Scottish Parliament, 29 June 2000

388 contributions from 79 members. The official report.

Introduction

Economic Development

David (None, Lothians)

Our first item of business this morning is a statement by Henry McLeish on "The Way Forward: Framework for Economic Development in Scotland".

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Sir David, with your permission I would like to make a statement on the framework for economic development, because today we are publishing "The Way Forward: Framework for Economic Development in Scotland". It will be recalled that at the start of the year I issued an invitation to interested parties to take part in a consultation exercise aimed at devising a framework for economic development in Scotland . I know that the report has been eagerly awaited and later this morning the Deputy First Minister and I will host a press conference to launch the framework.

The document is a very substantial read, which is why I want to reassure members immediately that this will not be the only opportunity to discuss it. I am calling for a debate in the Parliament soon after the recess to allow everyone to consider the full report at greater length. That will make for what I hope will be a stimulating and creative discussion on the future of Scotland's economy. I am also planning to organise an autumn conference to take forward action flowing from the framework, the review of the enterprise network, the tourism strategy and other initiatives. That is critical to continue the dialogue with the many parties who have contributed to the framework and our thinking on other aspects of the economy. I have already had a brief discussion with the convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, Mr John Swinney, on that matter.

In recent months we have been taking forward individual aspects of the commitments in the programme for government, for example in "Social Justice... a Scotland where everyone matters", in which we set out what steps will be taken towards achieving our social justice objectives and towards eradicating child poverty. Today we move another stage forward with the publication of "The Way Forward: Framework for Economic Development in Scotland". This is an important step that will help us to secure the economic opportunities that can deliver the Executive's vision. It will do that by defining the Executive's vision for economic development and by detailing the action-oriented steps that will help us to achieve that vision which, simply, is to raise the quality of life for all Scottish people by increasing economic opportunities for all on a socially and environmentally sustainable basis.

Long-term thinking about the economy is crucial. The UK Government has an overall economic strategy to guide its actions and national development plans have been a common element in the economic thinking of Ireland, Finland and Catalonia for a number of years. Of course, there are many more examples. This framework is the first framework for economic development that we have had in Scotland. It is a measure of our new political circumstances—and I would argue that there has never been a more pressing need for such a framework.

We are now one year into devolution, which has fundamentally altered the nature and visibility of government in Scotland. It demands that we raise the tone and quality of the economic debate. The framework can help us to focus the discussion. We have introduced a number of strategies on specific sectors of the economy—on the manufacturing and tourism sectors in the past year and important work is going ahead in many other areas, including the knowledge economy and digital Scotland. We need to ensure that they are well directed and part of a coherent overall picture. The framework gives us a basis for doing that.

The pace of change in the international economy is extremely rapid and we must understand the nature of the changes if we are to anticipate rather than react and respond optimally at all times. The framework sets out the context in which we can develop such understanding. The information age, or knowledge economy, poses unprecedented changes, challenges and opportunities in telecommunications and technology. The framework will help us to address those issues.

This is a framework for the whole of the Scottish economy. It is not narrowly focused on a part of the Scottish economy, a specific institution within the economy or a geographic area. It is intentionally very broadly focused; on the economy as a whole and on all the different players who influence the direction of Scotland's economy. The framework seeks to engage everyone with an interest in, and influence upon, Scotland's economy. It is, of course, crucial that the Executive prioritises its actions. The framework sets out specifically to guide our actions in that respect.

The framework is not, however, about the public sector alone. With the economy as the centrepiece, it is only natural that the framework highlights the vital and leading contribution of the private sector. I want it to be a framework for the business community which not only spells out to the business sector the Executive's thinking on the economy—helpful as that undoubtedly will be—but engages the business sector and provides us with common aims and objectives in working together on our economic development.

The framework is built on six key principles: it is inclusive; it is longer term—it looks to a five to 10-year horizon; it is dynamic; it is comprehensive; it is a partnership; and it is evidence based.

It is important that at the end of the first year of the Parliament and the Executive, and as we look towards the second year, we look at maintaining policy by ensuring that it is based on evidence and rigorous analysis, not on anecdote and ad hoc assessment. I suggest that all parties can be guilty of that, including my own. That said, I believe that these are sensible, progressive, pragmatic principles that will help us in creating a successful Scottish economy.

Overall, there are six key actions in the framework. I wish briefly to switch from the principles to what the framework will do. As I stated, it sets out a vision that we can all support, but it also identifies four key outcomes that we must secure. First, we need to secure economic growth through increasing international competitiveness—that is common sense, but it is vital. Secondly, we need to achieve regional development in our country, which will mean that we can overcome the social and economic barriers to everyone sharing in the prosperity. Thirdly, we need to foster social integration. Fourthly, we need to secure sustainability.

Crucially, the framework focuses in large measure on a range of factors that take us towards the outcomes and the vision—factors relating to the macro-economy; the economic infrastructure; enterprises; and to securing social, regional and environmental objectives through removing the barriers to development and focusing on environmental quality.

The framework highlights a number of policy statements to be driven forward quickly by the Executive but produced in close collaboration with all other key interested bodies, as we seek to go further in setting out the specific ways in which we can put the framework into practice and to focus firmly on the extremely difficult choices that will need to be made on allocating expenditure.

While the framework articulates our broad thinking on the economy, it identifies a stimulus to action, consistent with the aims and vision of the framework. The policy statements that it proposes are absolutely critical and necessary; indeed, they will be the most crucial aspect of this project. It recognises the need for a sophisticated understanding of what drives economic development and it identifies the key areas where we need to develop our understanding. It sets out our thinking about how we in the Executive, and the Executive's agencies, can improve the effectiveness of our policies and our expenditure in areas affecting economic development.

The framework sets out many of the key issues affecting Scotland's longer-term economic future. The enhancement of productivity is crucial. It is the basis of Scotland's competitiveness in the global economy and a fundamental ingredient for our success. At present, Scotland has a productivity gap compared with many of the major advanced economies. A sustainable improvement in our productivity is, however, dependent on several factors. I shall list them briefly.

Our competitiveness is influenced by the macro-economy. Low and stable inflation, and the balanced expansion in demand that makes it possible, are essential. There will inevitably be debate in Scotland on the fine print of the macro-economy but the central concern of the framework is whether the overall macro-economic conditions are in place to foster private sector development and promote participation in economic activity.

Moving to supply-side areas, it is vital that we concentrate on Scotland's human capital. We will continue to promote the responsibility of employers and individuals in ensuring that appropriate lifelong learning skills development is accorded high priority. Put simply, the ambition of the chamber and the Executive should be to make Scotland a major European knowledge centre.

In addition, we need to ensure that our enterprises are more competitive. Of course, we need to ensure that we have effective transport and electronic communications infrastructure—that is vital. Because of the critical importance of the electronic infrastructure, the framework attaches high priority to the development of mechanisms whereby the Executive can understand the evolving challenge in that area and how it should respond on a continuing basis.

In closing, I wish to emphasise that the framework is another example of devolution making a difference to the lives of the people of Scotland. We have moved forward from the programme for government to some of the detailed thinking that impacts on all departments, ministers, businesses, individuals and the committees of the Parliament. By pursuing the priorities set out in the framework, I believe we will secure the economic opportunities that can deliver a better quality of life for all our people. I commend this statement to the Parliament.

David (None, Lothians)

I congratulate the minister on deleting large sections of his prepared text, so keeping us to time.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I thank the minister for his usual courtesy in providing notice of the statement and copies of the document. I was surprised to see a preface by the First Minister. I cannot imagine that it was sent to him for light relief during his recuperation—although I am sure he has read it.

I welcome the minister's statement and the document, which is something we have long called for to structure the debate about economic policy in Scotland. I welcome the proposal for a debate in the autumn on these issues. A knee-jerk reaction to a very detailed 92-page document would not be appropriate; we will bring our comments on the document to the debate in the autumn. We have no difficulty supporting the vision outlined in the document—anyone would be hard pressed to disagree with it. The debate must be on—our contribution in the autumn and my questions this morning will focus on it—how the document will make a meaningful difference to how public and economic policy in Scotland is delivered.

I was glad to hear the minister acknowledge the importance of learning from the Irish economy and how it is planned. That is in contrast to one of his predecessors who had a different view of the Irish economy. I agree with the minister that the macro-economic climate is of great significance, but I do not see in the document much reference to the impact of fuel tax and the climate change levy on the productivity and competitiveness challenges faced by the Scottish economy.

Does the minister accept that arising from this framework a very clear direction will need to be given to a multiplicity of Government agencies to ensure that they are operating within its terms? I have real concerns that what the minister says today is not reflected in some of the work of agencies such as Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish Further Education Funding Council and the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, which are vital in tackling some of the challenges set out in the document.

Will the minister tell us more about how he proposes to get real, concrete action arising from the document? The document is worthy but I would like to see how it translates into action. Will he tell us what reflection there has been in the Executive on the need to ensure greater value from its public expenditure and how it intends to deliver that?

Finally, one of the things that is missing from the document is that if we are to set out a vision and outcome and enabling objectives, we surely need to have measures in place to show whether we are succeeding or underperforming. Some fairly stiff measures of the Executive's ambition for the future economy should have been part of the document.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I sincerely hope that the First Minister will be watching the game this evening with more enthusiasm and interest than for reading the 92 pages we have submitted to him. However he is very keenly interested in the economy and I am delighted that he wrote the foreword.

John Swinney's first question was on direction given to agencies. I absolutely agree and I hope that in the announcement of the review of the network next week we can link that in. When we have, for the first time in postwar Scotland, a framework for economic development at national level, that should feed through to what we do at a local level. It should feed through our national agencies such as Scottish Enterprise to the local authorities, the local enterprise companies and to all those who are participating in economic delivery. That is vital—there is no point in having a framework if it is not meaningful at local level.

Also critical—in relation to John Swinney's second question—is how we take matters further. I want first of all to see a set of policies that flow from the framework for economic development. There will be a further debate on how best we can focus. I have often talked about Scotland being smart and sophisticated. We must now learn from some of the countries and regional Governments that I have mentioned, because that is how they do it. That is how the Irish and Finns focus; that is what they do in Catalonia with huge success. I want that attitude and change in culture to ensure that we drive that forward in the policy details.

Thirdly, I too sign up to value for money. There is no point in the Executive having a budget of about £18 billion and my department having a budget of £2 billion if we do not examine every pound we spend. The crucial issue is adding value to the Scottish economy. I want devolution to be about adding value. One way that can be done, as John Swinney suggested, is to ensure that in relation to public expenditure we not only have joined-up government, but ensure that it is focused on returns.

John Swinney's final question was about what measures are in place to ensure that we are making progress and how we gauge success. That will flow from this document, which is not about targets or outcomes; it is a framework within which those vital issues can be further developed. Those four questions will be considered next week with the review of the network and will continue to be considered into the autumn. Those are important issues for the country.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I thank Henry McLeish for the courtesy of making available the statement and the document.

The Conservatives, also, welcome the prospect of a debate in the autumn and a conference to discuss this issue further. We welcome the concept of a framework for economic development in Scotland. My principal concern is about what this all adds up to. I must say to the minister that although this document may make the briefcases of businessmen heavier, I am not so sure it will set business hearts beating.

I hold that view because from my brief perusal of the framework it is clear that it is a worthy document for its broad generalisations and sense of vision and because it gives some helpful indications of what the minister considers the key policy matters for enterprise in Scotland to be, but it seems somewhat short on specifics and I think that that is what the business community now seeks from the Executive, in particular from the minister.

The minister will have to start to pin his enterprise colours to the mast, because I detect that there may be a suspicion in the business community that he will be trammelled or cluttered by the political baggage of colleagues, in the sense that he might be impeded in giving a clear and essential message to enterprise in Scotland as to where he seeks to go, how he expects to get there and what measures he intends to put in place to assess how the journey is going.

If this framework is to be a meaningful guide and steer to the business community—that is what is being urgently sought from the minister—I would like the minister to explain how he plans to measure what is happening. Are there targets? Is there focus? What aspects of economic activity in Scotland does the minister feel are critical for the future?

In his statement, the minister said about policy statements that the Executive seeks

"to focus firmly on the extremely difficult choices that will need to be made on allocating expenditure."

If the minister feels that one of the deficiencies in the Scottish economy today is a lack of inventive and innovatory skills and capacities to enable us to beat off challenges from other countries, is not it a matter of concern that 40 per cent of the research and development grants for our higher educational institution are devoted to social sciences?

In no way am I knocking social sciences; what I am trying to get at is that if this framework is to be sensible, it must be a cohesive picture and we must ensure that all the integral players, such as the higher education institutions, are tied into whatever the steer to the business community will be. Clarification on that aspect would be helpful.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Annabel Goldie's comments were uncharacteristically ungracious. As I said to John Swinney, in a sense the document is not about targets or focus. It is about demand by the business and trade union sectors and members for a framework that provides coherence to the multiplicity of initiatives and activities in which we are involved. In one of Scotland's national newspapers this morning it was suggested that I enjoy initiatives. Maybe I do, but the time has come for a coherent framework in which those initiatives can be implemented. I take Annabel's point that providing coherence is essentially the aim of the framework.

Annabel is absolutely right that the agencies and universities are crucial to economic development. She asked what the framework might do for the hard realities in areas in which Scotland is not doing well, such as e-commerce, productivity, the skills gap and the commercialisation of science. If she looks further into the document—I appreciate that she has had only a short time to read it—she will find pages and pages about those areas in which we have to do much better, from the electronic infrastructure right through to learning involving universities and science.

My intention is that the framework should lead to a flow from principles to action points to details. It is then that we will have targets. I do not want a society in Scotland that is aiming for a vision but does not have any benchmarks, so that in 10 years' time we will say that the framework was there but we will have to ask where we have been and what we have achieved. The next step is to get into the issues. The whole of Scotland will be engaged in taking the process forward.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I join my colleagues in thanking the minister for making the statement available in advance. I welcome the publication of "The Way Forward: Framework for Economic Development in Scotland" and I look forward to reading it in full, which I certainly did not manage to do at breakfast this morning.

