Scottish Parliament, 14 December 2000

596 contributions from 90 members. The official report.

Introduction

Railways

David (None, Lothians)

The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S1M-1461, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on transport, and an amendment to that motion.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would like you to reflect on the several occasions when you have refused to accept amendments. I ask you to reflect on this morning's decision as one of your poorest.

David (None, Lothians)

A member must not comment on the quality of decisions of the chair, which are always first class, regardless of who is in the chair. Otherwise, he will be in trouble. I always reflect on the member's amendments. Sometimes I select them, but today I have not done so. I call Bruce Crawford.

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

I take members back to the Ladbroke Grove rail crash on 5 October 1999, which tragically claimed so many lives. Within a week of the accident, John Prescott said in relation to safety on the railways that

"it has not been decided whether Railtrack's role would pass to a new organisation set up for the task or be assimilated into the HSE."

Ladbroke Grove should have provided a wake-up call to both the UK Government and the rail companies about the future security of the industry. Instead, what do we find? John Prescott made the right noises but did not have the slightest intention of turning his rhetoric into action.

On Tuesday 17 October, a year and 12 days after Ladbroke Grove, the Government sleepwalked into the biggest ever crisis on the railways in this country. Within two days of the Hatfield tragedy, the industry was in meltdown. Speed restrictions were imposed on more than 1,000 miles of track and speeds were cut by a third at 81 locations. Within a week, the Rail Freight Group was forced to cancel 400 trains.

On 24 October, seven days after Hatfield, Prescott finally woke up and ordered an urgent review into the standard of Railtrack's repair works. He said in the House of Commons:

"in the future as in the past, there must be no priority higher than safety." [Official Report, House of Commons, 24 October 2000; Vol 355, c 138.]

However, the situation worsened markedly that evening. Railtrack Scotland announced that the Scottish west coast line would be closed between Glasgow and Carlisle. Later that same evening, the Minister for Transport's duvet was heard to rustle on the ministerial floor in parliamentary headquarters as she was wakened to be given the news of the worsening situation in Scotland. Realising that she was waking into a nightmare, the minister got out of her goonie long enough to tell the press that she would meet the Railtrack executives in Scotland on Monday 30 October. Thirteen days after Hatfield, the Scottish minister wiped the sleep from her eyes and met the company that has contributed to the worst rail crisis in living memory.

Is it any wonder that the SNP motion calls on the Parliament to express its anger and concern over the crisis in the rail network in Scotland? Is it any wonder that we ask the Parliament to

"regret the lack of authority, influence or action demonstrated by the Scottish Executive"?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will Bruce Crawford say why he believes that further fragmentation of responsibility for safety in the railway industry will be beneficial? Does anyone in the railway industry agree with him?

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

I will come to that.

The Parliament should be strengthened in its views because of what is said in the consultation paper "Strategic Priorities for Scotland's Passenger Railway", which the minister launched on 28 November. On page 13 of the document, we find the remarkably complacent statement:

"Great strides have been made by the industry to improve safety on trains and the infrastructure."

On page 2, a paragraph on the devolution settlement contains much rhetoric on powers being passed to the Scottish ministers through the UK Transport Bill for the operation of railways in Scotland, under the so-called McLeish settlement. Those powers do not add up to a row of beans. The minister is to get powers to give directions and guidance to the strategic rail authority on services that either start and/or finish in Scotland. What changed between July 1998, when the Scottish Office document "Travel Choices for Scotland" was produced, and the introduction of the UK Transport Bill?

"Travel Choices for Scotland" contains the key commitment. On page 63, it states:

"In addition, the Scottish Executive will have executive responsibility for . . . issuing of objectives, instructions and guidance in relation to passenger rail services that both start and end in Scotland".

Who in the ministerial team was responsible for selling out Scotland by removing the power to give ministerial instructions? Which minister was responsible for downgrading the authority of the Minister for Transport's office, or was it a partnership decision involving the Liberal Democrats, of whom there are only two in the chamber today? Who was responsible for ensuring that the Minister for Transport would have the same powers for action as Sam Galbraith had over the Scottish Qualifications Authority? According to the Executive, those powers were not great and Sam Galbraith could not be seen to interfere.

Whoever it was has given Scotland an Executive that can talk, consult and give directions until it is blue in the face but that, when push comes to shove, has no powers, no controls—

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will Mr Crawford tell the chamber the exact details of the powers that John Prescott has in negotiating franchises for the rest of the UK?

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

I am not really interested in the powers that John Prescott has—

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

It is a material point.

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

I have taken Sarah Boyack's intervention. I am not interested in the powers that Prescott has; I am interested in the powers that Sarah Boyack should have.

As I said, when push comes to shove, the minister has no powers, no controls, no capacity to introduce instructions and no direct hold on the crucial legislative and investment levers to make the changes that are needed to turn round Scotland's ailing rail industry. She has less control to make the changes than the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority has over its underground.

The Executive has inherited a mess from the privatisation of 1994, but it has no powers to do anything about it. It has inherited an industry that is fragmented, unreliable and uncompetitive. Ironically, the situation was described most succinctly by the former chief executive of Railtrack, who recently said:

"The railway was ripped apart at privatisation and the structure that was put in place was a structure designed, if we are honest, to maximise the proceeds to the Treasury. It was not a structure designed to optimise safety, optimise investment or, indeed, cope with the huge increase in the number of passengers the railway has seen."

The industry is fragmented, with confused and vague lines of responsibility. That can be no surprise, given that we have Railtrack with a plethora of subcontractors, 25 train operators, five freight movers, a rail regulator, a strategic rail authority and the Health and Safety Executive.

It is time to stop using the Conservative's legacy of privatisation as a scapegoat or an excuse for inaction. Consecutive UK Governments have failed the Scottish rail industry because they are not as close to our problems or opportunities as the Scottish Parliament is now. As important, UK ministers cannot be held accountable to this Parliament for decades of failure.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

rose—

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

I am concluding.

It is time for powers over the rail industry to be transferred to this Parliament and for the Scottish Executive to be given Scotland's share of the new funds for investment in transport infrastructure. In May, Prescott announced expenditure plans of £180 billion on the transport infrastructure over the next 10 years; £60 billion of that was allocated to rail, with £29 billion coming from the public sector. It is time for Scotland to get its hands on its share to invest in Scotland's priorities. It is time for this Parliament to be given the powers to undo decades of complacency and to transform the railways of Scotland into the modern, comfortable, safe and reliable industry that this country deserves and of which it can be proud.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern and anger the crisis in the rail network in Scotland; regrets the lack of authority, influence or action demonstrated by the Scottish Executive and that the control and legislative powers over the rail industry in Scotland remain primarily reserved matters for Her Majesty's Government, and calls for all the powers over the rail industry in Scotland to be transferred to the Parliament, for the Scottish Executive to be given Scotland's share of new investment in transport infrastructure and for a mechanism to be established so that Scotland's interests are directly represented on cross-border rail matters.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I welcome this opportunity to respond to the SNP's motion and to set out the Executive's progress in building a system of integrated transport in Scotland, including the development of a 21 st century railway that is fit for our needs. My suspicions that the motion has far less to do with the railways and much more to do with the SNP's agenda have not been dispelled by Bruce Crawford's remarks.

It is not possible to discuss the current state of our railways without reflecting on why we are experiencing what Sir Alastair Morton, the chair of the shadow strategic rail authority, described a couple of months ago as "a nervous breakdown". The current crisis has been caused by decades of underinvestment in rolling stock and track development and maintenance, and by a fragmented rail industry resulting from the privatisation of the railways, which even the Tories—the policy's architects—acknowledge was a botch job.

That legacy led to Paddington, and more recently to Hatfield and Mossend, and to two months of rail chaos, passenger delays, overcrowding and uncertainty on railways across the UK. That is the legacy that the Labour Government in Westminster in connection with the partnership in Scotland has inherited and is now working hard to sort out.

Although that poses a massive challenge, I absolutely refute the suggestions in the SNP motion that we have been inactive and complacent and are not interested in sorting out the situation. The solutions do not start and end at the border and they will be of no use whatever if we in Scotland pretend that we can separate ourselves from the rest of the UK network and from the investment and standards of safety that are needed throughout Scotland.

