for the restoration of the Burrell collection building, which itself poses a threat to the collection’s long-term preservation. The latter point has been central to the committee’s consideration of the bill. The Government has seen for itself from projects such as the refurbishment of the Scottish national portrait gallery and the national museum of Scotland what can be achieved by investing in our cultural institutions and bringing our museums up to date for the 21st century: it results in soaring visitor numbers and increased customer satisfaction.

Glasgow City Council has shown initiative in that respect, too, and, over the past decade, it has been dedicated to ensuring that its cultural establishments are of a high quality. It has invested heavily in capital projects such as the Kelvingrove art gallery and museum refurbishment and the new Riverside transport museum, and I am sure that members agree that it has reaped the rewards. Given the Burrell collection’s significance, it seems only logical for it to be next.

Unfortunately, we all have to accept that, financially, times are tight. Faced with a building that is not fulfilling its function, Glasgow Life has had to think carefully about where the money could come from to secure the Burrell collection’s long-term future, and it has decided that the ability to tour the collection internationally would help to raise its profile and raise much-needed resources while offering more people the chance to see and appreciate what the collection has to offer.

One of our responsibilities in looking after our heritage is to ensure that the stewardship of both local and national museums is such that functions are carried out in a way that is diligent and fit for purpose in the 21st century. In supporting the committee’s recommendation and allowing the bill to proceed to the next stage, the Parliament will take the right step.

We must always be vigilant and dutiful in ensuring that our artefacts, our heritage and our art have custodians who will look at all the different options and make sensitive decisions, but will also provide access to and due recognition of collections as they were first formed, and will do so in a way that is appropriate for this century.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

I, too, remember when that extraordinary building opened in Pollok park—a gift to the city and people of Glasgow from the Stirling Maxwell family and a lung, if you like, in the second city of the empire. It is a magnificent red sandstone, glass and steel construction, and I very much welcomed the opportunity to have the tour and to go into the bowels of the Burrell collection to see the thousands of exhibits that have not yet seen the light of day.

Some of them, I have to say, may be less fascinating than others. Sir William had an extensive collection of Tudor beds. I do not know whether, if we brought all the Tudor beds out and lined them all up, we would draw in the public from around the world to see them. They looked somewhat less than fascinating to me. However, in addition to the Tudor beds there is a terrific array of art that has never yet found its place in the presentation of the collection.

People sometimes forget not just the range and size of Sir William’s collection but the fact that, whether it is a Chinese vase, a Degas pastel, a Flemish tapestry or a bit of renaissance silver, he collected only the very best. In the Burrell collection, Glasgow and Scotland have a priceless jewel of art that reaches across everything that we could imagine.

The building is in a terrible state, as Mark Griffin and others said. I ask members to imagine a giant sponge, which is now waterlogged, between the ceiling and the roof. That means that the leaks can manifest anywhere in the building but not necessarily where they manifested in the roof above the sponge.

Having first thought that the renovation could, perhaps, be phased, we were persuaded that it could not and would have to be undertaken with the museum closing in the interim. We then had to decide whether the promoter’s proposition of putting the collection on tour was appropriate. Could it somehow be put in the local church hall or something like that in the interim? Of course, modern standards of presentation and for ensuring that the collection is secure in temperature and every other sense mean that just shoving it into the building next door is not a possibility.

The question then came down to whether the committee felt—this was a very serious proposition—that we should set aside Sir William’s will. It was mentioned that Edinburgh and London had both argued for the collection in the first place. If they had known that they were going to be able to set aside all the conditions of the collection, they might have bid that much harder.

We agonised in some detail over whether to set aside the terms of the will. We took legal advice on how long from the point at which a collection is gifted the terms of the will must prevail. Can they prevail in perpetuity? Is that reasonable? Circumstances change and 50 years have passed.

We heard about the way in which art is now exported abroad and the security that is attached to that. It turns out that the most dangerous period for art is not when it is in a plane being shifted across to some far country but when the porters remove it in the first place to put it in the box. They are likely to drop it, and that is where some sensational failures have occurred.