I wish to raise a specific matter to which the minister referred in his statement. Obviously, as we discussed in the Finance Committee debate yesterday, micro-economic policy should be evidence based and underpinned by robust data and rigorous analysis. Does the minister agree with several leading Scottish academic economists that there are significant gaps in our knowledge of the Scottish economy, which make sound policy making difficult? Those gaps include lack of data about service industries and Scottish education and training performance, and lack of information about the volume and value of exports by commodity, destination and origin.

Will the minister respond to the specific point that, as a matter of urgency, we need to increase the number of staff who are available to the office of the chief economic adviser, who, I understand, has only four members of staff? Will he undertake to discuss with the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council the possibility of adjusting its incentive structure to promote policy-relevant as well as academic research? What is the current status of the panel of economic advisers to the Secretary of State for Scotland which existed in the days of the Scottish Office? Does the Scottish Executive have a similar panel? If not, does the minister intend to set one up?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Keith Raffan makes a good point about the gaps in our knowledge. I, too, have read Jeremy Peat's book on the Scottish economy, in which economists identified many gaps in the statistical information that is needed to have a useful debate. We have taken some steps in the past year to address some of the issues. Following from the framework, we are considering setting up a consultative committee on Scottish economic statistics. Keith Raffan is right: there is no point in having a vision and practical policies if we do not have the data to have an intelligent debate.

Keith Raffan spoke about the importance of the chief economic adviser. I think that a more prominent role should be given to the chief economic adviser in the work of the Executive and the Parliament. His contribution to the framework has been enormous. It is a solid, substantial document, which addresses some of the key issues. The role of Dr Andrew Goudie needs to be considered and I will certainly reflect positively on what Keith Raffan has said.

I also agree with what Keith Raffan said about research. Many countries that are smaller than Scotland are doing better than we are in the commercialisation of science, the application of processes and the development of products. We have to be much more focused about what we are doing in the economy. We need a balance between academic and practical research, but this is an on-going debate.

The panel of advisers the Conservatives had has disappeared—or, to put it more politely, is no longer in existence. The reason for that is that it had served its purpose. I am not sure whether it did or not. We now have a raft of business advisers on specific areas—the review, the knowledge economy and so on. We need to be a bit more cohesive and bring more of that expert advice from outside into the heart of what we do. That is another issue I take seriously.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Like my fellow Labour members, I am at a bit of a disadvantage in not having a copy of the document to which Annabel Goldie and John Swinney referred. Nevertheless, I welcome the publication of the document. An economic framework was lacking during the 18 years of the Conservative Administration, which singularly failed to address that enormous gap. I look forward to the debate after the recess.

I want to ask about regional policy and its relationship to the framework document. If I may be somewhat parochial, it is extremely important to equip areas such as Ayrshire, which have long depended on traditional manufacturing industries, for the new economy through e-commerce and by addressing the skills gap to which the minister referred. How do regional selective assistance and the priority plus programme fit into the development of regional policy for areas such as North Ayrshire, which are excluded from the economic development to which the minister refers?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Allan Wilson raises an important point. Since the war, the debate in the United Kingdom has been about regional policy within the UK, in which Scotland was regarded as a region. The economic framework attempts to talk about regional policy within Scotland. It is clear that despite unemployment being at a 25-year record low and employment at a 34-year high, prosperity is not going to every part of Scotland. North Ayrshire is a key area where we want to make a difference. I see Dr Richard Simpson nodding—Clackmannanshire is another.

We want to ensure that we focus on regional policy, which will mean making the best of what Europe and Westminster decide and ensuring that we pursue the policies in Scotland. In mid-July, I will launch an employment opportunities for all package, which will address those issues head on.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

My question also is about regional policy. The document places much emphasis on regional policy or, to use the new term used on page 64, "peripheral sub-national economies"—new Labour, new jargon.

On Tuesday of this week, Dr John Reid indicated in an answer to David Stewart that the map showing the UK's proposals to the European Commission for those parts of Scotland and Britain that should continue to receive assisted area status has been resubmitted. Why has the map not been published? I presume that it will be published, given that the map submitted last July was. Does the minister accept that businesses in the Highlands are more concerned about funding than about framework documents and that they have a right to know what parts of Scotland, in particular in the Highlands and Islands, have received the backing of the Governments at Westminster and Holyrood?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

It is important to spell out that the Executive believes that every part of Scotland should benefit from the economy and everything that we are doing. The Highlands and Islands benefit as well. It is not right to say that businesses in the Highlands and Islands do not need a framework for economic development. The Highlands and Islands need hard-edged help and assistance where required. That is why there is a small business service in Highlands and Islands Enterprise and why we are giving the Highlands and Islands help with skills.

We want to ensure that the Highlands and Islands benefit from the new regional map, which is being finalised by the Government at Westminster and in Brussels. It is important not to keep talking down the Highlands and Islands, which is a prosperous part of the United Kingdom. There are areas that need additional investment and development, which is why we work as we do day in, day out. That coincides completely with the emphasis on regional development policy in the document. Why should not every part of Scotland benefit from what is happening? That is the aim and objective. We look forward to working with Fergus Ewing and his colleagues to ensure that that becomes a reality for every part of the Highlands and Islands.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

The minister referred to economic opportunity for all and improving competitiveness. Does he agree that Scotland's economic prosperity and opportunity can be enhanced by addressing the challenge posed by European enlargement, which will open up markets to Scottish business? Does he agree that a social and economic impact analysis of sectors expanding and contracting would assist Scottish business in preparing for that opportunity?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Irene Oldfather's first point is well made. The debate on Europe has concentrated on economic integration—on the euro and issues surrounding it—but there is another matter that is important for Scotland, which is enlargement. Scotland should be considering the exports situation and the intense competition that will result from the accession of many other countries. I have already discussed the export issue with Irene and I can assure her that we will consider it carefully.

Irene Oldfather's second point was about the analysis of companies in Scotland. Part of our programme is to ensure that Scotland takes advantage of worldwide competition and opportunity. That requires the key agencies to make assessments of what is happening and to investigate potential opportunities. I have talked about economic opportunities for all in Scotland, but that will largely depend on how good we are at taking advantage of economic opportunities worldwide—there is a strong link between them.

David (None, Lothians)

We have run out time but, as the minister said, we will return to the debate after the recess.

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

David (None, Lothians)

We now come to Parliamentary Bureau motions S1M-1060 and S1M-1061 on the approval of statutory instruments.

Motions moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (Orkney) (Scotland) Order 2000 be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the following orders be approved -

The draft Electricity Lands and Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2000 and The draft Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 2000.— [Mr McCabe.]

Education and Training (Scotland) Bill: Timetable

David (None, Lothians)

The next motion is S1M-1065, on the timetable for the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

If members have any concerns or questions about the motion, I am happy to try to address them.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that for Stage 3 of the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill, debate on each part of the proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the following times -

Amendments - no later than 1 hour 30 minutes after Stage 3 begins Motion to pass the Bill - no later than 2 hours after Stage 3 begins.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I do not intend to support motion S1M-1065. I have given Mr McCabe notice of that and I have raised the matter at the Parliamentary Bureau.

A very bad precedent is being set by automatically guillotining every stage 3 debate. No doubt, there are circumstances in which the chamber would want to curtail the stage 3 debate of a bill, and that might be opposed by any party. However, currently we do not hold any stage 3 debate without a guillotine. Sometimes that does not matter—last week, for example, we had too much time and we are likely to find ourselves in a similar situation today. However, if we get into the mindset that we cannot have a stage 3 debate without curtailing discussion, at some stage we will deeply regret it. Indeed, we almost reached that point some weeks ago in the stage 3 debate on the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, and that should have taught us a lesson. There is no need for a guillotine today. The debate will not take a long time and there is no indication from any party or member that they will filibuster. Indeed, with the powers available to the Presiding Officer, that would not be possible.

It is clearly the intention of the Executive to have a guillotine on every occasion, but if we take that approach, at some stage, democracy will be damaged. I want to ensure that every time we are presented with a guillotine, we consider whether it is required. If we do not need such a guillotine, the motion to curtail the debate should not be brought to the chamber. I oppose the motion and I ask others to oppose it, too.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I support Mr Russell's comments. The last time we opposed a guillotine motion, Mr McCabe said that the purpose of the motion was for the guidance of the Presiding Officer. If one examines the terms of the motion, it is clear that it is not about guidance, but is a precise instruction that debate will terminate at a fixed time. We should not go down that road.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The Conservatives concur with the comments made by Mr Russell. One of these days—although not this morning—the Executive's approach will cause difficulties. We must establish the principle that guillotine motions are unacceptable.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

We discussed the issue in some detail last week. There is no great purpose to be served in repeating ourselves. However, I must respond to a couple of points made by Mike Russell.

Timetabling motions—particularly the one on today's debate—are not about guillotining or restricting debate, but are the exact opposite. Having a timetabling motion with particular knives that come down at specific times ensures that specific sections of the bill are protected for debate. Without those specific time insertions, it would be perfectly possible for members in the chamber to filibuster, to avoid debate on a particular section of a bill. As I said, a timetabling motion protects debate in the chamber. That very principle underpinned the consultative steering group's approach to the issue. [Interruption.] Presiding Officer, we are talking about the protection of debate in the chamber, and a rabble on the SNP benches continues to carry on when members are discussing the matter. You might wish to intervene on that. However, as I said, the motion is about protecting debate in the chamber.

This morning's situation is particularly ironic. This motion is simply a timetabling motion that allows the chamber to know when the debate will finish. No specific sections are mentioned, and the whole time is open for debate on the amendments, with 30 minutes at the end to wrap up the bill. There is no reason whatever for complaint other than people's wish to provide the chamber with no notice or indication of the structure to today's business. There is a very good reason indeed for the motion.

One specific point has been raised. During the stage 3 debate on the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, the timetabling motion was agreed with the involvement of all the parties. On that occasion, the time allotted to each section was clearly too tight, and that has been fully recognised. If, when a timetabling motion is moved, there has been consultation with the parties, as is always the case, and we have tried to ensure that there is sufficient time for each section, I see no case whatever for moving away from the concept of a timetabling motion. It should always be agreed in a spirit of consensus. It is the Executive's intention to discuss the time available, and we will continue to try to do so. We tried on this occasion, and will do so on every other occasion in future.

David (None, Lothians)

I must put the question to the chamber. The question is, that motion S1M-1065, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 54, Against 41, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to.

That the Parliament agrees that for Stage 3 of the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill, debate on each part of the proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the following times -

Amendments - no later than 1 hour 30 minutes after Stage 3 begins Motion to pass the Bill - no later than 2 hours after Stage 3 begins.

Education and Training (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Before we begin stage 3 proceedings on the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill, I want to make the usual announcement about the procedures that will be followed. Members will be becoming familiar with them by now.

First, we deal with amendments to the bill, then we move to debate on the question that the bill be passed. For the first part, members should have the bill, which is SP Bill 14A as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list containing all the amendments selected for debate and the groupings as agreed by the Presiding Officers. Amendments have been marshalled in the order that the Parliament has agreed, and will be debated in groups where appropriate. Each amendment will be disposed of in turn; an amendment that has been moved may be withdrawn with the agreement of the members present. It is of course possible for members not to move amendments if they wish.

The electronic voting system will be used in all divisions, and as is common on such occasions, I will allow an extended voting period of two minutes for the first division in each group.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We now move to the marshalled list of amendments selected for stage 3. Fiona McLeod will move and speak to amendment 2, which is on its own.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

In moving amendment 2, which is in my name, I want to make it clear to the chamber that the amendment is about targeting grants to new learners and people on low incomes.

The amendment is also about setting out principles—the flimsiness of the bill was debated at stage 1. The amendment is about the commitment of the Scottish Executive to lifelong learning and social inclusion, principles that everyone in the chamber supports and would want to see in the bill.

The Association of Scottish Colleges says that individual learning accounts should encourage into education and training those otherwise not inclined or able to take part, in particular, those from the most educationally and economically excluded groups, such as those in low-paid or casual employment or who are currently out of work. The Association of Scottish Colleges believes that consideration should be given to a priority place system, to ensure that new learners and those most in need of support are taking up ILAs. The 25 per cent targeting that is suggested in the amendment would allow that.

A recent poll by the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education found that 61 per cent of Scots who replied said that they were either unlikely or very unlikely to engage in any form of organised learning in the foreseeable future. That is a situation which we must address. If we believe in lifelong learning for all members of society, the chamber will welcome the amendment, which will ensure that 25 per cent of the funds will be targeted, in the first instance, towards new learners and those on low incomes.

Yesterday, I met a young woman from Who Cares? Scotland, who informed me of the frightening statistic that only 1 per cent of care leavers go on to any kind of further education. We have to overcome that, and the 25 per cent rule would help us to do so.

To illustrate why I felt the need to lodge the amendment, I will quote Nicol Stephen's reply to Margaret Ewing during the stage 1 debate. He said:

"The system will be demand led, based on the requests that are received."—[Official Report, 25 May 2000; Vol 6, c 1158.]

I do not believe that that is good enough to ensure that we capture everyone who needs to learn, especially those who are the most difficult to reach and are least likely to take advantage of ILAs without an extra incentive.

I take heart from Nicol Stephen's comments at the stage 2 debate in the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. He suggested that, as some members of the committee had suggested, we might start to target individual groups for individual learning accounts or for priority treatment. He said that, once we have kick-started ILAs and started to change the culture and attitude towards lifelong learning, we might more closely target individual learning accounts or aspects of them on non-traditional learners and the socially excluded.

I say to Nicol Stephen that, by accepting my amendment, he will ensure that we do not have to wait until we have kick-started the process and that the principles of lifelong learning and social inclusion will be included in the bill.

I move amendment 2.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

This could have been the first time that members would have seen a minister filibustering to fill the time allocated by the timetabling motion, but I will avoid the temptation to do so and make swift progress through the amendments, while ensuring that there is full debate on every item. There will be adequate time for that, given the length of time that was allocated to stage 2 in committee.

Fiona McLeod questioned whether the bill makes it clear that we believe in lifelong learning for all members of society. The answer to that, clearly, is yes. That is what the bill is intended to achieve, which is why it has secured cross-party support. We want to reach all members of society. I will talk about the issue of targeting shortly.