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

Will the minister give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No—the member has had his time.

What about the thousands of passengers who travel from Scotland to the south every day? Although Scotland needs its fair share of investment, we should not pretend that massive investment is not needed throughout the UK and that such investment on the east or west coast main line will not deliver for passengers in Scotland as well.

I do not underestimate the challenge for a minute. However, the Scottish Executive is playing its full part in the recovery of the rail network. Although John Prescott has made it absolutely clear that the recommendations in Lord Cullen's report will be implemented, he is not simply waiting for that report and has already started to sort out the network.

Bruce Crawford made much play of the current crisis. However, he has failed to take account of what has been happening not just in the past 18 months of the Scottish Parliament but since the Labour Government was elected in 1997. The rail recovery action group has been formed with the objective of returning the railway to normal, safe operations as soon as possible, and we are in regular contact with UK ministers and officials from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the group's progress.

The SNP did not mention the fact that, on 22 November, the National Rail Operators announced a £50 million compensation package for passengers, which has been funded jointly by the SSRA, Railtrack and the rail operators. Many ScotRail passengers have already secured significant payments from that package.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

rose—

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

Will the minister give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No.

The chair of the SSRA, Sir Alastair Morton, is working with the rail industry to remove the obstacles within the current arrangements in order to provide a safe, punctual and better service. We are being kept fully informed of the SSRA's work.

Bruce Crawford did not even mention that new railway safety regulations come into force on 31 December. Furthermore, the transfer of responsibility for the approval of train operator safety cases will move from Railtrack to the Health and Safety Executive. A new rail safety company called Railway Safety is expected to be set up with the primary objective of promoting rail safety throughout the GB rail network. It is vital that we have the same standards in Scotland as across the UK. In his recent review, the rail regulator, Tom Winsor—

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

Will the minister give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No.

In his recent review, the rail regulator, Tom Winsor, is ensuring that Railtrack delivers on its investment plans—

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

David (None, Lothians)

I hope that this point of order is not about the minister not giving way. That is up to her.

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

Will you remind the minister that this is a debate? In any debate, there is usually some engagement.

David (None, Lothians)

That is not a point of order.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

David (None, Lothians)

Is this a genuine point of order?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Bruce Crawford said that he would respond to the points that I made, but he dismally failed to do so.

David (None, Lothians)

The chair is not responsible for the contents of speeches.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

In his opening remarks, Bruce Crawford did not refer to anything that I have said is being done or has been proposed. It is important that we take into account what is being done. The changes that I have mentioned are being introduced before the outcome of the Cullen inquiry—

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

What changes?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I am sorry, but Bruce Crawford should be aware that things have moved on. He needs to take account of the current situation.

In advance of the outcome of the Cullen inquiry, the UK Government is introducing some key mechanisms to deliver higher safety standards on our railways, all of which must apply to Scotland as well as to the rest of the UK. Those are the benefits of being an integral part of a GB rail system. I doubt that we would have any of those benefits if Bruce Crawford had his way.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will the minister give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No.

The SNP has not told us what it would do differently. All we have heard is that it wants Scotland to have certain powers; we have heard nothing about how it would exercise them. That is the critical difference. There has been no acknowledgement of the massive effort of railway workers throughout the country to ensure that rerailing is implemented.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the minister take an intervention on the railway workers?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Yes.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Does the minister agree with the railway workers in the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, who have demanded the return of the railway network to public ownership?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

The railway unions also want action on the recommendations of the Cullen report. Although everyone accepts that safety is the top priority, we need the mechanisms to deliver it; the trade unions must be part of that process.

There has been massive investment in the railways. All the changes demonstrate that the £60 billion investment programme for Britain's railways will be critical in putting our railways back on a secure footing.

Bruce Crawford talked extensively about our powers in Scotland. I asked him to tell me the differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK in relation to directions and guidance on franchises to the SRA. He could not do so. The answer is that the wording is exactly the same; exactly the same wording in the Transport Act 2000 applies to negotiations on franchises. Bruce Crawford did not even know that.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

David (None, Lothians)

No. The minister is into her last minute.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

It is vital that we decide on franchises within a UK context. That is John Prescott's overarching power. Scotland has devolved powers within that UK framework, under what is otherwise known as the McLeish settlement. It is important that we have such powers. We have the ability to influence and set the key terms for the rail network in Scotland and we have new investment from our public transport fund and freight facilities grants. Although we have the opportunity to define the shape of Scotland's railways through the passenger franchise system, it must be done within an overall UK framework. We need to exercise our devolved powers to get the best possible deal for Scotland. However, we intend to exercise those powers within the context of a GB rail network that delivers for every passenger and freight company throughout the UK. We are working towards that objective.

Although rail passengers have had an appalling time of late, I have outlined what the UK Government is doing—and what the Scottish Executive is doing in partnership with Westminster—to ensure that, over the next generation, the railways in Scotland are transformed into the kind of railways that people want. That is the purpose of our consultation exercise.

I move amendment S1M-1461.2, to leave out from "with concern" to end and insert:

"the progress being made by the Scottish Executive to build a sustainable, effective and integrated transport system which provides genuine choice and delivers a safe, accessible and expanding Scottish rail system as an integral part of the GB rail network."

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Not for the first time, the SNP has lodged a motion that its spokesperson barely addressed in the opening speech, as a variety of alternative issues were introduced. Bruce Crawford's opening pitch related to safety matters and the Health and Safety Executive. We might have had an interesting debate on that issue had the SNP lodged such a motion. Instead, Mr Crawford spent most of his speech simply outlining a catalogue of woe about the railway industry in Britain. He had plenty to say about that because, of course, there is plenty to say about it.

Surely the value of having a debate on a specific motion is to analyse the problems and then prescribe some remedies relating to that analysis.

We had a moment of analysis towards the end of Bruce Crawford's speech when he said that the situation that we face is the result of the fragmentation of the rail system. However, the nearest that he came to suggesting a remedy for that was to propose the further fragmentation of the railway system by divorcing the Scottish rail network from the UK network and, by doing so, separating out the Government's management and organisation of the industry on an Anglo-Scottish basis.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No.

The remedy that Bruce Crawford suggested was additional powers for ministers. Additional powers to do what? In all the cases that Bruce Crawford outlined, what analysis did he give and what subsequent explanation did he offer of how transferring any area of policy or management from the UK Government to the Scottish Executive would address those problems?

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

When Mr Prescott announced the £180 billion in May, he said that the Government would fund a substantial increase in the role of light rail in our larger cities. He talked, in the long term, about 25 cities having new light rail systems to address the problem of congestion. However, a letter from the DETR, dated 1 December, says:

"The funding for light rail schemes mentioned in the 10 Year Plan is therefore for England only."

It is therefore important for members of this Parliament to get their hands on the levers of power.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

As the Executive promotes its policies, we might find that the issue of light rail could reasonably be addressed in Scotland. I am not aware that there is any definitive Government policy that says that in no way will taxpayers' money ever be used to support light rail initiatives in this country. However, there are currently no light rail schemes to be supported in Scotland.

Bruce Crawford has not addressed the fact that the strategic rail authority is not yet in place or the fact that the infrastructure investment funds have not yet been set up. The only fund that has been set up has advanced a substantial sum of money to help to promote the crossrail scheme in Edinburgh. He makes an important point, nevertheless, and I am interested in the extent to which Scotland will receive a share of the public sector money and the related pump-primed private sector investment. I am not convinced that the Executive has cleared up how it will tap into that money—that is an aspect of the problem.

However, what did Bruce Crawford say about managing the railways and about the franchises?

What deficiency did he identify in the Executive's ability to shape the next ScotRail franchise? Members will agree that there were too many franchise companies, but that applied to the UK as a whole, not to Scotland. No one is suggesting that there is anything wrong with having a Scottish franchise. The problem that has been identified with the Scottish franchise is that, like the others, it is too short and has not stimulated enough investment.