We were persuaded that it is right to give the fantastic collection an opportunity to be seen on a one-off tour around the world, promoting Glasgow, Scotland and the collection itself. We hope that that tour will, in future, bring to Scotland visitors who will see and promote the collection.

I, too, thank the clerks and everybody who gave evidence. As long as Joan McAlpine and I are in the Parliament, we never expect to work on a committee as collegiately as we managed to do during the preliminary stage proceedings.

I ask the Parliament to support the motion at decision time.

Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08326, in the name of Aileen Campbell, on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I am grateful for the opportunity to open the debate on the general principles of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill.

I welcome Forrester high school and St Augustine’s high school, who have a beautiful photographic display in the Parliament to mark yesterday’s universal children’s day. It is apt to note that, given the topic of the debate.

I thank everyone who has contributed to developing the bill so far, not least the members of the Education and Culture Committee for their work and their comprehensive stage 1 report. I also thank the Local Government and Regeneration Committee and the Finance Committee for their consideration of aspects of the bill.

I thank everyone who commented on the bill, especially the 2,400 children and young people and the 1,500 parents who provided their views. A range of opinions have been expressed. Many have been constructive and probing. That can only ensure that such a landmark bill will be examined, be improved and, ultimately, have the profound positive impact on children and young people that we all want it to have.

Today is an opportunity to take an overview of what the Parliament wishes the bill to achieve. I will start by discussing the principles that lie at the heart of not only the bill but our approach to improving the lives of children and young people.

The bill rests on five simple principles. First, it declares our collective commitment to making Scotland the best place in the world in which to grow up. It will establish in statute our shared responsibility for ensuring that our children have the best start in life and access to what they need to succeed as they grow and develop. Through its focus on what has been tried and on what we know works in our getting it right for every child approach, the bill builds on our renowned Scottish tradition of putting children at the centre of services and ensuring that their rights are upheld.

Next year is the 50th anniversary of the Kilbrandon report, which set the foundation for our children’s hearings system. I can think of no more fitting way of commemorating that than by passing a bill that so thoroughly embodies the principles of Kilbrandon.

The second principle is that shared responsibility should be achieved by working with parents and carers to provide the caring and supportive environments that our children should have. The bill aims to make public services more responsive to needs and sensitive to working with families. Our children deserve nothing less.

That will require a change in culture, systems and practice. The framework for that change is GIRFEC, which has been repeatedly endorsed by the Parliament, most recently in September. GIRFEC has been tested; it works. As the committee found in its evidence, the benefits to children and families are clear in those parts of Scotland that are furthest along with its implementation. As Barnardo’s Scotland said in its submission to the committee:

“We ... welcome the proposals to put elements of GIRFEC into law. GIRFEC has been a great success where it has been fully implemented and it is right that the Bill should seek to secure its wider adoption.”

The third principle in the bill is acknowledgement that we must continue to improve how we support our most vulnerable children and young people. The challenge that the Education and Culture Committee’s report of its inquiry into taking children into care has set is one that none of us takes lightly. The bill rises to that challenge by making it easier for children who need to be looked after to stay in their families through the kinship care order; by extending the support that is available to care leavers; and by ensuring that the wider public sector understands our shared corporate duty in relation to those who have been in care.

Moreover, the bill recognises that, for some children, we need to respond more quickly to the terrible risk of abuse and neglect. We are all familiar with the tragic stories in the media of children who were below the radar, the signals on whom were not picked up or acted on, and in relation to whom the need to act would have been apparent only to someone who had access to all the relevant information, which was spread among a number of different organisations. As I said on 25 September, the recent tragic case of Daniel Pelka highlights the importance of professionals putting the child’s interests at the heart of what they do and communicating their concerns. We can never prevent every case of abuse and neglect, but our bill will ensure that our services are better placed to identify and act on any concerns before those cases, too, become tragedies.