The bill is aimed at achieving a major cultural change in people's approach to learning. Everyone must update their skills throughout their lives, and we believe that it is important that the individual learning account scheme is open to absolutely everyone aged 18 and over throughout Scotland. While we want to encourage new learners in particular, we also want to encourage existing learners to continue the learning habit throughout their lives. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to limit the availability of individual learning accounts at this stage.

We fully acknowledge that we must ensure that those who have the most to gain take full advantage of the initiative, such as those mentioned by Fiona McLeod: individuals with low skills, the socially disadvantaged and those who have, for whatever reason, not accessed training in the past. We will do all that we can to ensure that we reach those individuals.

However, the initiative must be demand led—we are talking about adults, and learning cannot be forced on individuals. We must encourage, motivate and get the cultural change that is required to ensure that people access learning throughout their lives. It would be inappropriate to ration the supply of individual learning accounts to particular groups, and quite wrong to include in the bill a fixed percentage—the 25 per cent suggested by Fiona McLeod—which none of us, with hand on heart, knows is the right percentage.

We believe that demand is better tackled through the marketing strategy, which will ensure that the maximum effort is spent on getting the individual learning account message through to the right people in the right places. As Fiona McLeod said, that means reaching the socially disadvantaged and those who have not accessed learning in the past. It is more important to debate how much of that marketing effort is to be spent on the deprived and rural areas of Scotland, and on ensuring that people aged 18 and over know about the initiative and how it will be able to help them.

As I indicated during the earlier stages of the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill, local enterprise companies will have the lead role in relation to the marketing strategy. They will try to ensure that we achieve those aims, but we will closely monitor the strategy. In future, having kick-started the scheme, to use Fiona McLeod's term, we can consider a targeting approach, if appropriate. Given that this is such a major scheme, with a target of 100,000 individual learning accounts over the next two years, everyone would agree that it would be dangerous to restrict the scheme in the way suggested by Fiona McLeod, as the message would fail to get through to individuals in deprived communities and would fail to reach the people whom it is most important to reach. At this stage, the universal approach is the right one.

We will give a targeted approach further consideration, but such an approach should not be included in the bill. We have the flexibility to amend the regulations if that is felt to be appropriate at a later date.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Will the minister give way?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I am just about to close, but I will give way to Dr Simpson.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

In rejecting amendment 2, despite its excellent sentiments, will the minister agree to discuss with the appropriate committee the details of the monitoring of the scheme? LECs may be able to demonstrate strong evidence that groups such as adults who were previously looked-after children and those emerging from prison, who are also often previously looked-after children, are being encouraged to take up individual learning accounts. If so, many of us would feel much more comfortable in rejecting this quite restrictive amendment.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Absolutely—I guarantee that feedback will be given to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. We will monitor progress, analyse how the marketing budget is being spent and identify whether disadvantaged groups and non-traditional learners are accessing individual learning accounts in the numbers that we wish. If there are problems, we will ensure that some of the budget for individual learning accounts is spent on trying to overcome those problems.

However, I believe that we should consider taking such action at a later stage, once individual learning accounts are up and running. I believe that neither amendment 2 nor the 25 per cent threshold should be part of the bill.

I ask Parliament to reject amendment 2.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I support amendment 2, in the name of Fiona McLeod. I wish to declare an interest: in a previous life, as a consultant, I undertook a number of reviews of individual learning account programmes. One of the key conclusions of nearly all the studies of the pilot programmes that I have seen so far is that neither the benefits to new learners and to socially excluded people nor the penetration level have been as great as for other people.

I am disappointed in the minister's response. If he had said that he did not want the text of the amendment in the bill, but made some positive proposals to achieve its objectives, it would have been most acceptable. However, the minister has not come up with anything that in any way guarantees that the people from low-income groups and new learners will be targeted under the programme in the way that is required.

I can give some practical illustrations of why such targeting is required. The minister has mentioned a target of 100,000 people taking up individual learning accounts over the next two years, which is about 50,000 people a year. Achieving the numerical target will not be that difficult. One of the current problems in many training programmes, particularly as the end of the financial year is approached, is that, in every local enterprise company the length and breadth of Scotland, it is a case of getting bums on seats to achieve the numerical targets.

If the programme concentrates purely on the throughput target, it will not achieve its other, equally important, objectives, in particular that of encouraging a high proportion of new learners and people from low-income groups.

The other reason why amendment 2 is required is that the type of people who tend not to be volunteered by companies on a proactive basis are those in their middle age of working, particularly males over the age of 45. There is a special problem with the percentage of males over 45 who are becoming economically inactive, and who are finding it difficult to get retraining or to find alternative employment. That needs to be tackled. The individual learning account programme is one way to try to expand opportunity and to ensure that males over the age of 45 in particular, one of the highest unemployment groups in Scotland, can gain greater access to learning and training and, through that, greater access to employment or alternative employment opportunities.

The minister says that the individual learning account programme is to be demand led. If it is demand led, the usual suspects in every company will be the first to volunteer for the programme. They are the people who benefit from nearly all the existing programmes, and who will benefit most from this one. The people who are least likely to volunteer for such a programme are on low incomes; they might have families to look after or might be a bit worried about going through the process of learning for the first time in perhaps 20 or 30 years.

If the programme is to be demand led, and if there is to be no proactive promotion of it among the target groups that I mentioned, the objectives that the Government has set itself will not be achieved.

The chances are that we will not win the vote on the amendment, but I beg the minister to produce something more substantial and to give us proactive proposals as to how the targets are to be achieved.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We have much sympathy with Ms McLeod's amendment. The difficulty was whether to accept it at this stage or—as was alluded to by the minister—to face the prospect of inflexibility being brought into the bill.

One of the features that struck me in committee was the experience of the pilot scheme in Grampian. Clearly, an attempt to introduce a rigid template there had not worked. That was quickly recognised and, quite rightly, the scheme switched to a demand-led approach, with vastly improved marketing, to ensure that the people who could benefit from the scheme were aware of it and could then apply.

While there is sympathy for the amendment from Conservative members, I feel that to agree to it would lead to an unacceptable element of inflexibility in the scheme at its embryonic stage. Having said that, I believe that there might be an argument—as Dr Simpson suggested—for monitoring carefully the application of the scheme once it is in operation. Without a shadow of doubt, the scheme is good and worthy. It is an exciting prospect for Scotland, but it will be important to assess, after a due period, just what its practical consequences have been.

With some reluctance, Conservative members are unable to support Fiona McLeod's amendment. However, I hope that my comments show that we are far from hostile to the sentiment that it tries to express.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I, too, am far from hostile to the amendment, but I do not feel that I can agree to it. Individual learning accounts are one initiative in a whole spectrum of initiatives to encourage people to become involved in training and learning.

Although I sympathise very much with what Fiona McLeod is saying—indeed, as someone who used to teach adults, I am well aware of the difficulty of attracting back to the education system people who are alienated from learning—I am not convinced that the method that the amendment suggests will be more successful. I am not convinced that saying that 25 per cent of the money will be set aside, which nobody else can access, is the way to ensure that the most educationally disadvantaged sectors of society come forward to take it up.

The way to ensure that people who do not traditionally associate themselves with learning regard the scheme as providing an advantage and an opportunity for themselves is by promoting the individual learning account and by being proactive about the opportunities for learning in disadvantaged communities. Regretfully, although I agree with the sentiments of what Fiona McLeod is saying, I cannot support the amendment.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

The original purpose of creating individual learning accounts was to provide skills, education and training to those who lacked them and who were on low incomes. That was the provenance of the ILA concept. The Moser report, which examined the situation in England and Wales, found that some 7 million adults in England—one in five adults—if given the alphabetical index to the "Yellow Pages", could not locate the page reference for plumbers. I would not argue that the picture is any less bleak, and frankly appalling, in Scotland. Members of all parties recognise the scale of the problem.

Given that the problem that is to be addressed relates to those who are least skilled and least well off, surely the bill must propose specific measures to tackle that. That was its original purpose. At stage 2, members of all parties were supportive of that principle; what we lack is any specific measure by which that worthy and essential aim is to be achieved.

I shall now address some of the arguments that have been advanced by other members against accepting the excellent amendment that has been lodged by Fiona McLeod. First, the quota that is being proposed by the amendment is not 80 per cent, nor 60 per cent, nor even 50 per cent. It is not even half: it is one quarter—25 per cent. That is all. Nevertheless, that was described by the minister as limiting. How is that a limit?

Secondly, I wondered whether the minister was going to say, in response to the intelligent intervention by Dr Simpson, whether there would be monitoring. If there was no monitoring, that would reduce the bureaucracy and the costs, as such a scheme would not have to be administered. However, the minister said that there will be a monitoring scheme. The costs will be there, but we will see none of the benefits.

Thirdly, Annabel Goldie mentioned inflexibility. With great respect, I do not feel that the case has been made that a threshold of 25 per cent would create inflexibility. I do not think that that will happen.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

The problem—certainly in the services that I have worked in—is that inclusion of figures such as the 25 per cent that is mentioned in amendment 2 means that those figures become the limit for which people will strive. That would happen despite the fact that the words "at least" are included in the amendment. It is inappropriate to include the figure of 25 per cent in the bill, however worthwhile the spirit of the amendment might be.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

The fact remains that 25 per cent is so small a threshold as not to create inflexibility. I understand that those who are administering the scheme would always have to have regard to that threshold and—as we heard in response to Dr Simpson's earlier intervention—that that would occur anyway. Given Frank Pignatelli's evidence to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and his obvious enthusiasm for our shared aim of ensuring that those who are least skilled and least well off benefit from the scheme, I suspect that much effort will be applied to that.

Alex Neil's point was not party political, but a commonsense point by somebody who has experience in the matter. He said that the people who will come forward to apply will be those who would have done so anyway. In many cases, the training that will be provided by excellent companies such as Scottish Power in 50 learning centres throughout the UK would have been provided by those companies anyway. The difference is that they will be paid by the state to provide the training. There is risk that the intended beneficiaries of the legislation will lose out.

In supporting Fiona McLeod's amendment 2, I suggest to members that—after they examine their whips' notices—they should, by agreeing to the amendment, decide to give a chance to those who have no chance.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

It is important to make the point that the bill is an enabling measure to ensure that ILAs are introduced in Scotland at the same time as they are introduced in England and Wales, which will ensure that Scots are not disadvantaged.

It would be churlish not to welcome the nationalists' conversion to support for ILAs, now that they have dropped their previous Luddite opposition to the concept.

I support what Elaine Murray and Annabel Goldie said about the amendment. Considerable changes have been made to the bill and to the accompanying regulations as a consequence of the consultation exercise.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Will Allan Wilson give way?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

No, I will just continue, if Fergus Ewing does not mind.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

rose—

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Och, well—on you go.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I am curious about the radical changes that Allan Wilson says have taken place. I might have been asleep when those changes were made in committee, but unfortunately—as members know—I tend to stay awake in committees; I know that that is not popular, but it is the case. There have been four changes, which have all been purely technical. Where are the radical amendments that Allan Wilson talks about?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

There have been four amendments. That is a factual statement of the changes that have been made, but Fergus Ewing is also fully aware of the consultation exercise that took place before the bill was introduced. Annabel Goldie's point was relevant and I am sure that Fergus Ewing will agree that the evidence from the Grampian pilot—on the failure of targeting as a system of introducing individual learning accounts—was compelling. The suggested switch to a demand-led approach, which agencies will be expected to introduce, is correct.

I agree with some of the sentiments that have been expressed, particularly those of Alex Neil on targeting the right people and ensuring that individual learning accounts reach out to those who would otherwise be untouched by the further and higher education systems. The demand-led approach as outlined by the minister is right. Although I agree with the sentiments behind the amendment, I cannot support it.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister may, if he wishes, respond to points that have been raised.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I hope that we are not in danger of snatching division from the jaws of consensus on the issue. I think we all agree that the bill is good and that individual learning accounts are to be supported. We also agree that we need to change the culture of learning in this country and to reach the socially disadvantaged, those on low incomes and people who have not accessed training in the past. However, it is difficult to agree to the detailed wording of amendment 2, although we understand the spirit and sentiment that lie behind it.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I take Annabel Goldie's point about the need for monitoring, but monitoring takes place after the event. What we need is a proactive initiative to ensure that the objectives in amendment 2 are met. Will the minister therefore make some positive proposals to ensure that those who are on low incomes, or who do not have existing accreditation, will be given priority and will be targeted in the promotion and organisation of the programme?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

In the spirit of consensus, it is important that we should do that. We should explain how the marketing strategy will target the socially disadvantaged, non-traditional learners and those in more remote rural areas. As well as making monitoring reports known to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I shall undertake to explain to the committee how the marketing strategy is to be carried forward.

At the moment, however, I do not think that anyone in the chamber could say whether meeting a 25 per cent target would be a success; perhaps the figure should be 30 per cent, or 20 per cent. As Fergus Ewing said, the figure does not, on the face of it, seem unreasonable, but we do not have the facts to know whether it is correct, so it should not be in the bill.

If the amendment were passed, would that guarantee that more individuals from deprived groups would access individual learning accounts? Again, I do not see how any of us can be absolutely confident that agreeing to amendment 2 would change the number of people from disadvantaged groups coming forward to access individual learning accounts.

Alex Neil spoke about the target. The target of 100,000 new learners is ambitious; I do not think that anyone should doubt that. In the early days of the pilot, we found the target in Grampian very hard to meet. As Annabel Goldie pointed out, some quite significant changes were made to the model to ensure that the uptake of individual learning accounts increased. Thanks to the changes that were made to the model, a significant turnaround was achieved. Working like that on the ground, on the detail of the model, is important.

I shall give two guarantees, because guarantees were asked for. First, I guarantee that the marketing effort will be targeted on the socially disadvantaged, on non-traditional learners and on the sort of groups that Fiona McLeod specifically refers to in her amendment. Those people will not be the sole target, but significantly greater emphasis will be given to those groups than will be given to the general public. Secondly, I guarantee that the monitoring and assessment process will be important, and that we will keep the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee informed about it.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I have listened with great interest and I am glad to hear that members of other parties are not hostile to the intent behind my amendment. Unfortunately, what I hear from the minister is talk about marketing rather than principle. My amendment is about ensuring principles rather than a marketing campaign.