Another principal difficulty concerns the role of Railtrack. By and large, the problems in Scotland are not caused by the train-operating companies, which have invested substantially—they may not have received sufficient quality from their manufacturers, but they have invested. The difficulties have been with the management and maintenance of Railtrack, and I am critical of the role of the UK Government in that. There has been overregulation. The Government has had a role in deterring Railtrack from carrying out essential maintenance because the company has been concerned about the penalties, although belatedly it has put safety before consideration of the penalties.

That issue should be addressed on a UK basis, because the principal difficulties have arisen on the main lines that run across the border, not on those that run inside Scotland. No Scottish approach has been taken, nor a Scottish solution found, to UK problems of the Government's relationship with Railtrack and its investment in, and support for, that company.

If, on another day, Bruce Crawford chooses to lodge a specific motion that identifies specific powers to address specific issues and to achieve specific ends, he might win some support. However, today's debate is about none of those things; it is about associating politicians in this Parliament with disasters in the rail industry and trying to suggest that, if the SNP had control of matters and Scotland were divorced from England, life would somehow be better. That is a perfectly respectable case to argue. However, the Parliament is entitled to expect that, next time Bruce Crawford lodges such a motion, he will produce some analysis, evidence and argument to support a claim that, in the absence of such support, appears ridiculous and opportunistic to the rest of us.

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

I do not need to tell members that the economy of any area is largely dependent on the existence of an efficient and affordable transport infrastructure. That can be demonstrated clearly in much of rural Scotland, especially in the Highlands and Islands, where the transport infrastructure is limited and, in many cases, non-existent.

We hear a great deal about the development in and around the capital of the Highlands, Inverness, much of which would not have taken place without the massive improvements to the A9 trunk road from Perth to Inverness. Those improvements have allowed developments to proceed at quite a pace, but much more needs to be done and we must consider what further improvements are required to the north, west and east of Inverness.

Like everywhere else, the Highlands region is dependent on the rail infrastructure. Transport policies that are drawn up in London and Edinburgh must reflect that to a greater extent than, unfortunately, they have so far. The most obvious example of that is the problem with fuel pricing throughout Scotland, which we have tried to address in this Parliament. That problem has continued for some time, but nothing much seems to be being done to address it. It has a serious effect on the economy of the Highlands, as the distances are greater, the fuel is more expensive and public transport is inadequate because of the costs and the logistics.

Recent statistics suggest that 20 per cent of overseas tourism in the Highlands has been lost because British Airways decided to cut its Heathrow air link. There are further plans to cut the long-haul air links from Gatwick and the fear is that the number of overseas visitors will drop further, affecting our tourism even more seriously.

The recent rail disruptions and flooding in England have highlighted our dependence on the rail infrastructure. Companies that use the overnight service to London for the transportation of fresh produce—a number of them have approached me lately—have incurred considerable and on-going costs because their goods can no longer reach the capital in time for the markets. That is having a serious effect on small businesses throughout the Highlands.

In the past year, the Scottish Executive has encouraged the use of rail transportation north of Perth through its freight facilities grant. Many companies have been supported through that initiative. Applications for that support would increase if the process was made easier; currently, they take up to six months to process, which is absurd. I am sure that the system could be streamlined.

That initiative was a step in the right direction. However, I travel regularly up and down the A9 and see many articulated vehicles on that road. Companies are not being sufficiently encouraged to use the railways for transportation; I would like the Executive to do more about that.

The Scottish Executive and the shadow strategic rail authority must liaise to find a competitive pricing regime that would allow rail operators to compete with the road hauliers and help small businesses to transport their cargoes by rail. I have received many complaints that the application process for the freight facilities grant is too complicated and that it is difficult to gain approval for a grant. The process takes six months, but it should take around six weeks. In the months ahead, the Scottish Executive must address that problem if it expects the grant scheme to work.

The current problems with the railways will not encourage people to use them. We must establish an efficient and dependable rail system. Railtrack has failed to do its job and passengers and freight users have been made to suffer for the shareholders' benefit. Today's problems are testimony to the lack of investment in the rail infrastructure by successive Governments. I hope that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive will ensure that much more support is given to the rail industry, so that we can have an efficient, affordable and appropriate rail infrastructure.

David (None, Lothians)

We now come to the open debate. I should point out that we are running a little bit behind time.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

What is Murray Tosh on? Whatever it is, I want some.

I want to address the human element of the crisis on our railways. I travel almost every day on the Glasgow-Edinburgh railway line, as do many members of this Parliament. In fact, 3 million passengers travel on that route every year, with many of them getting on at interim stations such as Falkirk, Croy and Linlithgow. The situation on the railways has highlighted the failure of the industry to cope with emergencies and has brought to light the lack of protection for passengers on trains. The frequency of the trains between Edinburgh and Glasgow has decreased from one every 15 minutes to one every half hour. That has resulted in even more overcrowded and cramped trains on that line, with passengers not being able to board trains because they are full, and has raised serious safety issues. The situation is much the same across the country, but I have specific knowledge of that route.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I appreciate what Gil Paterson is saying. However, could he explain what there is in the motion or in the argument that has been advanced today that would have led to anything different happening in relation to the washed-away track in Polmont or the difficulties that ScotRail is having with its rolling stock? The motion is irrelevant to those issues.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I got a fright—I thought that Mr Tosh was going to tell me what he was on. I will come on to the points that he raises later in my speech.

I have worked in the motor industry for most of my life and I know that the regulations governing the number of people who are allowed on road vehicles are strict, as are the requirements for safety measures such as belts and air bags. There are maximum passenger capacities for buses, cars and planes, but I am bewildered and amazed that no such regulations exist for trains. In fact, there are practically no health and safety regulations at all.

The perception is that, because the trains are built to such a high specification and provide a walk-on service, there is no danger to passengers and no need to regulate numbers. However, in recent weeks, the dangers to passengers as a result of the rail crisis have highlighted the need for health and safety regulations and an increase in the carrying capacity to cope with passenger numbers. A colleague of mine told of a pregnant woman who was forced to crouch on the floor because she was feeling ill and was unable to stand. The train was overcrowded and packed to the doors, which meant that there was no room to get her to a seat. Many members will be aware that, recently, at Linlithgow station, the police had to be called because of the number of people who were trying to get on to the train. The scary fact is that if all the people had physically been able to get on the train, there would have been no health and safety rules to stop them. A few weeks ago, a train's doors flew open as it passed through a tunnel. Luckily, no one fell out—that time.

Frequent commuters are fed up. How passengers from Falkirk, Polmont and Linlithgow put up with standing all the way to Edinburgh day after day is beyond me. Over the crisis period, timetables have been cut, there are longer journey times and there are less frequent trains. The ones that are running are dangerously overcrowded and uncomfortable for passengers. Passengers should be able to expect a level of service in keeping with the ticket price, but they are not receiving that.

Rail users have lost confidence in the rail industry. The privatised and fragmented system is inadequate and does not serve the people of Scotland. The Scottish Parliament needs to have the power to take action to ensure that rail safety and passenger safety are not compromised for financial gain. People should get what they pay for—a seat on the train.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Listening to Murray Tosh, I was reminded of the wee boy who wet the bed and blamed it on the blankets. It is interesting that he talks about analysis and the fragmentation of the railway and says that this debate is only about associating politicians with disaster. It is no wonder that he did not want to have today's debate. He should be associated with this disaster as it was his party that privatised the railways in the first place and that is what has led to the disaster: the fragmentation and the pursuit of profit over the pursuit of public safety. He should be willing to take—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I am only seven seconds into my speech. I will allow the member to intervene shortly, even though he did not let me intervene during his speech.

Today's debate is artificial. It is artificial because the one demand that has massive public support, which has been raised by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and which has even been raised by normally conservative and cautious commentators such as Mr Kerevan in The Scotsman and Mr Macwhirter in The Herald, has not been allowed into the debate. The demand is that the Scottish Parliament should call on the Westminster Government to renationalise the railways. That demand is clearly overwhelmingly supported by the public.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Surely it is the responsibility of political leadership not to fan such economic nonsense and to lead people to believe that answers can be found by diverting billions away from investment and towards the purchase of Railtrack?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

That is a fine point. In 1996, when rail privatisation was completed, the rail infrastructure had been sold off by the Tories for £1.9 billion. Two years later, it was valued on the stock exchange at £8 billion. The Government has announced a public subsidy for next year of £4.9 billion and a 10-year subsidy of £26 billion. We are investing in the privatised rail network 13 times as much as it was sold off for; we are investing more than was invested in the publicly owned rail network.