The fourth principle is the very simple idea that services to support our children and young people are better when they are planned jointly. That idea underpins our proposals for joint planning of services by local authorities and health boards, and it is equally well planted in the planning that we expect to be done for individual children who need additional support from services. We do not need scores of unco-ordinated plans across different services and professionals. Children need services that work together with one another and with their families.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am grateful to the minister for giving way.

In linking her first and fourth principles, will she give an undertaking that she will ensure that children and their families are as closely involved as they can be in the process of developing those children’s plans?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Absolutely. They need to be fully involved in the planning. That is the underlying ethos of GIRFEC—it is about ensuring that children and families are respected.

Lastly, the bill is watermarked with the principle of early intervention. Early intervention has been a mantra for years. We all know about the benefits to children and families of providing support as soon as problems arise, and to services whose resources are increasingly stretched. The bill will make real that recognition of the value of early intervention to our aspirations for early learning and childcare.

The benefits of investing in the early years are known when quality services are provided. We must ensure that those services meet the needs and wishes of families. With the resources and powers that we have now, we have made a start on transforming childcare. We want to match the very best in Europe and, as a step towards that, the bill will give three and four-year-olds 600 hours of free nursery education. That represents an increase of almost half on the figure of 412.5 hours that we inherited, and we are extending that provision to the most vulnerable two-year-olds. In total, around 120,000 children will receive more childcare, more nursery education and a better start in life. Families will be saved the equivalent of £707 per year per child.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful to the minister for giving way and for the additional spending on that front.

How will the Scottish Government respond to the criticisms that Reform Scotland has levelled about the difficulties to do with when a child’s birthday falls?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I will touch on that later in my remarks, but the increase in free nursery education that I have set out represents a huge step forward for children and families. In delivering a tangible increase in the number of hours of early learning and childcare, we will benefit families by protecting their budgets, as they will be able to save the equivalent of £707 per year per child. That first step should be recognised. We can look at what Reform Scotland has said, which will contribute to the wider debate that we must have in this country about how we transform childcare.

Those are the principles that steer our proposals. I am pleased that in its report the committee agreed that the bill’s principles are sound, and I am pleased that the bill will set our country on a path towards becoming the best place in the world in which to grow up—a Scotland that takes active and shared responsibility for the wellbeing of our children and young people and that recognises the continuing challenges and is never complacent. That is an ambition that I think members share.

We have listened carefully to everything that has been said during the bill process, taking full account of all interests in and perspectives on how to improve the delivery of services for all children and young people and ensure that their rights are respected across the public sector. Of course, there has not been agreement about all the detail of the bill. Throughout the process, we have welcomed constructive discussion, and in that spirit of positive debate I will address some of the issues that have been raised.

On the children’s rights provisions, I note the committee’s view that incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law does not represent the best way to progress the rights agenda at this time. That is our view. The whole premise of the bill is to make a practical difference in children’s lives, and we think that the balance that we have struck in the bill achieves that. We agree with Ken Norrie, who said:

“to incorporate the convention into the domestic legal system of Scotland would be bad policy, bad practice and bad law.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 3 September 2013; c 2682.]

We recognise that the committee feels that there is scope for the current ministerial duties to be strengthened. Our view is that the proposed package of legal measures represents a major and significant step forward, but we remain open to suggestions on strengthening the provisions.

On the new powers available to Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, we welcome the committee’s comments on the proposed changes. We recognise that the new investigatory function will undoubtedly have resource implications for the commissioner. The financial memorandum suggests a staffing structure to support the new functions. However, staffing and governance issues are entirely a matter for the Parliament. Indeed, the commissioner’s ability to operate entirely independently of Government is a key strength. Nevertheless, we remain willing to support the commissioner and the Parliament in considering some of the practicalities associated with the proposed changes.