The figure of 25 per cent was arrived at after careful consideration of the facts of the matter. Members may remember that just last month there was a report, on which Henry McLeish has commented, which stated that a million people in Scotland suffer from illiteracy. A million people is approximately 20 per cent of the population of Scotland. A target of 25 per cent would therefore ensure that those who are most in need of support would get the support that they need.

There was also talk about inflexibility, but the target in the amendment is not inflexible. The final part of the amendment indicates that, if less than 25 per cent of the money that has been allocated to an individual is paid in any one year, that money is not lost and may be redistributed as appropriate.

The change that was made in the Grampian Enterprise pilot was in better targeting. It ensured that people in Grampian who needed to be brought into the system were brought into the system. I regard that as targeting and as principle; I do not regard it as marketing. Why do we have to wait for a marketing exercise and for monitoring, when we have the chance to put into the bill the principle that those who are most in need of lifelong learning will get access to it?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 2, in the name of Fiona McLeod, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 70, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 disagreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We move to amendment 1, which is grouped with amendment 3.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

The bill is about providing grants to help people to obtain skills, education and training. Amendment 1 seeks to ensure that we do not discriminate against people who live in parts of rural Scotland. How might those people be discriminated against? Well, let us consider how the system will operate. It is proposed that there should be a basic grant of £150 that the individual can use to cover the costs of obtaining skills, education or training. The individual contributes £25 towards the cost. Those figures are not huge—£150 does not buy a very long course or a complicated piece of training. Given that those figures are low, what happens if that individual has to spend £50 or £100 on travelling to the place where the training or education is provided? Plainly, a person in that situation is meeting costs and liabilities that do not have to be met by someone who can travel on foot or by bus to the local college, learning centre, in-house training centre at work, or other place where learning might be received.

I accept fully that there are many different types of establishment where learning will be received. My constituency covers an area five times as big as greater London, which has 90 members of Parliament. People who live in places such as Inverie and want to get to the nearest college have to take a ferry to Mallaig and then some vehicular transport—not public transport—to Fort William, along the only single-track trunk route in Britain. A person making that journey will incur substantial costs, for which the bill makes no provision.

Amendment 1 would give ministers the power to make such provision. I could have lodged an amendment that spelled out exactly what assistance should be received, but I accept that the matter is not straightforward. None the less, unless provision is made to help those who live in many parts of rural Scotland, they will be discriminated against. There is no doubt about that.

I understand that the minister is sympathetic to the problem. Originally, his response was that there would be no provision for transport costs. However, after hearing debate, he indicated that the Executive would consider matters further. That is appreciated. I also understand that there has been a pilot scheme in Lochaber, where a fund has been made available to the local enterprise company to deal with matters as they arise in practice. That is all well and good, but if the minister recognises that a pilot scheme is necessary, he must recognise that there should be provision in the programme itself.

Henry McLeish has announced that £8 million will be made available for child care; I believe that Fiona McLeod will say more about that shortly. I hope that the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will indicate in his response whether we are correct in understanding that not one penny of that £8 million can be used for ILAs, but that it is all to be used for further education. If that is the case, the announcement appears to be a red herring. I hope that the minister will take that on board.

In the debates that we have had so far on this issue, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning has said that a scheme to cover travel costs would be too complicated to administer. However, I do not see that the scheme that covers the travel costs of MSPs or civil servants is too expensive to administer. It is unlikely that the minister's argument will find favour with the many people in rural Scotland who will, I believe, be discriminated against unless amendment 1 is agreed to.

I move amendment 1.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have a tentative time line in my head for debate on the amendments, to allow fair discussion throughout. We are eating quite deeply into that, so I would be grateful if opening speeches could be limited to four minutes and other speeches to three minutes.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Amendment 3 is about targeting. It would ensure that the grants provide for the associated costs of learning that are incurred by two particular groups—those who care for others and those who need care for themselves. The statistics bear out the fact that those two groups are under-represented in education and training courses.

The new section 1(2A) that would be created by amendment 3 relates to child care and other caring responsibilities. In a recent survey of women returners, to which my colleague Nicola Sturgeon has referred on previous occasions, it was found that the high costs of child care were still a disincentive to women's returning to work, training or education. In the stage 1 debate on 25 May, I asked the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning about the £8 million that Henry McLeish had announced for child care at further education colleges. At that stage, the minister was unable to indicate clearly that that £8 million would be accessible by people with individual learning accounts. I would appreciate it if the minister could take the time to clarify that.

I turn to carers other than those with child care responsibilities. The Carers National Association in Scotland reckons that there are 500,000 carers in Scotland, who save the Government a total of £3.4 billion per annum. It is unreasonable to ask those carers to bear the burden of providing alternative care arrangements so that they can go into some kind of education and training. If carers are saving the Government £3.4 billion per annum, it is only fair that the Government does not allow them to bear the costs of returning to training and education.

The NCA is asking the Government to make two pledges: to abolish the 21-hour study rule, which affects an individual's ability to claim individual care allowance; and to develop individual learning accounts for carers who receive long-term ICA. It is only reasonable that we write that onto the face of the bill; it is about principle, and ensuring that those who care for others have the financial ability to train themselves for the future.

We all know—the facts are there—that it is more costly for disabled students to enter education and training. They need their associated costs to be covered. Enable reckons that there are 50,000 people in Scotland with a learning disability. If we want to encourage those people into education and training, we must ensure that they do not pay a financial penalty for it.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I refer first to amendment 1 from Fergus Ewing. As I explained in our earlier debate, travel costs and expenses are relevant to all learning. I want a more consistent approach to that issue, and to child care and the treatment of the disabled for all aspects of post-16 learning. We will not achieve all that we want through the bill, which is about the funding of individual learning accounts. In other parts of the UK, the funds for individual learning accounts will be used for that purpose only, and not for travel and expenses and child care.

We are taking seriously the concerns expressed by Fergus Ewing and others and—as he mentioned—as a result we have announced two pilot schemes, one in Lochaber and the other in the Scottish Borders. Those pilots will test different approaches to the funding of travel and child care for individual learning account holders. The extra funding for child care is mostly being made available to further education. Some of it will be available to higher education, but further education will be one of the major sources of individual learning account courses. The pilots will be operated on the basis of a discretionary fund that will be available to assist with all the costs that I have mentioned. We will monitor the results closely and will consider how they impact on overall individual learning account policy. No doubt, the results will be examined with interest in all parts of the UK and we will take them into account when we review the regulations at the end of the first year.

We do not need the amendments on the face of the bill to do the things that Fiona McLeod and Fergus Ewing wish. It is a relatively short bill and the important part is the regulations. The detail, in terms of how individual learning accounts are to be delivered, will be contained in the regulations, which have been shown to members of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. Those regulations have already been amended to take into consideration some of the issues that were raised by the committee.

It is unnecessary to have the amendments on the face of the bill. Indeed, it would be somewhat strange if the only points of substance in the bill referred to expenses, child care and travel costs, rather than to some of the other important issues to do with individual learning accounts, skills and training and education that are contained in the regulations.

On amendment 3, I want to address the issue of caring responsibilities and the difficulties associated with disability. Again, individual learning accounts will not provide all the answers, but we appreciate the need to make progress. The issue has been raised for the first time at stage 3—it was not raised at stage 2—so we want to be as helpful as we can. The matters that Fiona McLeod has raised are worthy of further consideration. I guarantee to look further at the issue, but at a later date. I do not want to raise expectations now, because the issue will not be resolvable by the time that individual learning accounts are launched in September. However, when the regulations are reviewed within their first year of operation, I would be willing to consider whether such costs should be met. If there were clear examples of need, the review would offer a suitable opportunity to consider the case for tackling such costs.

As for amendment 1, the existing powers in section 1(1) of the bill would be sufficient to introduce such a scheme for costs if it were justified.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Will the minister give way?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I have been asked to wind up, so I should not give way.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I feel seized with a slight attack of schizophrenia; we are minded to support Mr Ewing's amendment, but feel unable to support Fiona McLeod's amendment—unless she takes umbrage that I am expressing a preference for the clean-cut virility of Mr Ewing, as distinct from her own manifest virtues. Let me explain further.

Mr Ewing's amendment was debated at stage 2, and I found that debate helpful. My recollection is that in view of the contributions that were made in committee, Mr Ewing revised his amendment slightly, and I now find merit in it. It is clear that the scheme could pose problems for applicants in remoter, rural areas of Scotland. The pilot schemes that are under way in Lochaber and the Scottish Borders may be instructive in that respect. Our support for Mr Ewing's amendment is principally in recognition of those parts of Scotland where problems could exist. It would be unfortunate if an applicant felt prejudiced or deterred from applying simply because distance and remoteness intervened. I do not need to say any more than that we find merit in Mr Ewing's amendment and we are minded to support it.

We are sympathetic to Fiona McLeod's amendment, as we were to the previous amendment. The distinction that we draw on her amendment is that the broader costs that she wishes to embrace within the scheme and put in the bill are just that—broader. At this stage, it would be premature to bring those costs into the bill. Having said that, although we are minded to oppose the amendment, I reiterate what I said earlier about the need to monitor the application of the scheme. If it were the case—either by virtue of operation of the pilot schemes or by the accumulation of evidence once the scheme is working—that persons in the classes mentioned in amendment 3 were being prejudiced or deterred from the proper uptake of individual learning accounts, that would be a matter for concern. At that point the issue should be revisited.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Once again, I am sympathetic to the intentions of the amendments, but an enabling bill is not the place in which to address the issues.

Individual learning accounts should be one of a raft of lifelong learning opportunities. There are barriers to learning, some of which have been mentioned: travel, accommodation, child care, caring responsibilities and the costs associated with disability. There are a number of other potential barriers to learning for people in different communities, not just in rural areas; barriers to learning also exist for people in urban communities. Those issues need to be addressed. We need strategies that address barriers to learning at all levels of lifelong learning in our society. I hope that the Executive will develop plans to try to ensure that everybody has equal access to learning at whatever level is appropriate to them.

Many rural problems can be tackled by new technology and distance learning, which will bring learning opportunities to learners in their community, in their home, in their learning centre and possibly in their local primary school. Those aspects of lifelong learning ought to be properly addressed—it is not just about the tradition of people going from home to college, but about taking learning out to people in their communities.

When the minister spoke to us, in the stage 2 debate, about the pilot schemes in Lochaber and in the Borders in rural southern Scotland, he said that the schemes would be reviewed and that ministers would consider the results after the regulations had been in place for a year. His concern was to identify areas where need and the size of barriers were likely to be greatest. There is value in waiting to learn from the results of those pilots—there is not much point in having a pilot scheme, then pre-supposing its results. Unfortunately, I will oppose both amendments.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I make a brief contribution in support of amendment 1. The Parliament has experienced something novel today. We have not heard Fergus Ewing make a more reasonable speech to Parliament in his life than the one he made in the chamber this morning. It was a very persuasive speech. Fergus made a point that will recur during the consideration of the bill.

There is also a lesson that the Government should take from the bill's contents. We cannot put forward such slim pieces of legislation, which require Parliament to put so much faith in the comments that are put on the record by ministers, that we have to put additional provisions into the bill to strengthen its contents and to give real substance to the commitments that ministers gave in the stage 2 consideration and that have been reiterated by the minister today.

The point that has been advanced in amendment 1 is the importance of recognising that once we have all the regimes in place to support distance learning, and once a variety of other measures are taken forward, it will still be necessary for people in different parts of rural Scotland, in attending particular courses, to incur travel and accommodation costs. No matter what the technological developments and changes are, parts of Scotland simply will be unable to participate in the exercise. All that this reasonably expressed amendment is suggesting is that ministers are given power to change that.

I listened to Elaine Murray talking about giving the pilot exercises time. Of course, pilot exercises are important to check what assistance is required, but all the amendment does is give ministers the power to act on the issues raised by the pilot exercises. Ministers would be doing consensus building in the Parliament a great service if they were able to respond positively to the amendment that has been reasonably put forward by Fergus Ewing.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I apologise to two members who, for time reasons, I cannot call.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I respond in the spirit of John Swinney's contribution. Ministers, having considered this issue, are prepared to make an amendment to the draft regulations that have been seen by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, to make it clear that there is the power to include travel and accommodation costs. The pilot schemes reflect that. We will put that on the face of the regulations to be lodged this summer. I hope that, because that effectively covers the issue that Fergus Ewing is driving at, he might be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

I gave the assurance in my earlier remarks that we would do what Annabel Goldie asks for, which is to monitor the issues raised by Fiona McLeod. We are prepared to come back to those issues during the first year of operation. We could not act quickly enough to ensure that those issues are properly covered in time for the launch of the scheme in the autumn.

I agree with Elaine Murray that this is not simply about the issue of ensuring access by individuals to traditional forms of learning in main centres. Part of the change of culture that we have to achieve is to bring learning out into communities by using the new technologies and by changing our attitude to the forms of learning that we provide at the moment. Learning tomorrow will be very different from learning today.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I am pleased that the minister has made a partial concession and welcome it in the spirit in which it was given. However, I believe that it is important, for the reasons John Swinney gave, for the principle contained in amendment 1 not to be in regulations that we have not seen, but to be on the face of the bill before us today.

It is an important principle. Unless I misheard the minister, the concession did not apply to subsistence costs, so I am not sure if that aspect of the amendment will be covered in the regulations. The amendment contains an enabling provision and does not, as Elaine Murray suggested, presuppose anything. Quite the opposite—it confers on ministers the power to ensure that people in rural Scotland are not discriminated against.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

As Mr Ewing says, it is an enabling measure and does not require ministers to include those issues in the regulations. I am saying that we will do so and that the final wording will include both travel and accommodation expenses.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

It is getting better and better; perhaps we should keep going. We have not seen the regulations and we look forward to seeing them. It is important for bills to contain principles—that is what they are for. The principle in question is that people in rural Scotland should not be discriminated against, and that principle should be contained in the bill.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 37, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 3 was debated with amendment 1.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

In formally moving amendment 3, I would like to refute some of the comments that were made.

Nicol Stephen said that this was about funding of individual learning accounts. However, it must be about funding the associated costs as well. I raised those issues at stage 1, so they should not have come as a surprise. I would have thought that the Government would have thought of those people in its social inclusion policy. We are leaving vulnerable people for another year before we deal with the associated costs that their caring and caring needs bring to them. Please vote for this amendment.