The problem for Murray Tosh's party is that it tried to make a private concern out of the public railway and failed miserably in the attempt. It failed because the pursuit of public safety is incompatible with the pursuit of private profit. We have 100 operating companies and Railtrack as the structural company. All of them are serving shareholders to the extent that, despite the loss of innocent lives at Hatfield, Ladbroke Grove and Paddington, Railtrack's shareholders had pay-outs of £50 million last year and £53 million this year. While people are killed on the railways, the private shareholders get an increase in profit. That is the problem with our railway network. That is why we should bring into today's debate an analysis that concludes that we need to restructure our railway network under public control and public management.

It is a pity that the Conservatives sold the rail network off and it is a grave pity that Labour is no longer willing to support its renationalisation. It would have been interesting if my amendment had been accepted as I know that many members of the SNP support the renationalisation of the rail network. I know that the party supported it in 1992, but I feel that it might not support it now. I would have liked to see how many SNP members still support the idea. We have demands for more control and more influence when what we need is public control and public ownership.

I will finish with a wee story from Rory Bremner, one of the finest comics and impersonators in Scotland. Two friends are sitting in the pub, one of them looking very glum. The other one says, "What's wrong with you?" His friend says, "I had my car stolen the other night." "Oh, that's terrible," says his friend. "It's worse than that," says the first guy. "Why is it worse than that?" "Because the guy who stole it chapped on my door and offered to sell it back to me." "But that's theft!" exclaims the friend. "No," says the first guy, "That's privatisation." That is the problem.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

We have had a number of debates on railway matters in recent weeks, including two useful ones on some of the rail issues in the city of Glasgow. Today's debate, however, is not a transport debate, but an independence debate masquerading as a transport debate, as Murray Tosh correctly indicated earlier. It comes from what used to be called the Alex-in-wonderland school of politics, which maintains that a cascade of gold will descend on Scotland and that all our problems will be solved if only Scotland obtains its independence and gets rid of the wicked United Kingdom.

In view of the change in the Scottish National Party leadership, we should perhaps rename it "The Johnny and the Magic Roundabout Story". "Boing!" said Zebedee, "We've solved the roads problem—a billion pounds. Boing, boing! Great railway system we've got now." That is the SNP approach. Nothing in what was said in Bruce Crawford's introductory remarks detracted from that analysis, such as it is, of what the SNP is proposing.

The problems on the railways are primarily caused by a lack of investment. On the roads, despite the eventual U-turn by the Conservative Government on its big roads policy, the Tories fathered a whole generation of potholes with resource cuts to local government. It is on the railways, however, that their 20 years of neglect and their dismissal of the public interest bore most heavily. We are paying in spades for that with the present disruption in the rail system. Countries that fail to learn from history are condemned to relive it, and there are sinister parallels between the Tories' botched, failed rail privatisation and new Labour's privatisation of air traffic control, with its disregard for the crucial issue of public safety.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Could Mr Brown clarify that? I am aware of the remarks made by Don Foster MP, among others. Is it the policy of the Liberal party in the UK that the railways should be taken back into public ownership? Is that the policy of the Liberal party in this Parliament?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The issue is not one of privatisation or nationalisation. Things have moved on in that regard. The issue is about the botched way in which the privatisation was carried out and the fragmentation of the system. That is the legacy that we are living with; that is the main problem caused by the manner in which the Tories brought about the break-up of the railway system.

The SNP solution offers a further break-up of a network that is already dominated by fragmentation. It is irrelevant and unworkable; it is dogmatic nonsense. The proper way forward is for the investment and strategy of the basic intercity network to be directed at a UK level, through the SRA, on which the Scottish Executive has a nominee and into which it has an input. As Sarah Boyack made clear, the way forward is partnership between the Scottish Executive and the various other interests. Matters concerning the railways do not stop at the border. Scottish passengers and freight and the Scottish economy, despite the claims of the SNP, all have a clear, relevant interest in the effectiveness of the rail links on the east and west coasts down to the south.

I will finish on a point that is perhaps not totally germane to the motion. The cross-party group on strategic rail was briefed recently by Great North Eastern Railway on how it was tackling the problems on its section of the rail network. In that discussion, GNER confirmed that it is one train down as a result of the Hatfield accident. It also stated that securing the delivery of new railway engines took three years. That is quite an important background issue to the whole situation, particularly with regard to what we heard recently about the problems with the Turbostar trains.

There may be some potential for the Government and the Scottish Executive to look more closely at the way in which we organise the delivery of railway trains and engines to the network. That is a significant problem, in addition to the problems with Railtrack that have been identified. I ask the minister to consider that issue when she winds up for the Executive.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I wish to do something novel in this debate: I want to address the motion. I do not think that the SNP members have addressed many of the issues, particularly following other members' interventions.

When I stand on a platform or in a crowded train, I do not hear passengers saying that they want powers to be transferred to Scotland; they want solutions to problems. The Minister for Transport has underlined the fact that some of those solutions are now being legislated for. The SNP motion has singularly failed to address that.

I have no problem with matters being dealt with at a UK level when that is the best level, which is the case with health and safety, infrastructure and investment. [Interruption.] I will be happy to take interventions if members have something to say. The infrastructure has been separated, and there are problems with that, including the fact that the operating companies do not feel responsible for the maintenance of the lines, given Railtrack's role. The SRA is to deliver that necessary integration.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I thank Andy Kerr for agreeing to take interventions. I asked the minister this question, but I also ask it of Andy in his capacity as convener of the powerful Transport and the Environment Committee: does he accept that those who work in the rail industry are demanding the renationalisation of that industry? Does he personally support that?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I have met representatives of rail industry trade unions, and I have not heard them advocate the position outlined in the SNP's motion. I am happy to read in this morning's newspapers that John Prescott's office is giving a clear indication that he will be taking very strict measures on 1 February if the rail industry has not sorted out the problems. That is a reserved matter, however, and I respect my colleagues in Westminster enough to trust that they will make their decisions based on the advice and information that they are getting. I will express my views on the matter when they have done so. That is only fair.

I believe in the devolved settlement and in the respective roles of this Parliament and of the Westminster Parliament. I hope that the issues will be dealt with on 1 February. If the question on nationalisation that Tommy Sheridan raised is brought up at that point, we can consider that.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Does Andy Kerr agree that the SNP completely failed to address its own motion, particularly with regard to the increased fragmentation that its provisions would bring to the industry, that that fragmentation would introduce a further lack of clarity on responsibility for safety issues and that the costs of running the network would possibly increase as a result?

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Andy Kerr had to phone a friend.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am happy to take interventions. Dorothy-Grace Elder attempts to intervene from a sedentary position—that is her problem, not mine.

I agree with Bristow Muldoon's position, and with the fact that the points in the motion have at no stage been addressed by the SNP in this debate. Its members talk about Railtrack and the difficulties with the lines. What do they want to do? They want to fragment further the systems and structures that currently exist. I do not understand it. In the UK and Scotland, we have a concordat, and there is discussion and channelling of information among ministers north and south of the border.

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

Perhaps Andy Kerr can tell me what changed between the publication of "Travel Choices for Scotland", which made it plain that the Minister for Transport would have the power to give instruction, and the current situation, in which it is possible to give direction and guidance. If the Minister for Transport and the Executive had had that power to give instruction, action might have been taken a lot earlier. What has changed?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I took the time to attend the minister's press conference on the franchise agreement process. I am happy with the powers that she has under the system, and that she will be able to deliver what Scotland needs for its railways.