On the role of the named person, I am pleased that the committee endorsed the value of the role and shares my determination that GIRFEC should be implemented consistently and effectively throughout Scotland. I note the committee’s comments about areas in which the practical implementation of GIRFEC needs further clarification and support from the Scottish Government. We will seek to clarify, through guidance in many cases, many of the issues that are raised in the report. On resources, we have set out our estimate of costs in the financial memorandum, but we recognise that costs will need to be monitored as implementation goes forward. We will reflect further on how best such monitoring can take place.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

The Royal College of Nursing Scotland said that the Scottish Government must recognise the Education and Culture Committee’s concerns about the capacity of the health visiting workforce to deliver on its existing duties, let alone the duties that are associated with the named person role. The people on the ground think that 450 additional health visitors will be required. Does the minister recognise those concerns? Will she give a commitment to increase the number of health visitors?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

We recognise very strongly the important role that health visitors have in the early years of a child’s life. Our ratio of health visitors to the people with whom they work is healthy compared with that in other parts of the United Kingdom. I have given a commitment to monitor implementation.

We note what the committee and some stakeholders said about information sharing. I think that all members understand why information sharing is such a critical and difficult area. Every inquiry into a child’s death in the UK over past decades has echoed the same crucial finding: that effective sharing of information within and between agencies is fundamental to improving the protection of children and young people. We have seen that too often to risk the same happening again. Proportionate, appropriate and timely information sharing is essential to ensuring that our children are kept safe from harm.

On our early learning and childcare proposals, we are delighted that many of the organisations that were invited to the Education and Culture Committee welcomed our focus on quality alongside the increased hours and flexibility. This is the first time that flexibility and choice have been put on a statutory footing and the first time that local authorities will be required to consult local parents to identify their needs.

The bill also introduces a new concept of early learning and childcare to replace the traditional concept of pre-school education. It recognises that the learning journey begins from birth, and sets the stage for our longer-term aim to develop high-quality and flexible early learning and childcare that is accessible and affordable for all children, parents and families.

We know that a number of organisations would like us to go further, especially in relation to additional vulnerable two-year-olds. Research shows that high-quality provision makes a difference to those children. We will not compromise on quality in ensuring that we improve the outcomes for our children.

I have, of course, dealt with some of the issues that Liz Smith raised in relation to Reform Scotland’s publication today. I look forward to continuing the debate with it.

I want to discuss the bill’s provisions for looked-after children and young people.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The kinship care order recognises that the extended family has a responsibility to help when children are at risk and ensures that when kinship carers step into a parenting role, they will receive the support that they need. That is a huge step forward. Previously, any support that was provided to that group of carers was provided by local authorities on a discretionary basis only. The kinship care order will empower families to provide each child with a safe, stable, loving and nurturing home and will help some children to avoid formal care, if that is not in their best interests.

We also have strong commitments to ensure that we get things right for our looked-after children who are moving on to independent living. Our engagement on that with Who Cares? Scotland and others can ensure that we get things right in the final draft of the bill and that the bill works for our looked-after children.

I have set out the principles of the bill. Those principles represent the highest level of ambition for our children and young people, so it is not surprising that the bill covers a lot of ground.

I sincerely look forward to hearing the views of other members and the rest of the committee as we work together to ensure that the bill works for Scotland’s children.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

I am, of course, speaking today as the convener of the Education and Culture Committee.

As the minister said, the bill contains a wide range of proposals across its 13 parts. Consequently, we took a large amount of oral evidence and considered more than 180 written submissions. The input of all the organisations and individuals who submitted views to us has been essential, and we thank everyone who contributed. I also thank the committee clerks for all their hard work, my committee colleagues for their efforts in scrutinising the bill, and our Scottish Parliament information centre researcher for assisting us.

The Education and Culture Committee has spent significant time in this session examining issues that are linked to child welfare—specifically, the educational attainment of looked-after children and decision making on whether to take children into care. It is clear from our inquiries that much more is needed to improve outcomes for disadvantaged and looked-after children. That work has helped to inform our scrutiny of the bill. We support the bill’s central aim of promoting early intervention and preventative action to give children the best possible start in life.