I move amendment 3.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am informed by the clerks that, since the minister spoke to amendment 3 in the previous debate, there can be no further response. We will therefore move directly to the vote.

The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

On a point of order. Can I check that the voting machines are working?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is there some doubt?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Yes.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We cannot have a point of order during a division, but my understanding is that the voting machines are working. When voting time has run out, we will see what has happened and you can raise your point then.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 25, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 3 disagreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Brown, did you have trouble with your console?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Yes. I am fairly certain that my vote was not registered.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Would you like to inform the chamber of your vote, so that we have you on the record?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Yes please. Thank you. [MEMBERS: "How did you vote?"] My vote was no.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The record is now correct.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We now move to amendment 4, which is on its own.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I originally raised this amendment, with the support of Nick Johnston, at stage 2 of the bill. In the absence of my head being reduced to the pulped and bloody mass that I expected, I was encouraged to restate it for stage 3 of the bill.

There are two important issues. When this bill was debated in committee, it became apparent that the bill would not mean a lot to any external onlooker. If this Parliament is to acquire a reputation for clear and understandable legislation, there is a fundamental issue— [Interruption.]

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Order. Conversations should take place outside the chamber, please, rather than inside.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The fundamental issue is, what quality of legislation do we want to promote within this Parliament for Scotland? This bill does not say anything that any person interested in this scheme would readily understand. In other words, there is nothing in the bill to tell potential applicants or employers how the scheme would work, whether applicants would be eligible or what they might expect from the scheme.

Those matters are covered by what are described as illustrative regulations. The committee expressed thanks to the minister for those illustrative regulations at stage 2. Interestingly, they allowed us to make total sense of the bill and enabled a proper debate to take place on how the statutory mechanism might work in practice. I think I speak for all the members of the committee in saying that the provision of the illustrative regulations allowed a meaningful debate to take place in the committee.

The gist of amendment 4 is to question whether it is appropriate or desirable that the Parliament should produce primary legislation that does not mean a great deal to anybody. Is it not preferable that regulations such as the illustrative regulations, which appear to be in just about their final form, are incorporated in a schedule, or whatever, so that everybody knows what the law will be and they are fully debated? The bill provides that the regulations will come into force by negative procedure. It is intended that the bits of paper that make sense of the act will become available only later, by being laid before the Parliament and being

"subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution".

That means that the regulations could be produced at the height of the holiday period when nobody is around, and that by lying unchallenged they become law. That is an undesirable principle for the Parliament to embrace early in its life.

My amendment is intended to reverse the procedure. Ideally, when regulations are as far advanced as these illustrative regulations are, they should be included in the bill before it is passed. If that is not possible and the regulations will have to be introduced subsequently, the clear preference ought to be that they are brought into force by an affirmative procedure, which would require a positive resolution of the Parliament.

I move amendment 4.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I sympathise with what Annabel Goldie says about the nature of the bill, which is a slim document. The approach that has been taken has been to include enabling powers in the bill and to have separate detailed regulations. However, her amendment will not change the bill, which will remain a slim piece of legislation, with only four sections, so I will focus on the question of whether a negative or an affirmative procedure is appropriate.

As I told the committee, a lot of information is available on the enabling powers and there is a full document on individual learning accounts. The draft regulations have been shown to the committee. The pilot schemes have taken place. The committee, if not the general public, has a good understanding of how individual learning accounts will work. The best argument that I can present on the issue of negative and affirmative procedures relates to the time scale: if we agree to amendment 4, we will not be able to launch individual learning accounts here at the same time as in the rest of the UK. That would be very unfortunate.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The minister refers to time scales, as he has done in previous debates. Is it not the case that the Executive is pressuring the Parliament too much to push through legislation? I do not believe that time scale is a good enough argument for not acknowledging that there are deficiencies in the bill.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Whether or not members regard my argument as good enough, I can only explain that the consequence of passing the amendment would be that we would not be able to launch individual learning accounts in the autumn, at the same time as they will be launched elsewhere in the UK.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

On Phil Gallie's point, at this stage I concede what the minister says about time scale. However, should the minister not also put on record that the bill has not been in the parliamentary precincts for long? If my memory serves me correctly, the bill was introduced by ministers only in late April. If we had had it a few months before then, the regulations could have been debated in Parliament and we would not have to go through the rigmarole today of having to seek assurances about what might be in the regulations, albeit that the draft regulations have been published.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I appreciate that point. During the general debate, I will thank the committee and others for the efforts that they have made to progress the bill so quickly. The timetable has caused problems not only for the committee, but for ministers and civil servants. We would have liked to have more time.

The negative procedure is generally felt to be appropriate, provided that there are no significant or controversial issues in the statutory instrument—the regulations. I do not think that anyone would argue that the issues are significant; therefore, the only question is whether they are controversial. The draft regulations have been seen and amended—and further amended on the basis of the assurance that I have given to Fergus Ewing today. I hope, therefore, that they are no longer controversial and that, in the main, the committee and the Parliament are satisfied with them. On the basis of those reassurances, I hope that the bill can proceed unamended.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I must try to conclude stage 3 by 11.30 or time will be taken off Jackie Baillie's statement at 12.00, so I ask Donald Gorrie and John Swinney to give bullet points only, please.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I am perhaps being a bit slow in understanding, so I would like the minister to clarify why negative instruments get through quicker than affirmative instruments. Either one has to be laid on the table, or whatever the expression is, for a while. Affirmative resolutions take up some parliamentary time, but I do not see how they take any longer.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

rose—

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I will give way to the minister.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I am grateful. I will try to be brief. It is because there must be sitting days of the Parliament. There will not be sufficient sitting days between now and the launch date in the autumn.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I call John Swinney.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I only gave way to the minister.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry, Mr Gorrie, but can you be very brief, please.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

If what the minister says is the case, there is no opportunity for the Parliament to object. Nicol Stephen is an excellent guy and I am sure that he will handle the regulations honourably, but it seems to set an extraordinarily bad precedent. Negative resolutions are a bad thing anyway.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

That is not correct. Any member can object to the regulations once they are lodged. The hope is that they will not be objected to. If they were, it would delay the whole scheme. The negative procedure allows us to move forward within the timetable for the rest of the UK.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I call John Swinney.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Donald Gorrie may be confused by the debate, but I am confused about who is speaking. I want to make a brief contribution.

There is no coherence in the minister's response to Mr Gorrie and to the chamber. We cannot have it all ways. The bill was introduced only a short time ago. The reason that we are not able to go through the affirmative procedure is that there is a time scale to coincide with UK legislation. The minister has given a number of assurances about what will be in the regulations and about the detail. We talked about them in committee also. Nevertheless, it is fair that members want to be assured that the regulations will provide adequately for individuals who want to take up individual learning accounts.

The minister has said that by going through the negative procedure, the only way, in effect, that members will be able to express any concern about any minute detail of the regulations will be to oppose the whole lot. That is totally unsatisfactory. None of us wants to have to behave like that. We want to have the opportunity to take part in the debate constructively and to add value. Some big yes-or-no option, which forces members to take the no position, is an unhealthy way in which to deal with the Parliament.

I appeal to the minister's reasonableness and ask him to take on board the amendment, which adds a great deal to the bill, perhaps not in terms of text, but in terms of consideration of the regulations.

Nick Johnston (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will be brief. I support the amendment for two reasons. The bill is largely supported by regulation—regulation that we currently have to take on trust. The new legislation that we are debating today has been made with so little discussion that it is likely to require some changes. We have heard some of the arguments from Fiona McLeod on disability carers and from Fergus Ewing on rural issues. The argument about time scale is extremely weak—Donald Gorrie and John Swinney have summed that up adequately. Perhaps, in this case, Westminster should wait for us, so that we can approve the regulations using affirmative procedure.

The Conservatives are not happy with the fact that the legislation is being rushed through. I ask members to support the amendment if for no other reason than to indicate to ministers that Parliament will not stand such abuse in the future.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order. Presiding Officer, you may have noticed that, in the last division, the number of members from all parties not voting seemed to have increased. I have checked with the SNP members to ensure that they were in the chamber and pressed their buttons and they assure me that they did. I am not disputing the result of the vote, because there was such a big difference in numbers, but we need to ensure that the voting system is working for future divisions.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Indeed. The flurry of activity in the past 30 seconds relates to just that point. We suspect that there are five or six consoles that are a little faulty. Given the size of the votes, I would be very reluctant to suspend proceedings while we sort out the problem. We will report back to members at the earliest opportunity. Do members agree that we should continue?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Thank you. I ask Nicol Stephen to respond to Nick Johnston's comments.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

There is a lack of understanding of the procedure. I realise that it is complex. Under the negative procedure, if no member objects to the regulations, they go through. The advantage of that procedure is that Parliament does not have to be sitting to allow it to happen. If a member objected to the regulations, the matter would be debated in Parliament. That would happen under the negative procedure that is set out in the bill.

The affirmative procedure that Annabel Goldie seeks would mean that the regulations must be debated in Parliament. There would have to be an affirmative vote and therefore Parliament must be sitting. That would invoke a different time scale. The regulations must be lodged a certain number of days before the debate. The effect would be to delay the whole matter. There would not be an opportunity to amend the regulations line by line under the affirmative procedure. The vote at the end of the day would still be either for or against the regulations as they are lodged. It is important to emphasise that point.

We do not want delay and we do not think that the regulations are controversial. We believe that there is consensus on the issue and I hope that when the regulations are lodged they will be agreed to.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have listened with interest to what the minister has to say. I have heard an explanation, but I have not heard a compelling or cogent repudiation of my argument. I consider that my argument still stands unchallenged. The minister has told the Parliament that there is not enough time to allow proper scrutiny of the regulations. I must agree with the comments made by members of other parties: this is not a satisfactory way in which to attend to business in the Scottish Parliament.

I am minded to press my amendment. I hope that that will send a message to the business managers of the Executive. It is a fundamental issue and, for the sake of the credibility of the Parliament, it ought not to be overlooked.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 39, Against 56, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 4 disagreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On Bruce Crawford's earlier point of order, the flurry of activity on the consoles continues. Seven to nine consoles appear to be duff. I am very reluctant indeed to suspend proceedings, and looking to the Opposition whips, I hope that, given the size of the vote, we can just continue. That would be the most acceptable way. Otherwise, there will be some time difficulties.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

That does not present any problems for the Conservatives.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is that all right with you, Mr Crawford?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Yes.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Good. We move on to amendment 5, in the name of Fiona McLeod, which is on its own. As we are losing time, I ask the minister to indulge me. Could you make your remarks in conclusion, instead of having two cuts?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I would be happy to do that.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I call Fiona McLeod to move and speak to amendment 5.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I thought that, with the guillotine, I would not be able to speak to the amendment.

Amendment 5 is in the same vein as amendment 4, and ensures that the Parliament and its committees have a positive role to play in the content of the regulations. It was worrying to hear the deputy minister say in committee:

"The advantage of the negative procedure is that it allows the regulations to be introduced during the recess. Only if a member of the committee objected to their acceptance would the issue have to be discussed further"—[Official Report, Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 12 June 2000; c 887.]

Those arguments were made about amendment 4, and we all understood them. I cannot believe that a minister would say that it is an advantage to bypass Parliament and its committees. Members surely cannot accept such a claim, and will insist on something so important to Scotland. As every member in this chamber is committed to lifelong learning and social inclusion, we will insist that the matter must be open to the fullest scrutiny and the participation of all elected members.

I move amendment 5.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

We are not seeking to bypass Parliament or the committees. We have been quite open about this issue. However, we will simply be unable to meet the deadline if we do not adopt the procedures that have been set down. The negative procedure has been well used and is well known; and, because of the delays and the problems that would arise, this bill is not the place to introduce any change to the procedure, whether it be the affirmative procedure or some novel procedure, which is what Fiona McLeod's amendment proposes.

It is quite appropriate for the Parliament to consider these issues, and if change is required and is what Parliament wishes, we should introduce any change in the appropriate way, having duly considered the matter. However, in relation to this bill, please let us ensure that we trail-blaze in this area, that we are ready for the launch in the autumn and that, in regard to some of our innovative measures such as travel and other expenses, we are able to get on with things and offer people in Scotland the opportunity of 100,000 new ILAs as soon as possible.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Fiona McLeod, do you waive your right to respond?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Yes.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Good.

The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 5 disagreed to.

Education and Training (Scotland) Bill

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The next item of business is a debate, to last 30 minutes, on motion S1M-956, in the name of Henry McLeish, which seeks agreement that the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill be passed. The timing means that Jackie Baillie will be about eight minutes light on her subsequent statement.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

It gives me great pleasure to move the motion. Today's debate, like the debates at the earlier stages of the bill, has shown the strong support for the initiative to extend lifelong learning to all. We all want to make the individual learning account initiative a success and to create a learning nation.

The level of support for the general concept confirms my belief that ILAs will make a major difference to lifelong learning in Scotland. We want to make learning relevant and accessible to everyone, regardless of where they live or what they do. To reassure Fiona McLeod and Fergus Ewing, I will say that we want to reach the areas of Scotland where learning is less accessible. ILAs present us with an exciting opportunity to reshape the culture of learning, so that people expect continually to upgrade their skills throughout life, something that will be essential to securing a job in the future. In that way we can ensure a more vibrant and inclusive economy for Scotland.

I have welcomed the helpfulness of the debate that the issue has engendered. I hope that that has demonstrated the Executive's willingness to listen, to be open to change and to provide assurances. That approach provides a model for us to follow when we review the success of individual learning accounts, monitor progress and make assessments. We will keep the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee involved in that work if it so wishes, as I am sure it does. I wish to thank all members of that committee, and John Swinney in particular, for their support. The pressures have been difficult and I appreciate very much their co-operation in meeting the tight timetable that we have all had to put up with.

I take this opportunity also to thank the many other people who contributed to the development of individual learning accounts, particularly Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies, which implemented the important pilot projects from which we learned a great deal. As a result, several changes have been made to the individual learning accounts scheme, and those changes will enable us to meet the ambitious target of creating 100,000 individual learning accounts. I also thank those organisations and individuals who took the time and the trouble to participate in the consultation process.

Individual learning accounts will be a major responsibility for learndirect Scotland, which is the new name of the Scottish university for industry. We look forward to monitoring progress after the launch of the scheme in the autumn.