I will close on this point. I believe that there are a number of similarities between the SNP and Railtrack. First, the SNP would close all lines south of the border at any opportunity, at an hour's notice. Secondly, the SNP is constantly changing its timetable for independence. Thirdly, like Railtrack, the SNP is constantly demanding bigger handouts from the Treasury. Fourthly—

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

rose—

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I have taken three interventions, and, as I said, I am closing, thank you very much.

Fourthly, the SNP promises bigger dividends, but, sure as fate, it becomes less popular in doing so. Lastly—I think that this one fits very well—the SNP, like Railtrack, has difficulty reaching London, and will now reintroduce some older rolling stock.

David (None, Lothians)

We now come to the closing speeches, and we are running about seven minutes behind, which means cutting into the next debate. I therefore appeal for brief closing speeches.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I will be brief, as my closing comments have been stolen by the previous speaker. I am sad that this debate has not been about what it should have been about: the future of Scotland's railways. A strategic document has been published by the Scottish Executive, asking for views about how our railways should be developed. I am sad that the SNP instead chooses to have a debate on the sterile arguments that it always brings forward about future relationships and independence, rather than one on a current issue—on a document that has been published for comments on the future of our railways.

I use the railways daily. I know how important it is to invest in them, and I know that we can make changes through the Scottish Parliament. Through representation, I have succeeded in the past few weeks in getting a rail service restored in north-east Fife. It has been agreed to restore a cut service from next May, when the new timetable is published. That is an example of the positive things that the Scottish Parliament can do.

We have control over our railways. The Scottish Executive is able to direct ScotRail, Railtrack and the SRA on how the Scottish rail service is developed. We have strong powers to make changes to how Scotland's railways operate. It is sad that Murray Tosh should forget that the problems in our rail service result from lack of investment over many years. In their 18 years of control in Scotland, the Conservatives failed to invest in our rail service.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I make the point that I have made before in the chamber: the purpose of privatisation was to increase investment dramatically. Privatisation has done that, as was proved when Tommy Sheridan rattled off the valuations and when we talked about the problems with the new rolling stock. That rolling stock resulted from massive expenditure by the train-operating companies. In principle, privatisation is a considerable success.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Privatisation has not been a considerable success. The Conservatives did it very badly. Even those who are involved in the rail network will say that privatisation failed to address the key issues of safety and service improvement because it put profit first. It is generally accepted that Railtrack is a shambles, and that that is the case because it was privatised badly by the Conservatives. Nobody can deny that. I am sorry that Murray Tosh thinks that it was done well.

It would not be sensible to renationalise the rail network because that would be a waste of public money. We should concentrate on investing in the rail network.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The member says that it would be a waste of public money to renationalise the privatised rail network, yet, as I have said today, we are now investing 13 times more public money in the privatised network than the amount for which the network was sold off. Does that represent value for money?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

In discussing renationalisation people forget that what is important is how much is invested in the railways rather than who owns them. The problem is that the Conservatives' privatisation of the rail network failed to ensure proper investment after 18 years of underinvestment by the Conservative Government. We now need to ensure that, regardless of whether the rail network is publicly or privately owned, it receives investment to improve services.

I had intended to finish on the five similarities between Railtrack and the SNP, but, unfortunately, that comparison was stolen by the previous speaker. However, there is one similarity that he forgot. Sadly, like Railtrack, the SNP's bandwagon keeps coming off the rails. This bad motion is yet another example of that. The SNP should concentrate on investment in our public services and saying what it would do to improve Scotland's rail service. The motion fails to do that.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I can agree with only the opening part of the SNP motion, which is:

"That the Parliament notes with concern and anger the crisis in the rail network in Scotland".

Thereafter, there is the usual nationalist message, with which, members will not be surprised to hear, I cannot agree. I think that Murray Tosh has seen it off. As Andy Kerr said, even the SNP did not address its own motion.

Yesterday's report from the House of Commons Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, which accused Railtrack of losing sight of its "core responsibility" to run safe railways, is deeply worrying and cannot be ignored. Like my Westminster colleagues, I have doubts about the composition of a Railtrack board, only two of whose seven members are experts on railways. However, the SNP is calling for the Scottish Parliament to have more control over Scotland's railways. Although that will happen in due course in a devolved and integrated way, extra control by this Parliament will not necessarily lead to a better or safer railway, if the Executive's accident-prone record is anything to go by.

Tommy Sheridan and Bruce Crawford will be pleased to hear that I think that there has been too much fragmentation of what was once British Rail. That matter needs to be addressed at a strategic level. Although I will probably not agree with the detail, John Prescott is doing that.

I believe that more fundamental work needs to be done on the design of the track. My limited engineering experience suggests to me that perhaps rails need to be redesigned to cope with the increased loadings that they now carry. Rail design has not changed in 100 years. Gauge corner cracking is not a new problem, but it is more common now due to increased stresses and strains.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the member agree that one of the major problems with the rails is the fact that 15,000 rail maintenance workers have been laid off since privatisation?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Privatisation is about raising capital. The Conservative Government recognised that and privatised the rail network so that capital could be raised on the stock market and investment would be made by the company. The fact that the company did not do that is down to the fact that the regulators did not do their job. The Government should have ensured that the regulators did their job.

Gauge corner cracking is more common because of the extra stresses and strains that are caused by increased speeds and loadings. As a former engineer, I call for an expert review of rail and track design. That is fundamental.

A further problem, which must be addressed locally, is the timely introduction of new rolling stock. On the Ayr-Glasgow line, the introduction of the new Juniper class trains, which was due to occur this year, has slipped back until 2001. ScotRail now hopes that those trains will be introduced by May 2001. I, too, hope that they will be. As a passenger on that line, I declare an interest: passengers on that route have suffered too many delays and too much discomfort for far too long.

Both Tommy Sheridan and the minister spoke of the legacy that was left by the Tories. The fact is that privatisation worked. Privatisation is not an exact science. Where the process failed was in the underinvestment by Railtrack and the ineffectiveness of the regulator. I make that point as strongly as I can.

I welcome the minister's greater emphasis on safety and her adoption of the Cullen report.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

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

The member must finish as he is almost a minute over time.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I welcome what John Farquhar Munro said about the need to look after railways in relation to tourism and freight.

It is a pity that Robert Brown and Iain Smith do not get together with their colleague Don Foster, who as recently as last month advocated the full nationalisation of the railways. What else can we expect from the Liberals? The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Many important points have been made in this debate to which it is worth replying.

It is rich of the SNP to criticise the powers that come to us through the McLeish settlement and the UK Transport Act 2000 without analysing the extent to which we are using them or saying how it would use the list of powers that are identified in the motion.

Bruce Crawford seems to be obsessed with the framework of directions and guidance to the strategic rail authority. I make it clear that Scottish ministers have sole responsibility for issuing directions and guidance to the strategic rail authority in relation to the franchise that operates rail services that start and end in Scotland, and for sleeper services that are run by that franchise within a national framework.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No. The member will sum up in a few minutes.

The powers are the same as for franchises across the UK. Members—Bruce Crawford more than anyone—will know that when we discuss bills in committees, we change the wording. The critical point is how we use our powers and how they mesh into the wider UK framework.

Murray Tosh spoke about the importance of tapping into the SRA and about how it will identify the criteria for new investment. That is critical and that is why we are discussing with the shadow strategic rail authority freight strategy and the criteria for its investment programme. The Executive is prepared to invest huge amounts of public sector money in the rail industry.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

rose—

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

It is right that we should get value for that investment. That is why we need a regulatory framework. One of the weaknesses that we have inherited is the fact that the lack of investment in the railways has left us with a backlog of maintenance work. It is now being addressed. It is vital that there should be a regulatory framework.

The franchise process works. Lord Cullen's inquiry will give pointers to the future, which the UK Government can take on board. The Government is working through the railway recovery plan and, on the Scottish franchise, in discussion with us to provide future investment.

John Farquhar Munro made some critical points about the freight industry. Given the events of the past few weeks, it is absolutely right that most of our attention has been on passengers, but freight is also vital for the future not just of the north of Scotland, but of the whole of Scotland. That is why we are making £36 million of investment available to freight services over the next three years and why we have invested £19 million already.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No, thank you.