A number of areas received particular comment in the evidence, which is reflected in our report. I cannot cover everything in the time that is available, so I will focus on five areas: children’s rights; named persons; information sharing; the extension of early learning and childcare; and aftercare for young care leavers.

Part 1 of the bill relates to the rights of children. Many children’s organisations supported the full incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law. They considered that that was the best way to embed children’s rights into the culture of our society, enhance respect for our children and send a clear message about how we value them.

Those are laudable outcomes, but the committee was unanimous in its view that the case had not been made for full incorporation of the convention. Our main difficulty was that it was not always clear what practical improvements such a move would bring for children and their families. Our view is that, although the outcomes arising from incorporation are important, it does not necessarily follow that incorporation is the best or the only way in which to achieve them. In addition, the convention is already implemented in Scotland in a number of ways, such as under our obligations in the Scotland Act 1998.

Although we are not persuaded by the argument for full incorporation, we agree that the duties on the Scottish ministers and public authorities should be strengthened. Ministers must report every three years on what they have done to further the convention, for example. We want the bill to go further, so we have called on ministers to set out their vision on what they will do for each three-year period. We have also asked the Government to explain why it has chosen to require public authorities to report on

“what steps they have taken ... to secure better or further effect”

of the convention and not to require them to act on those findings.

The second area that I want to focus on is the introduction of a named person for every child and young person up to the age of 18. I should of course acknowledge that one committee member, Liz Smith, did not agree with the inclusion of that proposal in the bill. However, it was supported by the rest of the committee. The named person proposal forms part of the wider policy of getting it right for every child, or GIRFEC.

As members will be aware, the proposal to introduce named persons has received considerable comment. Some of the most compelling evidence that we received was from Highland Council, which is seen very much as a trailblazer for GIRFEC. The council told us that the named person role was developed through practice and experience, and that it was based on what families and professionals wanted. The initiative has been fully implemented since 2010 and the results are encouraging. Families like having contact with someone whom they know and who knows the child, and they do not have to deal with bureaucratic systems to get some extra support. Professionals, too, have welcomed the initiative. Teachers, health visitors and midwives feel that the named person role has not changed what they do but has made them feel empowered.

We also heard evidence from health and teaching professionals that the named person role could lead to a reduction in neglect. According to Highland Council, the introduction of named persons meant that children were more likely to get the help that they need when they need it, and fewer children were referred to the children’s reporter. However, the committee is mindful that some of that improvement is due in part to the culture of integration and collaborative working across front-line services in Highland.

As we have said in our report, we want the Scottish Government to give details of the range of support that it will provide to ensure that local authorities and health boards can replicate the successes that have been experienced in Highland, recognising the different circumstances that will prevail in different parts of the country. We also highlighted a number of practical issues that need to be resolved, such as the types of intervention that a named person will be expected to make and how the role will operate during school holidays. We believe that the success of the named person role will depend on the Government’s ability to work with its local partners to clarify those and other issues.

The Scottish Government must also be prepared to ensure that health boards, but particularly health visitors, can cope with the demands placed on them. The Finance Committee raised that point with us, and we have asked the Government to explain how capacity issues will be managed to ensure that the bill’s good intentions can be put in place.

Linked to the introduction of named persons is the proposal to lower the threshold for sharing information about individual children or young people without consent. The bill will allow professionals to share information where there is “concern about the wellbeing” of a child rather than only where, as the current test requires, there is “risk of significant harm”. It is crucial that all those who share information are properly trained. Training and guidance must cover all relevant service providers, including the private and third sectors, and must engender a common understanding of what constitutes proportionate, necessary information sharing.