The Education and Training (Scotland) Bill and the regulations that are to be introduced will give Scottish ministers the necessary powers to ensure that individual learning accounts continue to evolve and to reflect Scottish needs. The whole area of learning is evolving and it is important that I emphasise the changes that we are seeing in new learning centres, with learning being available not only on the high streets, but in football stadiums, shopping developments and the homes of individual learners.

During the passage of the bill, members have acknowledged the potential for individual learning accounts to help the transformation of Scotland into a learning nation—a transformation of the learning landscape in Scotland. I hope that we will all participate in that transformation over the coming months and years. I am pleased that all members of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee have given their support to this initiative.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

It is fair to say that all parties in Scotland and all members of this Parliament have no difficulty whatever in supporting the aims and principles that the minister described. We must ensure that, in Scotland, skills are improved and education and training are provided. No one could disagree with that statement.

Today we are considering whether those laudable aims will in fact be achieved by the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill, which we are to pass today, and by the programmes that will be implemented by the bill. As the Opposition, we are concerned that there are 10 reasons why the bill will not succeed or will not succeed to the extent that it should. I will cover five of those reasons and Fiona McLeod will cover the remaining five.

First, we are concerned about the basic aim of reaching those who are on the lowest wages and who have the lowest skills. We want the bill to reach the parts that other programmes have not reached. One witness, Bruce Armitage from Scottish Enterprise Grampian, described that as "the Heineken effect". The Parliament's decision not to support amendment 2, which would have provided an absolute guarantee that those on low pay and new learners would benefit from the scheme, means that the bill will fail the Heineken test.

Secondly, many of the witnesses who appeared before the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee expressed a serious concern that the £23 million—or, more accurately, the £16.5 million to be used for grants—would simply be spent on providing training that would have been provided anyway, except this time at the state's expense. That serious, practical concern has not been addressed.

Thirdly, there is the problem of bureaucracy, an issue that has not been raised or emphasised today. We understand that the total budget line is £23 million, but that only £16.5 million will go to grants—to the individuals who are to receive the education or training. That leaves £4 million that will go to the customer services provider and £2.5 million that will be spent on marketing. That means that 28 per cent of the money will be spent on bureaucracy. In comparison, the costs of running the Scottish Parliament run to 0.2 per cent of the Scottish block, so there are concerns that the money will not be going towards meeting its intended purposes.

Fourthly, there are practical problems that we have not addressed. Will the database be ready? Frank Pignatelli has recognised that it will not be fully ready. What about the arrangements for the private sector training provider? Will they be too bureaucratic? That was discussed in committee, but I do not think that it was fully addressed. We now know that the scheme will be launched in August. That means that we have to take it on faith that all the arrangements will be in place. My feeling and my guess is that they will not be and that the scheme will start without the necessary database and arrangements. There will be serious teething problems, which may be inevitable at the outset. That is unfortunate, because we do not want the ILAs to be viewed with the same contempt as the youth training scheme that the Conservatives introduced some years ago.

Finally, much has been said about the fast pace of the bill's passage through the Parliament. It was introduced on 28 April and it will have gone through all its stages in two months. I am concerned that there has not been a proper opportunity for scrutiny. More than that, my main concern is that the timetable of the bill has been entirely determined by two bills proceeding through Westminster. That is entirely wrong. Today, this Parliament will be passing a bill that is simply a Holyrood train running to a Westminster timetable.

Nick Johnston (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is interesting that we should be discussing the bill after the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning's statement on the framework for economic development. As I said at stage 1, the Conservatives welcome the promotion of a culture where people take responsibility for their lives and where they reapproach learning and place it at the main point of their being.

As Fergus Ewing said, we have rapidly arrived at the final stage of a bill that enables the minister to introduce regulations. We are expected to trust that the final regulations follow the illustrative regulations. Questions still arise, which we hope the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will address when he sums up. We are still not sure how the Executive intends to overcome the other barriers to learning, even if the funding issue is resolved. Those include the inflexibility of benefit rules, domestic responsibilities, part-time and shift working, inadequate transport and child care provision and the previous low achievement of the people who are likely to enter the scheme.

As we said at stage 1, we feel that it is essential that the Executive consults closely those bodies that have raised important issues in the plans for the implementation of ILAs, including the drafting of the final version of the regulations.

We are still not much the wiser on some of the other considerations, particularly on how employers' contributions will operate and whether they may be withdrawn if an employee fails to complete a course or leaves the employment that has partially funded the course. There has not been any movement on the part of the Executive on the practicality of small firms releasing employees for training. That is a particular concern, given the evidence from Scottish colleges on the poor level of participation and attendance in current schemes. We expect guidelines from the minister on the allocation of funds to employees from public bodies, such as local authorities, health boards, trusts and non-governmental organisations.

We repeat our assertion that we need to move to a unified system of funding for all post-school education and training—a view that is shared by the colleges—and to introduce a passport for education and opportunity that will chart an individual's way through life with their achievements there for all to see.

We still have to examine the role of the customer service provider, which is funded to the tune of £4 million in the first two years. We should also be aware of the provision for marketing, which takes up 10 per cent of the scheme's allocation.

The minister mentioned targets. We believe that there must be clearly understandable targets for progress and implementation and that simple procedures should be adopted, with minimum bureaucracy, to ensure participation by all target groups, especially small and medium-sized enterprises and the disadvantaged.

The devil, in this case, will be in the implementation and the detail. We will watch with interest how the initial phase proceeds. We wish the scheme well in its implementation. We will look out for ease of use, flexibility and user-friendliness in the introductory phase. We are pleased to support the bill.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

I want to be positive in this debate. We must remember that the people who will benefit from the bill will not be concerned with some of the arguments that have been advanced today; they will be interested in the fact that they can achieve their goals and aims and start or continue with their learning process.

Individual learning accounts form a central part of the Executive's vision to stimulate a culture of lifelong learning in our society. That is no mean task. If we are to achieve that goal, there must be a culture change and a transformation of current attitudes. We must ensure that it becomes commonplace for everyone to learn and upgrade their skills continually. That is why I support the minister's universal approach. I worked in further and higher education for 16 years and know that the rate of change in the technology sector alone means that people need to upgrade their knowledge every 18 months. The scheme must be universal and open to everybody.

Low pay and a lack of skills go together. Scotland has suffered for too long from both unemployment and skills shortages. The concept of individual learning accounts will encourage individuals to take responsibility for their learning and will put the onus on employers to allow that learning to happen. The Education and Training (Scotland) Bill provides the statutory arrangements for the Scottish Executive to pay grants to individuals for their learning accounts.

ILAs are not just a way of distributing funds to assist with the cost of further education and training; they are much more than that, as they promote learning itself. In the long term, ILAs will contribute to a better equipped, highly skilled work force and ensure that people have a personal stake in and greater control over their personal development. ILAs will raise individual expectations and will deliver the benefits that learning can create. We have talked a lot about social inclusion and exclusion. If people can start learning and upgrade their skills, they can take themselves out of the situation in which they find themselves.

Learning accounts are based on two key principles. First, they empower people to take greater responsibility for investing in their own learning. Secondly, that responsibility for investing in learning will be shared. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, of which I am a member, has received positive feedback on the introduction of ILAs. We believe that the accounts have the potential to make a major contribution to the development of the culture that we have all bought into.

Learning accounts will help people to invest in their learning. Employers, trade unions and learning and guidance providers will all have a key role in encouraging and supporting individuals to participate. The target of 100,000 ILAs by 2002 is ambitious and will require local partnership working to be as effective as we all hope that it will be. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee was impressed by the commitment and examples of good practice that were shown in the evidence that was given by those involved in the pilot schemes in the Grampian region and in Fife.

The aims of the bill are to overcome financial barriers and to widen access. We have heard a lot this morning about widening access; we know that we need to reach out to those who for whatever reason feel excluded from education. However, we must consider that in the round, given the many other schemes that can help people, such as the skillseekers scheme for 16 to 18-year-olds, the new deal, and further and higher education—those schemes are all part of the big picture. The evidence that we received from the Grampian pilot scheme supported a universal approach. After making many changes, the people who were involved in that scheme found workable and practical ways forward. That is what we need: workable and practical solutions.

Individual learning accounts are a groundbreaking initiative. They will play an important role in the big picture of combating social exclusion and allowing people from every sector of society to contribute.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

We move now to a brief open debate. Members should keep their comments to a maximum of three minutes.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

We have heard many assurances and guarantees from Nicol Stephen—the SNP will ensure that those are honoured. We have also heard much about marketing and monitoring. I am concerned that we are leaving some principles behind and that there will be marginalised groups in society until the monitoring and marketing are done and there has been an annual review. I would like the Executive to acknowledge that concern.

A year ago—almost to the day—we heard Donald Dewar talk about

"Scottish solutions to Scottish problems."—[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol 1, c 404.]

The debate on amendments 4 and 5 made it clear that the Scottish Parliament is running behind Westminster's coat tails. That is not providing Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. It is an unhappy situation, which must not set a precedent.

If lifelong learning and social inclusion are important enough for Parliament to legislate on, they are important enough for the Government to produce a timetable that allows Parliament to scrutinise legislation effectively. The SNP looks forward to seeing the minister's regulations—I hope that they will be more readily available than the draft regulations, which were delivered to me only this morning. We also look forward to the minister's regular reports to Parliament on the take-up of ILAs. We look forward to as many people as possible in Scotland engaging in lifelong learning, education and training.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

As a Liberal Democrat, I welcome the cross-party acceptance of individual learning accounts. I will agree on one thing with those who have criticised the use of regulations by the Executive—the devil will be in the detail.

It is up to Parliament to ensure that the Scottish Executive acts on the good intentions that have been expressed. The bill gives the Executive flexibility to deal with issues as they arise, rather than expecting that we should second-guess where we want individual learning accounts to be in three or five years.

The Executive should focus on how certain aspects of the bill will be implemented. We need special provisions for rural areas—handing one of my constituents on Skye £150 will not create equality of opportunity if that person is hours in travelling time away from the nearest college or learning establishment. Nicol Stephen has assured me that the Executive recognises the costs of transport—we will all seek early action on that matter. Innovative projects such as the Robert Gordon University's internet learning scheme are part of the solution, but the overall solution is more complex and we should examine the possibility of synthesis of the provisions in the bill with, for example, the new deal.

We need solutions to the problems of child care, we need support for carers and we need support for the disabled. We need local delivery of services in our villages and in our deprived housing estates through initiatives such as learning houses. We need to ensure that learning opportunities are taken up by those who need them most. A demand-led strategy alone will fail to reach those who are most excluded.

I have been pleased to receive assurances from Nicol Stephen that action will be taken in response to pilot schemes and to issues that arise as the scheme rolls out. Action has already been taken to remove the requirement for bank accounts, which put off participants in the Grampian pilot.

Like many others, I accept that all knowledge is a good thing. The arts and culture benefit society as much as technical and computer skills do, so ILAs should encompass all forms of learning and should take local needs and circumstances into account. I fervently hope that many learners and institutions will consider opportunities to develop Gaelic learning.

I am greatly enthused by the fact that individual learning accounts are finally becoming a reality, fulfilling a long-standing Liberal Democrat agenda. I call on members on all sides of the Parliament to work together constructively to support the implementation of the ILAs and to ensure that the Scottish Executive takes account of the several important access issues that have been flagged up across party lines.

I look forward to the day when the new accounts will become lifelong learning accounts, with the individual, employers and the state all contributing to a fund that will follow people from job to job throughout their working lives. Perhaps then we will be able to say that we have a lifelong learning society.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Conservatives have always believed that people should be able to access the training and education that is appropriate to their needs, and the bill goes some way towards achieving that.

The problem lies in access. I was disappointed that Fergus Ewing's amendment, which would have given assistance for travel costs to people living in rural areas, was rejected. Waving banners of accessibility to wonderful courses is absolutely pointless. There may be opportunities all round, but it is tough if people cannot get to them; that is the message that people in rural Scotland will receive from the debate. I have had many letters of complaint about lack of access. Even if a small grant is available, there may not be public transport and the money does not stretch to pay for a taxi fare. The minister must consider that issue and I hope that he will come up with more positive proposals to tackle it. We must not leave out rural Scotland.

Many people have mentioned monitoring. Monitoring the pilots is one thing, but we need good, clear monitoring of the outcomes and delivery of the programme. We look to the Executive to report to Parliament on a regular basis. We are left to trust in the regulations and I was disappointed by the minister's unwillingness to explain fully some of his reasons for turning down the positive amendments that were proposed. The Parliament must not allow regulation after regulation to go through on negative resolutions; we must use this chamber to discuss things fully. That said, the Conservatives support the bill.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I am pleased that all parties welcome the bill, but they need to dampen down their enthusiasm. Fergus Ewing's typical attitude of looking on the bright side regularly cheers us all up.

We must remind ourselves that 100,000 people will take advantage of this initiative to start off on their learning journey. However, it is quite clear that the bill is not just about payment for training. We must establish a learning culture in this country; the new measures will ensure that the partnerships, in the workplace and in the community, that are necessary to bring about that learning culture will be established.

However, there are challenges. Members have talked about access. Whether or not someone is a shift worker or lives in a rural community, the college ain't open this weekend for people who work long hours—not much has been said about that. We must issue a challenge to our colleges to be accessible and to take advantage of the increased number of people who want education.

Nick Johnston (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Duncan McNeil give way?

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

No, we hear from Nick Johnston often enough as it is.

People need access to those colleges. If the colleges do not meet the challenge, there are other providers that will meet it, so they had better get their act together.

There is also a challenge for trade unions. Trade unions need to put training and education firmly back on their bargaining agenda. The bill gives them the opportunity to challenge those employers—the Conservatives have represented them for years—who have not provided the necessary training, education and time off that people need to escape low pay and dead-end jobs. I hope that employers will take advantage of the proposals and that many businesses will, for the first time, establish learning and training budgets in their companies.