We are keen to work with the whole rail industry. We set up the rail industry forum in Scotland to enable the rail industry's passenger and freight interests and direct passenger interests to participate in discussions with the Scottish Executive. That will allow us to work together.

Robert Brown made an extremely important point about the ability of the train operating companies to obtain new rolling stock, the need for which is another legacy of underinvestment. Creating manufacturing capacity from a standing start is a tough job. Massive investment, through the various franchises, is being made in new rolling stock across Scotland and the UK.

No one from the SNP has been prepared to say what that party would do with the powers that it seeks. We are absolutely clear that we are using our powers to the full. Scotland's railways will benefit from being part of a dramatically reshaped rail safety regime across the UK. We are in a loop with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and UK ministers and are involved in the discussions on how that regime will be progressed. We will benefit from the £60 billion that will come through the GB spending plan for railways.

Light rail is an issue that we must deal with in Scotland. We have already held a debate on light rail in Scotland and I am sure that there will be others. In England, the proposals are much further ahead than they are in Scotland. I say to Bruce Crawford that that is the simple reality—it is the challenge that faces us in Scotland. Light rail is referred to in our rail franchise paper as one of the key issues that the new franchise must take on board.

The money will come from Scottish investment—from the Scottish block—but there are no proposals in front of us. Fiona McLeod might want to address that when she sums up the debate for the SNP. The direct investment that we will make in the Scottish franchise is worth £200 million in public support in the current financial year. We will look to the new franchise to increase the supply of rail services across Scotland.

Over the next three years, £150 million will be invested through the public transport fund.

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

Will the minister give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No, thank you.

In Scotland, we benefit from having the best train operating company in Great Britain after Island Line on the Isle of Wight. Broadly speaking, ScotRail has done a good job over the past few years. Even during the current crisis, nearly all ScotRail's services operated a normal timetable within a short period.

The points made by Gil Paterson about the Edinburgh to Glasgow line are relevant. That line was disrupted because of track speed restrictions but, as Gil Paterson knows, given that he is a regular user of the service, the journey time is getting back to just over an hour and the line should operate at full capacity in the new year.

Passengers in Scotland and across the UK have had a tough couple of months. However, the critical point that people should take from the debate is that we have new powers and new investment. We will use those powers to their full extent. Scotland's railways must be part of an integrated UK transport system. Rail can help to reduce congestion, peripherality and social exclusion. It can assist economic development and will generate environmental gains. However, Scotland's railways will achieve those broad objectives only if they are an integral part of a GB network. Therefore, we must have powers in Scotland, as well as liaising with the UK Government. That is precisely what we are doing and I call on the chamber to support the Executive's amendment.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Today's debate has fallen into three main areas: safety, ministerial powers and money—money is always mentioned. I thought that members would talk mainly about safety. I am surprised that everyone picked up on the issue of ministerial powers.

We have heard that the SNP wants to fragment the railways even further—

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will the member give way?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I would prefer to get started.

I take issue with the implication that the SNP wants to fragment the railways even further.

The minister said throughout the debate that she has powers and that the Transport Act 2000 will give her more. I draw her attention to the fact that the House of Commons made it clear that, under sections 208 and 209 of the act, the strategic rail authority will not have to comply with directions or guidance from Scottish ministers that are not consistent with guidance from the secretary of state. The SNP's point is that power over the strategic review of railways in Scotland must lie in Scotland and must not be at the mercy of the secretary of state in England and Wales.

The minister also talked about the £50 million compensation package that will be available to passengers. If the minister travelled on the Edinburgh to Glasgow rail line every day of the week, as Gil Paterson and I do, she would hear that passengers do not want compensation—they want the money to be invested to ensure that they have a safe and reliable railway.

We must also consider why the minister and the Tories' Murray Tosh are happy that someone else will decide what happens in Scotland. The power to direct the railways in Scotland on behalf of passengers must lie in Scotland. That power must not be exercised at the behest of a secretary of state in England.

We must achieve Scottish powers that are good for Scotland's railways. We would not be in the position that we are in today if we had been able to instruct ScotRail and Railtrack.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Every member who has spoken in the debate has invited the SNP to say how it would use such powers. Fiona McLeod has yet to do so. Would she set up a separate health and safety executive in Scotland? Would she set out separate guidelines on safety specifications for Scotland? She has not answered those points.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Come independence, there will be a separate and independent health and safety executive in Scotland. On that point—

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will the member give way?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

No. Bristow Muldoon should sit down. He has been up and down like a jack-in-the-box all morning.

Let us consider the money that is involved. Last year, Railtrack's profits were £421 million. The Health and Safety Executive's funding for its work throughout the UK was £182 million. The debate is about putting profit before safety. Perhaps we would be able to invest in safety first in an independent Scotland.

The minister also asked whether we would have the same guidelines in Scotland as are in place in the rest of the UK. I draw to her attention the fact that, after the Hatfield incident, Bruce Crawford and I met Railtrack a week before she did. We were told that, in Scotland, Railtrack applied guidelines plus—the staff whom we met were proud of the fact that the guidelines for Railtrack in Scotland are better than the guidelines for the rest of the UK. However, while we were pleased to hear that we already have better guidelines, we were not pleased that guidelines plus has resulted in 250 miles of track needing to be replaced.

Independence and power in Scotland will ensure that Scotland's railways do not again get into the mess that they are in today.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

What about the detail?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The detail is there—the problem is that the minister cannot come up with the money and does not have the power to do anything with it anyway.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Will the member give way?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am sorry, but I am conscious that we are short of time—I have only four minutes.

I want to conclude by repeating the point that the SNP has made throughout the debate. The SNP wants power in Scotland so that there is parliamentary oversight of the railways in Scotland. That would ensure that the massive public subsidies that already go to Railtrack, to which Tommy Sheridan referred, deliver a public service in Scotland and reflect the desires and the demands of the people of this country.

Health Care

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

The next item of business is a Scottish National Party debate on motion S1M-1453, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on health and community care, and two amendments to that motion.

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Later this morning, the Minister for Health and Community Care will make a statement to Parliament on the health plan. I understand that, following a briefing on Friday, details of that health plan were carried by the media. Only this morning, the Minister for Health and Community Care gave an interview on "Good Morning Scotland".

Presiding Officer, once again I urge you to intervene. As you are well aware, the Parliamentary Bureau agrees to give the Executive parliamentary time to make ministerial statements. In future, unless the SNP can be guaranteed that those statements will be made first to Parliament, we might be forced into an opposing position.

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

On a point of order. We must draw a line between what is a statement and what is a non-specific comment. Anyone who heard the minister on "Good Morning Scotland" and then on Radio 5 this morning will agree that she gave away no details of the statement and spoke only in general terms. The statement will be made in the chamber.

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

To Tricia Marwick I would say that Sir David Steel has repeatedly made it clear that Government proposals should be announced to Parliament before being unleashed on the airwaves or in newsprint. However, as Mike Watson says, there is a difference between general intention and specific policy. It is a fine line but, on this occasion, I feel that the minister came down on the right side of it.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I will begin by placing on record the fact that this is the second Opposition debate on health and community care within a few weeks that Susan Deacon has not bothered to attend. In more ways than one, the Minister for Health and Community Care is treating Parliament with contempt.

Later this morning, after two years in office, the minister will publish a plan for the future of the national health service in Scotland. If the newspapers are to be believed—and they certainly appear to know more about the contents of that plan than the rest of us—I am sure that it will contain much that members will enthusiastically welcome and support. It is unfortunate that the Executive has chosen not to have a full parliamentary debate on a document that has been billed as the blueprint for the future of the NHS. Instead, the Executive has chosen to announce it in a 45-minute ministerial statement. That is inadequate and is the reason why the SNP has opted to have this debate.

If we are to judge and properly assess the impact of the health plan, it is essential that we first face the reality of the NHS in Scotland today. The reality is that after nearly four years of a Labour Government, the NHS remains in the perilous state it was in when the Conservatives left office. According to the Executive's own opinion survey, only 13 per cent of Scots believe that there have been any improvements in the health service under Labour. What an indictment.