We also refer in our report to the concerns that were raised by witnesses about the drafting of the information sharing provisions in the bill. For example, Professor Norrie described the provisions as “contradictory” and the Information Commissioner’s Office felt that the scope of section 27 was too wide and wanted it to be redrawn. We therefore welcome the minister’s commitment to look again at the drafting of those important provisions. I know that the Government will carefully consider the comments of the committee and others before we approach stage 2.

The bill will also extend the number of free hours of pre-school early learning and childcare to which children are entitled from 475 to 600 hours per year. That is indeed a positive step and it reflects the crucial importance of early years intervention in children’s development. We also very much welcome the plan to introduce increased flexibility in the provision of the new entitlement, which will make it easier for parents to take up employment opportunities. However, we urge the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to work to ensure that flexible arrangements are made available as quickly as possible to enable families to take advantage of the new provision.

Finally, I want to touch on the important proposals to extend support for young care leavers up to the age of 26. Currently, local authorities must provide support up to the age of 18 and have discretion for those up to the age of 21. As we heard during our previous inquiries, young care leavers are particularly vulnerable. We must do all that we can to ensure that they receive adequate and appropriate support so that they can enjoy exactly the same outcomes in life as many of us take for granted. We recognise the difficulty of that and we recognise that the transition from being in care to independent living can often be an extremely difficult time in a young person’s life. We therefore support the bill’s proposals but invite the Government to respond to the three questions that are asked in paragraph 178 of our report. The minister referred to that earlier in her comments about the campaign led by Who Cares? Scotland.

I should mention that the committee will take evidence on school closures before stage 2. The Government intends to lodge amendments on that, and we want to hear from stakeholders, which will inform our scrutiny of those amendments.

The committee supports the bill’s aims of putting children and young people at the heart of the planning and delivery of services and of ensuring that their rights are respected throughout society. We welcome the Government’s aim of improving outcomes for children and young people and particularly those who are disadvantaged.

Other than on the named person provisions, the whole committee agreed with the bill’s general principles and we hope that our suggestions for improvement will help to make the bill stronger still.

Jayne Baxter (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am pleased that we have finally reached the stage 1 debate on the bill. As we are all aware, it is a substantial piece of legislation, which is not surprising, given its origins as two separate bills. With that in mind, I will not explore in detail all the points that we hope to cover in the bill’s later stages.

Labour will support the Government and vote for the bill at decision time. We will go into stage 2 in a constructive and positive frame of mind. We will test the elements of the bill that concern us and look to enhance and improve other areas of it, where we feel that it is not ambitious enough for Scotland’s children. When considering our proposed amendments, we will focus on early learning and childcare, which my colleague Neil Bibby will address in his closing speech, and on issues that relate to care leavers, which my colleague Kezia Dugdale will focus on.

The potential for the bill to have a real impact on Scotland’s children should not be underestimated. Everyone in the Parliament is ambitious for Scotland, and that can be realised through improving our young people’s life chances. That is why I am pleased that Labour’s newest MSP, Cara Hilton, will make her maiden speech in the debate. I hope that the Parliament will join me in welcoming her.

Too many children’s life chances are determined by the circumstances in which they are born and grow up and not by their own unique potential to achieve, develop and thrive. For too many children and young people, access to opportunities is bound up in a tangled web of poverty-related issues that impact on their health, their home life, their interaction with their peers and their educational attainment. The key to the bill achieving its potential will be our making inroads into those issues, many of which are deeply rooted in our communities.

There are some headline-grabbing figures in the bill. Scottish Labour welcomes the increase in the statutory provision of free early learning and childcare, although it has been a long time coming, as it was a Scottish National Party manifesto commitment back in 2007. However, the danger is that introducing the bill places too much focus on the headlines, at the expense of working through the details of how the measures will be achieved. An increase in free early learning and childcare sounds excellent, but unless those hours support the childcare needs of the parents and guardians who use the service, they might not have the impact that many of those people are looking for.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I reiterate that the bill will put flexibility on a statutory footing, to ensure that the provision works for the parents and carers whom Jayne Baxter refers to.