Fergus Ewing has criticised big companies for delivering training. Companies such as Scottish Power, which have established a great record of providing training, have been sneered at by Fergus, who says, "Ah, they will just use the budget"—

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I did not sneer at those companies.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Yes he did. I hope that those companies will build on what is in the bill and that they will open up their resources to the families of their employees and to the wider community. I genuinely welcome today's initiative and the new rights that it will give people throughout Scotland.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I would like to place on record the thanks of the members of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to its clerks for steering us through a piece of legislation that, although pretty straightforward, had to be considered within a tight time scale. I also place on record a point that I have made to ministers: committee members have been concerned about the time scale within which we were asked to consider the bill. It is fair to be asked to consider legislation quickly; however, it is not fair for ministers to argue, as they have today, about the restriction of parliamentary scrutiny of legislation when we are operating to a tight time scale that the Executive itself set. Ministers must reflect carefully on those points.

In its stage 1 deliberations, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee covered many of the issues that Duncan McNeil raised—for example, on barriers to access, on ensuring that the bill targets those who are least likely to learn, and on ensuring that, out of this venture, additionality is delivered into the Scottish economy and the Scottish learning environment. Most of those points came out of evidence to the committee from useful and helpful pilot exercises. I hope that ministers will listen carefully to the evidence that has come from those pilots and from other exercises. I hope that they will benefit from all the evidence that has been gathered in the process of considering the bill, because issues have been raised to which ministers have not been able to give full and final answers. We have taken a lot of good evidence. Pilots in Grampian and Fife have highlighted a number of lessons that have to be learned—for example, on the way in which the accounts are marketed and on the people towards whom they are targeted. If we can learn some of those lessons, some of the aspirations that Duncan McNeil and others have talked about will be realised. That will happen only if we learn the lessons from those pilots and implement what we learn.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Dark and gloom-laden though the language has at times been, this debate has been generally positive. I thank Fergus Ewing for his support, which was indeed inspiring and uplifting. I also thank Nick Johnston and the Conservatives for their support. Nick Johnston raised many points of detail; I do not think that I would be thanked if I responded to them individually at present.

The bill represents a massive new initiative. It will inject £23 million of new funding into lifelong learning, and 100,000 individuals across Scotland will benefit. I should tell Fergus Ewing that there are already 40,000 learning opportunities on the learndirect Scotland database that will go live this autumn. All that marks a watershed in our approach to lifelong learning; we are starting to change the culture in Scotland towards learning and skills.

We can pick apart the detail or we can be positive and prepare for success. Yes, we will monitor and, yes, we will assess. It is important to put on record our willingness to make changes as monitoring and assessment require. Even more important is that we do not delay, that we are determined to deliver and that we can be distinctive in the delivery of a scheme for Scotland. That is what we will achieve by passing the bill today.

Active Communities Initiative

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The next item of business is a statement by Jackie Baillie on the active communities initiative. The minister will take questions at the end of the statement, so there should be no interventions.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am conscious of the time, so I will try to be brief.

Voluntary action, volunteering and community action are essential to the Scottish Executive's vision of creating an inclusive and mutually supportive society. We want to empower our communities, to make it easier for people to get involved, to strengthen their desire to get involved and to encourage more and higher-quality opportunities for participation.

The active communities initiative is a UK cross-Government programme first launched by the Prime Minister in January last year with the aim of promoting a step change in public involvement in the community. Scotland was represented on the UK working group by Liz Burns, the director of Volunteer Development Scotland. I welcome Liz to the public gallery today.

At the time of the launch, ministers agreed that there should be a clear and distinctive identity to the programme in Scotland, building on existing work and taking account of our social justice agenda. As a result, the Scottish active communities working group was established to advise on the development and implementation of the strategy in Scotland. Chaired by Laurie Naumann, it brought together an extensive range of expertise from across the public and voluntary sectors.

The working group identified four key objectives that underpin the strategy: first, to bring about a change in attitudes towards community activity; secondly, to increase the number of volunteers; thirdly, to draw in people from a wider range of backgrounds; and last, to act with other initiatives to promote a community empowerment approach. That provides us with a focus and a starting point. It assesses where we are and where we want to get to.

We wanted a strategy that would take account of particular Scottish circumstances, such as the better developed infrastructure of the voluntary sector and our compact with the sector. We wanted a strategy that would be cross-cutting, recognising the role of central and local government and the voluntary and private sectors. We also wanted a strategy that would be widely understood and disseminated and capable of commanding broad ownership and support.

The culmination of the working group's considerable time and personal effort—the report "Supporting Active Communities In Scotland"—was published earlier this year for consultation. At this point, I wish to record my personal thanks, and the thanks of the Scottish Executive, to members of the working group for their efforts.

Aside from the written consultation, which generated 140 responses—a summary of which is available on the Executive's website and from the Scottish Parliament information centre—there was a convention in Edinburgh and consultation roadshows in Castle Douglas, Dundee, Glasgow and Inverness. Many voluntary organisations held their own consultation events to discuss the strategy and I am grateful for their efforts. Overall, the responses were generally positive. At one event that I attended in my constituency in Dumbarton, I heard someone remark that it was refreshing and long overdue that a strategic approach was finally being taken to developing active communities.

The responses highlighted a number of issues: the need to cast the definition of volunteering and community participation as widely as possible; the need to balance a grass-roots or bottom-up approach with driving change through Government and voluntary sector networks; the need to ensure that we set realistic targets and time scales and monitor progress; the need to co-ordinate and link with other initiatives; the need to engage the public, private and voluntary sectors in taking forward the strategy; and, of course, the need to ensure adequate resourcing.

Although the strategy focused in the main on excluded groups, there is a need to recognise and support the voluntary and community work that is carried out by Churches and faith groups and in areas where volunteering is strong, such as sports and the arts.

In responding to the active communities strategy, the Executive is not starting from ground base zero. There is considerable commitment and support for the voluntary sector and volunteering on which we will build. In Scotland, we already have a strong and firm foundation, with some 600,000 people regularly giving of their time and effort, but we know that there are as many people again wanting to get involved, waiting to be asked. We need to harness that potential and to provide opportunities for more people to participate in their communities.

The Executive is committing some £6 million in support of the voluntary sector and volunteering infrastructures, with core funding for national bodies such as Volunteer Development Scotland and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations as well as support for the networks of CVS Scotland and volunteer development agencies.

We are also supporting the millennium volunteers project, a programme for government commitment that will see 1,000 young people each undertake 200 hours of voluntary work that will enhance their self development and benefit their communities. Other programmes that assist the development of volunteering and community activity include the unemployed voluntary action fund and the ethnic minority grant scheme. Last year, to support the active communities initiative, we funded five demonstration projects on volunteering, covering ethnic minority volunteering, rural volunteering, volunteering by disabled people and volunteering among older people. Those projects will help us to learn how best to involve people and to remove barriers to participation.

Yesterday, I was particularly pleased to meet Mrs Pettigrew at CSV Scotland. Mrs Pettigrew is a rather remarkable woman. She is 106 years old and Scotland's oldest volunteer. I can safely say that she was more alive than some of us. The project with which she volunteered involved older people and younger millennium volunteers doing reminiscence work and developing photographic archives.

The Executive endorses the draft strategy. We have been much impressed by the enthusiasm and commitment of those who have responded and we will match that. The Executive is the subject of a number of the action points, one of which is that a Scottish minister should be the active communities champion. I am delighted to have been asked to take on that role and it is my intention to report progress to Parliament annually.

While I commend the strategy to public, private and voluntary sectors alike, I am conscious of the need to provide guidance and support to make it a reality. Equally, a number of salient points that we wish to take on board were made by organisations during the consultation phase. For that reason I am announcing the establishment of an active communities forum that will oversee the implementation of the strategy and advise ministers of progress. Details of the composition of the forum will be provided to Parliament shortly.

In addition, I am pleased to announce an initial package of measures totalling £650,000 to move the strategy forward. It consists of £100,000 to establish an active communities development unit, based in Volunteer Development Scotland, which will be tasked with taking forward many of the practical action points. Secondly, £100,000 will promote volunteering and community action among older people, building on the work of CVS Scotland and Age Concern. A further £130,000 will support the Scottish employee volunteering initiative, the production of the media resource kit and TimeBank's campaign work in Scotland.

I said that the active communities strategy is aimed at involving excluded groups. One of the most excluded groups in society is people who are housebound. We shall fund a feasibility study to examine ways of enabling those who are housebound to participate in volunteering and in other community activities.

The package of £330,000 I have outlined is a first step in taking forward the strategy and a measure of the Executive's commitment to developing active communities. We shall announce the allocation of the remaining £300,000-plus for further projects during the year as ideas on taking forward the initiative develop.

Active communities, of place and of interest, are important across the whole range of areas for which the Executive has responsibility, whether it is education, health, housing, our cultural heritage or sport. The strategy will help us to build on the tremendous contribution that has already been made by the voluntary sector and volunteers across Scotland to build strong and active communities and bring about a positive view, at all levels, of volunteering and community action.

The benefits to the individual and to society are self-evident. Every man, woman and child has something to offer their community. The challenge for us all is to build strong and active communities that support our vision of a Scotland that is characterised by social justice and opportunity for all.

I commend the active communities initiative to Parliament.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow up to 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for her courtesy in providing an advance copy of her statement and I welcome her appointment as the active communities champion because I know of her personal commitment to the voluntary sector.

As the minister said, volunteering has always been an important part of community life in Scotland; from those who help out in charity shops to those who offer specialised help to voluntary organisations, or those who simply go for the messages for an elderly neighbour. The active communities scheme is about more than just individual action; it is about how people get involved in all areas of community life.

One of the criticisms of the draft strategy was that it took a top-down approach that focused particularly on the role of statutory organisations, and that the majority of those on the working group were not from the voluntary sector. I am pleased that the minister has announced that she will set up an active communities forum to monitor the progress of the scheme, but will she guarantee that the forum will have a majority of voluntary sector participants on it?

The minister also announced funding of £650,000 to take the strategy forward. Will she confirm whether that is new money?

Finally, there was much criticism that the lines of communication between London and Scotland were not clear. What is the minister doing to address that criticism?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I congratulate Tricia Marwick on her new responsibilities. I look forward to working with her in future. She raises the essential point, which is that volunteering and community action are very much part of the fabric of community life in Scotland.

We were concerned to involve people from the voluntary sector and directly engage volunteers—and, equally, to involve people from the public sector organisations that need to learn that message. The active communities forum will have a balanced composition, but I am happy to give an assurance that the majority representation will come from the voluntary sector.

The £650,000 is part of the £6 million that we commit to supporting the voluntary sector and the volunteering infrastructure. Today, we are announcing the detail of how that money will be committed in line with the action points that were raised in the strategy.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Many members have indicated that they wish to ask questions, so it would be helpful if questions could be as brief as possible.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

I welcome the statement. Does the minister agree that local development agencies, like councils of voluntary service and local volunteering agencies, are vital to achieving a bottom-up approach in supporting communities, that they encourage those who are excluded to participate and that they have a key role in developing active communities?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I can assure Cathy Peattie that we are clear on the need to ensure that there is a bottom-up approach to taking the strategy forward. An important part of that is building the capacity of the voluntary sector on the ground. Key to that will be local volunteering development agencies across Scotland—which we support to the tune of £1 million a year—and councils for voluntary service. As Cathy will know, we are undertaking a review of councils for voluntary service with a view, first, to completing the network to ensure that there is one in every area of Scotland and, secondly, to putting them on a stable funding regime. The review presents an opportunity to consider the role and the potential of councils for voluntary service in local communities. That also feeds into the strategy.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I too am grateful to the minister for the pre-release of the statement and I generally welcome the announcement. We welcome her appointment as the champion of the voluntary sector. While that is undoubtedly at lightweight, we have no doubt that she will punch her weight.

In generally welcoming the statement, we note especially that the £100,000 earmarked to promote volunteering and community action among older people is worthy of some praise. I am sure that the formidable Mrs Pettigrew would agree. However, I ask the minister to confirm that the £100,000 allocated to the active communities development unit is the only sum allocated to what is in effect a bureaucracy and that the rest of the funding will go to projects that support the sharp end of community activity.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am curious about how long it took Bill Aitken to work out his joke.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

It was entirely spontaneous.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

It was spontaneous? He should not give up the day job.

The £100,000 for the active communities development unit is essential. I take issue with Bill Aitken when he says that it is simply for bureaucracy. The work of the unit will be strategic in putting forward guidance to a number of public sector agencies and to the private sector, to try to progress the essence of the strategy. The success of the strategy will depend on how successful we are in progressing the detailed action points around that, but equally around the media strategy group that will be set up to take forward some of the work. It is £100,000 that is well invested—the unit could not be described as a bureaucracy.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I too welcome the minister's statement and the resources. There had been serious concern at one stage that there would not be a distinctive Scottish approach, so we welcome that.

I wish to take up the point about active communities being not only about volunteering and to ask what steps the minister will take to ensure that the strategy expands into more active communities. That point has been made to me by volunteers in the community working on social inclusion partnerships. The problem, especially in the network, is that volunteers who get together to exchange information have a limited budget to allow them to do the vital work they need to do, for example to take part in SIPs.

I wish to ask about the TimeBank campaign. It is run by the Home Office, with a lot of co-operation from Scottish organisations, but there is concern that people who registered in February still do not have places allocated to them.

Finally, will the minister ask the forum to consider the perceived problem that people on benefits have difficulty volunteering because they have concerns about the impact volunteering would have on their benefits? What representations and monitoring will she undertake to ensure that everybody can volunteer and that we do not have selective volunteering?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

We are keen to consider active communities beyond the concept of volunteering, which is why we are taking a community empowerment approach to the matter and why we are trying to put it within the wider social justice agenda.

Fiona Hyslop will be aware that over the summer, culminating in a seminar in the late summer or early autumn, we will discuss directly with social inclusion partnerships and the community representatives on them what additional support they require, not only in travel and child care, but to be equal partners at the table. That feeds into the strategy—close connections will be made between the two.

Fiona Hyslop is right—our negotiations with TimeBank were not all that we would have wanted them to be. Negotiations have continued and there is a much better relationship now. Indeed BBC Scotland is keen to take forward some of the volunteering initiatives and to present volunteering as new, exciting and part of the fabric of Scottish life. I am convinced that the minor difficulties that existed have been resolved.