In some key areas, things have actually got worse. Let us consider the facts. In its first year in office, Labour cut spending on the health service. Not even the Tories managed to do that in their 18 long years in office; yet it was one of the first things that Labour did when it returned to power in 1997. Today, there are nearly 900 fewer nurses in our hospitals than there were when Labour came to power. At the start of December, in her announcement on winter pressures, Susan Deacon promised additional nurses in every health board area; of course, she omitted to specify exactly how many. The reality is that it will take an additional 900 nurses just to get back to the position that we were in when the Tories left office. I do not remember anyone—least of all Labour members—asserting that that is satisfactory.

The fundamental question that the minister always fails to answer whenever she promises additional nurses is this: where will they come from? At present, more than 800 nursing posts are vacant in Scotland—and more than 200 of those have been vacant for more than three months. There is a shortage of nurses in Scotland that must be addressed if even the immediate targets of the NHS are to be met.

Let us consider one example. In a letter to me dated 5 December, Greater Glasgow Health Board said that, even at this late stage, it is likely that its winter plans will have to be revised if it is unable to employ sufficient additional staff. The Executive has said that trusts should use agency and bank nurses—notwithstanding the fact that that flies in the face of advice from the Accounts Commission that bank and agency staff should be used only in unforeseen circumstances. Not even Susan Deacon could describe winter pressures as unforeseen. However, even if we accept the use of those nurses as a short-term fix to get us through the winter, it does not begin to address the longer-term problem. The truth is that Scotland is losing nurses hand over fist. According to the Royal College of Nursing, the drop-out rate for nursing students in Scotland is at its highest for four years. The Executive is doing next to nothing to reverse that trend.

Under Labour we are losing not only nurses. Scotland has 3,000 fewer beds now than it did when Labour came to power—another example of Labour's failure to preserve, let alone improve, our health service. A further 3,000 beds are blocked—one in 10 of the total number of beds in Scotland. They are occupied by people who do not need to be there but who cannot access the care that they need in other, more appropriate, settings. Two weeks ago, Susan Deacon promised 700 new beds—less than a quarter of those that have disappeared under Labour. Failure to deliver after failure to deliver—that is Labour's record on health.

On waiting times, it is the same story—failure to deliver. And while I am talking about failure to deliver, it is appropriate that I should give way to a Conservative.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

And one who is asking whether Ms Sturgeon has a solution to something. Do the nationalists have a plan to make better use of the private sector care homes that could help to unblock beds?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

If David Davidson cares to wait, all will be revealed. That is a promise on which I will deliver.

In 1999, the pledge was to bring down the time that patients wait to see a consultant; yet, nearly two years later, there has been virtually no reduction in those waiting times. We also have waiting lists, which no one on the Labour benches is keen to talk about these days. In 1997, we were promised that Labour would get waiting lists down and keep them down. In 1997, 84,600 people in Scotland were waiting for care; this year, 86,500 are waiting, a hike of nearly 2,000 since Labour came into office.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Not just now.

Of course, Ms Deacon will argue that that was not her pledge, but London Labour's pledge, and that it was all Tony Blair's fault. However, her pledge in 1999 was to cut waiting lists by 10,000. Despite that pledge, in the past year waiting lists in Scotland have gone up by 11,000—a 15 per cent increase in just 12 months. It does not matter which way we look at it, or whose pledge we choose: either way, Labour has failed to deliver on the key pledge to run our health service on which it was elected.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Ms Sturgeon focuses once again on waiting lists, yet her predecessor, Mrs Ullrich, said that focusing on waiting lists was crude. Will the SNP make its mind up: is it focusing on waiting lists or waiting times?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The SNP was not elected on a pledge to reduce waiting lists; that Labour lot was. As an Opposition party, we will hold Labour to account on that pledge.

Let me move on to the implementation of the Sutherland report and the paying of personal care costs for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. There was a broad consensus in support of that in Scotland, including support from the Parliament's Health and Community Care Committee. However, nearly two years after Sutherland reported, we still do not know where the Executive stands on paying for personal care. In October, Susan Deacon said no; a few weeks later, Henry McLeish said yes. Now we hear that that commitment is not in Labour's programme for government. Astonishingly, it is Susan Deacon, the Minister for Health and Community Care, whose job it is to fight the corner of people who would benefit from free personal care, who is arguing against it. Have we ever heard the like—a Health and Community Care Minister who is turning down the opportunity to help pensioners? If that is true, Susan Deacon will not be forgiven. If it is not true, let us hear from Mr Chisholm today a clear and unambiguous statement of the Executive's position. I ask the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care: will the Executive pay for personal care or not? Yes or no?

Even by the standards that it has set, Labour's record to date is one of failure to deliver: failure to implement Sutherland, fewer beds and nurses, and longer waiting lists. Those are the issues that people want addressed. That is why the plan that Susan Deacon will outline later today is so important. Expectations are very high, and rightly so. Like most other members, I do not know with any certainty what the plan will contain, although I would like to put on record my thanks to Scottish newspapers for giving me some handy hints. I am sure that the plan will contain a great deal that the SNP will support in principle—structural changes to cut bureaucracy, better patient involvement, national standards, a service designed around lives as they are lived today, and initiatives to improve our nation's public health. Those are aspirations that the SNP will support without reservation. However, a document that consists of aspirations, targets and pledges alone will not do—especially from a Government that has already shown that its pledges are not worth the paper that they are written on. Gone are the days when Labour made promises on health and the people of Scotland were expected to take a leap of faith.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

rose—

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Not just now. Scotland wants—and expects to see—a substantial and detailed blueprint for change, a set of proposals and initiatives that will tackle real problems. We are entitled to expect that of a plan that has taken the Government almost two years to produce—not simply a pledge to reduce waiting times by 2003 or some other date but a clear statement of how that will be done; not a vague promise of more doctors and nurses but a detailed strategy to address the shortfall of doctors and nurses. There must be clarity about how each of the initiatives in the plan will be funded.

On the question of resources, I turn to the Executive's amendment. It is the Executive's right to assert that it is spending record amounts on health, just as it is my right to argue that Scotland deserves more, that we should not have smaller increases than those south of the border and that our health budget should not be subject to a Barnett squeeze that will cost us over £300 million over the next three years.

That is an important argument and it will not go away. However, I put it to one side for the moment because there is a more fundamental issue to address, which I hope members can recognise and agree on. Whatever additional money is being invested in the NHS, it is not bearing fruit in substantial improvements in health or in the quality of the health service in Scotland. It is more money for fewer beds, fewer nurses and longer waiting lists and for a quality of care that too often depends on where a person lives rather than their needs. The problems in the NHS are not about just money, but about the management of resources at all levels of the service. There is a lack of transparency and accountability in the NHS that makes it absolutely impossible to track how money is spent, from when it is announced to when it is spent by boards or trusts. That is unacceptable. If democratisation and patient involvement are to mean anything, that must change and change quickly.

If Susan Deacon is determined to cut bureaucracy I will support her. However, after four years of a Labour Government and a reorganisation last year that clearly did not go far enough to solve the problems in the health service, we cannot wait a further five years for a structure that will deliver for patients in Scotland.

This morning the SNP seeks to set the context for Susan Deacon's publication of the health plan later today. That context is an NHS that is sound in principle, served by dedicated doctors, nurses and other staff, but an NHS that, under Labour, is struggling to meet the demands that are made of it every day of every week of the year.

The SNP is also setting out clearly and exactly what is expected of a Government that has a serious credibility problem when it comes to delivering on health pledges. I expect to welcome many of the aspirations in the health plan when they are officially announced to Parliament later today. However, what counts is delivery. On behalf of the SNP, I give an assurance that we will be constructive in our approach. We will inevitably disagree with the Executive on many things, and as an Opposition party we will put forward our own policies and alternative proposals and approaches, but where we can agree we will. For example, if the Executive wants the SNP's support to speed up changes that will benefit patients in Scotland it will be given it. However, I also give notice to Susan Deacon—it is unfortunate that she is not here to hear it—that she will be held to account on the basis of the document that she is about to publish. Whether it is on waiting lists or waiting times, or on doctors and nurses, the days of Labour promising big but failing to deliver for the people of Scotland on its health pledges are over. Labour will be held to account—I give that guarantee.