Although benefits are reserved, I understand that the Department of Social Security is keen to encourage voluntary work because of its value to the individual and the community. Steps have been taken at an operational level and more can be taken. Jobseekers allowance, income support and incapacity benefit permit unlimited voluntary work, within certain conditions. We need to consider whether those conditions present barriers. That is one of the action points arising from the strategy that the active communities forum will take on board.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Will the minister seek to involve organisations such as the excellent Mark Scott Foundation—a foundation born from past tragedy that attempts to give hope for the future? As well as providing young people with the opportunity to volunteer it seeks to develop their leadership potential.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I entirely support foundations of that kind that engage young people in learning, volunteering and developing a range of life skills. To a large extent, such foundations exist because of charitable giving. In recent budget announcements on gifts of money, Gordon Brown has made us one of the most favourable countries in Europe for the voluntary sector. There is now more encouragement through taxation for people to dig deep and dig often in their pockets and to support foundations such as the one Hugh Henry refers to.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I join in the welcome for the statement and the minister's appointment—there is no one more suited to that role.

Does the Executive have a strategy to secure longer-term and more stable funding for the large number of voluntary sector groups that are funded through local government? Will the Executive be able to support such groups? Will the minister elaborate a little on how she sees her role as active communities champion—what does it mean in a practical, day-to-day way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Robert Brown will be aware of our compact with the voluntary sector, which clearly sets out the responsibilities of the Executive and its agencies on funding. To supplement that, on 13 June we published good practice guidance notes. It is of course one thing to issue guidance and another to monitor and follow up progress. There is an opportunity, as we report progress on the compact to Parliament annually, to see how we have done and to look at areas for improvement.

I see my role as champion for the active communities initiative as working alongside those with expertise who will be represented on the active communities forum. It will be about saying that volunteering has a special place in Scottish society, not just in its traditional and well loved forms but as a wider approach based on principles of community empowerment. We know that strong communities give rise to stronger individuals. That is the kind of vision that I will be promoting as the champion.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I too welcome the statement. From what the minister said, she clearly agrees with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations that a radical shift is needed from the top-down culture pervading public service delivery towards a community-led and empowered ownership of the means to address community needs and issues. However, will she accept that at present there is little evidence that such a policy shift is being implemented or even considered comprehensively? Will she actively champion such change in her exciting new role?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I cannot take the excitement, Kenny.

I assure Kenny Gibson that the Executive is committed to a bottom-up approach. Community planning represents one opportunity. Another opportunity that we are piloting is locality budgeting in communities such as Easterhouse and Wester Hailes, where the community is sitting down alongside all the agencies providing services in their area to have a discussion about priorities within that area and the reallocation of budgets. I am happy to champion something that is already going on.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I welcome Jackie Baillie's comments on how we take volunteering and active communities forward. I draw her attention to uniformed and non-uniformed voluntary youth organisations that make a vital contribution to Scottish communities. They are concerned about the financial implications of implementing police checks, which may threaten their viability and deter volunteers—especially those from deprived communities who might be put off volunteering if it has a cost. Does the minister agree that it is essential to recognise and address those concerns if we are to ensure that the voluntary youth sector is supported and volunteering is to be encouraged to be inclusive?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I recognise, as Karen Whitefield outlined, that many concerns have been expressed by the voluntary sector, Churches, faith groups and uniformed organisations. That is why we set up a review group that included Volunteer Development Scotland, the SCVO, YouthLink Scotland—which represents the uniformed bodies—and the Scottish Churches to examine part V of the Police Act 1997. The group was set up to examine the costs of the proposed checks and to consider the administrative burden that would have to be borne by small voluntary organisations to comply with the code of practice.

Our current deliberations focus on whether there is a possibility of establishing a central register body to assist the voluntary sector, which would be similar to the pre-employment consultancy service model in Northern Ireland. At this stage we have not covered the topic of the cost of checks, although it is in the forefront of our minds, because we must scope the likely demand from the voluntary sector.

I assure Karen Whitefield that we are mindful of those issues. However, I stress that having a Scottish Criminal Record Office check does not replace the need for the voluntary sector to have robust and effective child protection policies.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I too welcome the minister's statement, the strategy and her appointment as champion—which just confirms what we already knew.

If we are going to ensure a bottom-up approach, what action will the Executive take to end the artificial bureaucratic structural division between voluntary organisations and volunteering? Will she agree that what we ideally need—I know this already happens—is that in each community, not just each local authority area, there is a one-stop shop for voluntary organisations seeking advice and for those who want to volunteer to find out more about volunteering?

I will reiterate, in a slightly different way, the point Robert Brown made. What action is the Executive taking to diversify the income stream of voluntary organisations so that they do not become too dependent on any one source? That hampers organisations in many areas, especially those that are dependent on finance from local authorities.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

What is important is not the structure, which in some senses was Keith Raffan's first point, but how we operate on the ground. We must recognise that volunteers are the lifeblood of the voluntary sector. Keith Raffan alluded to the point that co-location of services often exists. There is great co-operation in communities between volunteering interests and voluntary sector interests—whether it be a one-stop shop or one organisation collaborating with another to provide the same services in different parts of the community, which is a model that I have seen elsewhere and which we could usefully examine—because they are mutually dependent Diversity of income is critical. The voluntary sector recognises that and has done a lot of work on donated income; the SCVO set up a working group to examine how to maximise it.

The Executive is setting up a community investment fund of £10 million, which will enable social economy organisations with income to tap into a source of loan funding so that they can grow their organisations. We will constantly search for diverse methods of funding. We regularly meet the National Lottery Charities Board, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other funders to agree ways forward.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

I, too, warmly welcome the minister's appointment as a champion—if anyone deserves that title, she does. Fiona Hyslop, who is a fellow member of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, and I recently met community activists from social inclusion partnerships in the Dundee area. They stressed the importance that they attach to the establishment of a national association or network of community activists which would allow them to become more equal partners with government.

Can the minister assure the Parliament that when she meets community activists she will take on board their criticism that the £50,000 that has been allocated to set up the network is inadequate and that more resources will have to be found to create a genuine national network that will allow them to become equal partners with government?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

That is why we want to talk directly to community representatives in social inclusion partnerships over the summer. I recognise that experience has varied. Some of the older established partnerships are functioning very well. Those with dedicated resources for community representatives are functioning very well, but elsewhere there are struggles, which we want to address.

Last year, we gave funding to the Scottish Urban Regeneration Forum with a view to supporting and sustaining networks of this nature. In recognition of the issues that John McAllion raises, we gave additional funding to the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations to develop that network further. We see this a starting point. I hope that in our dialogue with community representatives we can identify key issues that we can address for them.

Business Motion

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-1062, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out the business programme.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Before I move the business motion for the final week before the summer recess, it is worth noting that this will mark the end of the first year in which the Parliament has had its full powers. It is worth putting on record that we have passed six acts of the Scottish Parliament; that two further bills are awaiting royal assent; and that subject to agreement to the business motion and decisions of the Parliament, another three bills will have completed stage 3 by the end of the first year. That is a substantial achievement, which it is worth marking.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees Wednesday 5 July 2000

9.30 am Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 3 Debate on the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc. (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 3 Debate on the National Parks (Scotland) Bill

2.30 pm Continuation of Morning's Business

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-756 Allan Wilson: West Kilbride: Scotland's Craft Town Thursday 6 July 2000

9.30 am Ministerial Statement followed by Executive Debate on Modernisation in the NHS

followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Continuation of Executive Debate on Modernisation in the NHS

followed by Motion on Government Resources and Accounts Bill - UK Legislation followed by Motion on Witness Expenses and Allowances Scheme followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-1009 George Lyon: University of the Highlands and Islands

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Today, the time that was allowed for a bill was again inadequate. Some members who wished to speak were not allowed to and others were asked to be extremely brief. We still have lessons to learn.

On Wednesday, there will be debates on two bills. When we know what amendments have been lodged, if necessary, will the time for debates extend beyond 5 o'clock, as has happened in the past, so that there is adequate time to debate them?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

As I said on a previous occasion, decision time at 5 o'clock is marked as a requirement of standing orders. The Executive intends to lodge a timetabling motion for both bills next week, which will take into account the length of time that is expected for debate. It is possible to reduce the time that is allocated for lunch, which is two hours, or to move that decision time be held later. It is certainly intended that there should be adequate time in which to debate both of these very important bills.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The question is, that motion S1M-1062 be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

Before we start, I inform members that, in view of the problems that we encountered this morning, all the consoles have been checked and should be working this afternoon. I take this opportunity to remind members that we have issued notices in the business bulletin asking members not to allow any parties into the chamber during the last half hour before we meet, to enable our staff to check the electronic equipment. I am afraid that members have not been obeying that rule. I repeat, the last party has to be clear of the chamber by 2 o'clock.

Members have been allowing schoolchildren greater access to the seats and the voting equipment than we had planned. I ask that school parties be kept in the middle of the floor or at the back of the chamber and not be allowed to tamper with the equipment as that is causing problems.

Question Time — scottish executive

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will meet the request made by Fife Council to provide extra money to tackle its estimated £70 million repair costs for Fife schools. (S1O-2054)

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

We have received no such request from Fife Council.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In that case, does the minister agree that Councillor Helen Law has asked the Scottish Parliament to discuss getting extra resources from the Scottish Executive?

I am sure that the minister will want to take this opportunity to welcome to the Parliament teachers and pupils from Auchmuty High in Glenrothes, which has a repair bill of £2 million over the next five years. Will the minister explain why some of the £89 million that was saved last year from underspend in education and industry could not have been used this year to meet the £1 billion repair costs for all of Scotland's schools? Will he also explain why he is prepared to sit back and watch Scotland's schools crumble to the ground?

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I was not quite sure what that question was all about, but I assure Tricia Marwick that I always welcome school parties to the Parliament. I also inform her that what this Parliament discusses is its business and nothing to do with me.

Several sources of money are available to councils for school building repairs. The allocations are agreed with the councils. There is new deal money; there is the capital allocation—which is up by 11 per cent this year and which the councils agreed to target on school buildings—there is the public-private partnership option; and there is basic revenue. Sums of money are available and it is up to councils to use that money appropriately. It is not for me to make their decisions for them. I greatly condemn those who try to usurp the powers of councils.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

I also welcome the pupils and teachers of Auchmuty High, the school that I was fortunate enough to attend in the 1970s.

Does the minister agree that Fife Council should be complimented on its current building programme, which includes the replacement of Queen Anne High in my constituency and Anstruther Wester Primary in the east neuk, and the upgrading of Beath High in Cowdenbeath?

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I congratulate Fife Council on its building programme. It is good to hear a member of this Parliament support a local authority rather than trying to usurp its functions as the nationalists always want to do.

Yesterday, I was at Hyndland Secondary, a school that will be replaced in two years' time because of a public-private partnership. I congratulate Glasgow City Council on its foresight in refurbishing its schools and I hope that every council will use it as an example of the way forward.

David (None, Lothians)

Unfortunately, the question was about Fife.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what changes it proposes to make to the constitution and structure of Fraserburgh Harbour Commissioners and what the reasons are for any such changes. (S1O-2049)

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Fraserburgh Harbour Commissioners is considering its response to the guidelines that we published in January. The guidance reflects the principles of openness and accountability that we wish to see applied in all trust port matters.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the minister agree that Fraserburgh Harbour Commissioners has a fine record over many decades—indeed, centuries—of renewing the port facilities to meet the changing needs of the port users? A good example of that is the new ship lift that will be opening shortly.

Does the minister further agree that such success, over such a long period, has not depended on Government interference and that, on the contrary, it has come about because the commissioners have made their strategic plans without the dead hand of ministerial interference?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I have visited the Broch and I acknowledge the excellent work of Fraserburgh Harbour Commissioners. I know that Alex Salmond, as the local MSP, takes a strong interest in the board's work.

Mr Davidson may not like to be reminded of the fact that the previous Tory Government was in the business of privatising trust ports. This Scottish Executive has a different agenda—we want to build on the principle of local control by modernising trust orders, to make the management of harbours more effective and accountable.

Scottish Executive officials are discussing the new guidelines with all harbour trusts, including Fraserburgh, and will be happy to help draft amendments to harbour orders, which will be subject to approval by ministers, who are accountable to the Parliament.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

On that point, will the minister confirm that this Administration will have absolutely nothing to do with the privatisation proposals of the previous Conservative Government, which would have sacrificed and jeopardised the success of both Fraserburgh and Peterhead?

Will the minister acknowledge the substantial success, and, indeed, the elected base, of both Fraserburgh Harbour Commissioners and Peterhead Harbour Trustees? Will he confirm that community interest has been one of the reasons for the outstanding success of both ports over the past few years? Will he give an assurance that nothing in the consultation document will undermine or jeopardise in any way that community interest and democratic base?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I acknowledge the success of both those important Scottish fishing ports.

The boards mentioned by Mr Salmond are certainly representative, but not entirely so. Fourteen of the 16 harbour trustees in Fraserburgh are elected by various interest groups, and properly so, but the other two trustees are the feudal superior—I think that we just voted him out of office—and his factor. That situation must be changed.

We want quality management, accountability and representation—that is the way forward.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what research it is currently undertaking into levels of crime against elderly people. (S1O-2066)

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The Scottish crime survey 2000, which has been carried out this year on behalf of the Scottish Executive, will provide detailed information on the level and nature of crime experienced by older people in Scotland.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for his answer.

Is the minister aware of the concerns on that issue of groups that represent the elderly? He may mention that document, but the lack of published research is a cause for great concern.

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

Direct representations have not been made to me, but we will publish the results of the research that I mentioned in, I believe, August this year—at the latest, they will be published in the autumn. That information will be freely available to all relevant groups.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the minister confirm that that research will include research into the offences committed by those aged 16 and 17 against the elderly section of the population, given his intention to take those youngsters out of the criminal justice system altogether?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

It is disgraceful that appalling scaremongering of that sort is used time and again in a way that I can describe only as either wilfully malicious or deeply ignorant. The fact of the matter is that we will consult on how to treat that group. Mr Aitken will have the opportunity to express his entirely unhelpful opinions in the course of that consultation.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Has there been an improvement in police response times since September 1999, when I raised a question following an incident when it took one and half hours to respond to the mugging of an elderly person in Glasgow?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I do not have to hand the information that Mr Martin seeks. I will look into the situation and will write to him. I hope that that will answer his question.