I move,

That the Parliament is concerned that there are 3,000 fewer beds in the NHS than in 1997 and a further 3,000 beds occupied by patients ready for discharge; is further concerned that there are 900 fewer nurses than in 1996 and that hospital waiting lists have increased by 15% since September 1999; believes that the policies of the Scottish Executive to date have not adequately addressed these issues; notes the imminent publication of the Scottish Health Plan, and calls on the Scottish Executive to include in that plan practical and adequately funded proposals that will ease the pressure on hard pressed NHS staff and deliver real improvements to the quality of care provided to patients in Scotland.

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

There is a discrepancy between the list of members who wish to speak that I have been given, and the information on my screen. I ask any member who wishes to speak and has not yet pressed his or her button to do so now, so that I can do my sums.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

As I emphasised in the previous debate on health and community care, we recognise and are acting on the problem of delayed discharges. As Susan Deacon will also say in just over an hour's time, we are determined to make more progress on reducing waiting times. However, the SNP motion completely fails to understand the changing nature of modern health care or to acknowledge the very real progress that has been made.

The health service is treating more patients than ever before. Last year, 43,000 more patients were treated than in 1997. There were 50,000 more day surgery cases in 2000 than in 1997. For example, in 1999, 57 per cent of cataract extractions were performed as day surgery compared to only 28 per cent three years previously. That trend has nothing whatever to do with cost considerations; it is championed by the leading clinicians in Scotland because the results show quicker, better outcomes for patients. That is the modern NHS: built around the patient to provide convenient services while maintaining high clinical standards. I could give many other examples, such as nurse-led clinics, which are particularly effective in the management of chronic conditions such as asthma, or one-stop clinics, of which there now 2,202. That is a pledge made by the Executive and delivered two years in advance of the target.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care denying that there are now fewer nurses, fewer beds and longer waiting lists in Scotland than there were when Labour came to power four years ago?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I am dealing with exactly those issues: beds first, then nurses, then waiting.

A consequence of the trend that I have outlined is that fewer NHS beds are required. Moreover, the average length of time a patient stays in a hospital bed is also declining. In 1990, for example, the average length of stay in an acute Scottish hospital bed was 6.9 days and now it is 5.2 days. The average occupancy rate of acute hospital beds has risen from 72.3 per cent in 1990 to 76.5 per cent this year. That means hospitals are making better use of the beds.

That said, the reduction in acute beds accounts for a very small part of the overall figure referred to in the motion. As one would expect, almost the entire reduction in bed numbers is in long-stay specialties. That is where the policy of caring for patients in their homes, or in the community as close to home as possible, is having the biggest impact. There has been a substantial transfer of resources and staff from the NHS to social work authorities and that must be remembered when bed and staffing figures are thrown around in debate. For example, there has been a welcome reduction of nearly 900 beds in long-stay, learning disability hospitals. Is the SNP objecting to that? That means not less care, but better care in the right place, which is the community.

There is plenty of scope to increase bed numbers when that is necessary, as evidenced by the 700 extra beds being opened this winter and the 20 per cent increase in critical care beds when required. I will end my comments on beds with a comparison with England, since the SNP likes that. We have 2.96 acute beds per 1,000 population, compared with 2.18 south of the border and we have 6.87 hospital beds per 1,000 population compared with 3.84 in England.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care says that there has been a transfer of resources from the NHS to social work, but is not it the case that many people in Scotland are complaining that services in the community are not in place? For example, there has been a reduction of around 29,000 home care hours over the past two years. Where is the transfer of resources? It is not being felt where people need the services.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

We are building up services in the community and that is precisely what I am about to address. I want to continue without interruption because there is a lot in the motion to which to respond.

The SNP has claimed that 3,000 hospital beds are occupied by patients who are ready for discharge. The SNP is, of course, taking a uniquely narrow definition of the issue. The extensive survey of patients waiting for discharge, which was published on 4 December, shows that just over 1,900 people were waiting for more than the standard planning period of six weeks following a clinical decision on discharge. Of course, that is still too high. That is why we are taking comprehensive and robust action with the NHS and social work departments to tackle delays in discharges. We have allocated £19 million in the current financial year to local authorities and the NHS, specifically to tackle delayed discharges. That money is in addition to the specific winter money for extra beds and nurses and so on.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I must press on as I have only five minutes.

The NHS and local authorities are using the extra resources to work together and develop joint, long-term solutions to tackle the problem of delayed discharges. The Executive will monitor the effectiveness of plans at all stages and we will ensure the spread of good practice in reducing delayed discharges. The problem has existed for 25 years and more, and will not be solved overnight, but solving it will be a key priority. We have already demonstrated that—not just in the delayed discharge money to which I referred, but in the £100 million package announced by Susan Deacon on 5 October. The home care packages, the rapid response teams and the £5 million for aids and adaptations this year will all help to build community capacity and deal with the problem of delayed discharges. That was our top priority in responding to the Sutherland report on 5 October and is the background to our current review of personal care. Without going further into that matter at this point, I want to caution Nicola Sturgeon against believing everything that she reads in the newspaper.

I will move on to health service staff numbers.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I am sorry but I do not have time to take interventions.

We have been taken to task this morning on nurse numbers. It is true that total nursing staff numbers are very slightly down on 1996 levels, by about 500 whole-time equivalents. However, at the same time, the number of qualified nurses within the NHS is rising: the whole-time equivalent figure is up by about 270 since 1996 and we have funded an additional 210 specialist nurses in priority areas this year. That is on top of local winter increases, such as 240 extra nurses simply in Lothian.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I am sorry, but I have only three minutes left.

The trends are even better in relation to nursing students. The number of nursing and midwifery students has increased steadily over the past four years by around 12 per cent, and the numbers will increase by a further 3 per cent this year. Over the next five years, 10,000 nurses and midwives will qualify in Scotland—that is 1,500 more than previously planned. We should remember that, on top of the numbers of NHS nurses to which Nicola Sturgeon referred, there are many nurses who work in nursing homes. There was an increase of 3,000 places in nursing homes between 1996 and 1999.

I turn to the fourth point in the motion, which is waiting lists. I find that rather odd, since it was not so long ago that the SNP health spokesperson, Kay Ullrich, told us that it was not waiting lists that mattered, but waiting times.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

No. I would love to give way for the rest of the day, but I have less than two minutes.

From the point of view of the person on the waiting list, there is no doubt that it is the time of the wait that matters. Let us remember that 43 per cent of patients receive immediate treatment and do not join the waiting list. Let us remember that for those who have to wait, the median waiting time has declined steadily over the past three years to 31 days. The average wait on a waiting list in Scotland is 31 days compared to nearly 90 days in England. Let us remember that 83 per cent of patients who go on to a list are treated within three months. Of course I would like to see even better figures and a further reduction in the maximum waiting time, which is currently set at 12 months. However, we must wait to hear more on that later.

I have described some of the significant achievements of the NHS in Scotland over the past few years. I want to take the opportunity to record our recognition of the commitment and sheer hard work of health care workers throughout the health service. I want them to know that they have our support and appreciation for the effort that they make on our behalf.

Our support goes much further than words. The last figures that I want to quote are money numbers. The Executive is spending £481 million more in the NHS in Scotland this year than last. In September, we announced that health spending would go on increasing at record levels to nearly £7 billion a year by 2003-04; that means £1.2 billion extra over the next three years, on top of this year's record increase. That record investment will be combined with further reform and change to deliver more and more improvements for patients.

I move amendment S1M-1453.1, to leave out from "is concerned" to end and insert:

"notes the fact that the NHS in Scotland is treating more patients than ever before and welcomes the fact that funding for the NHS in Scotland is being increased by record amounts over the period 2000-04, and looks forward to further modernisation and change in the interests of patients."

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Indeed, we have a grand Parliament—we are gathered together to discuss a Scottish health plan about which we know nothing. The plan was delivered about five minutes ago to my colleague, Ben Wallace.

In this Parliament—we who shall not be lobbied, who are so squeaky clean, who cannot accept a gift that that may influence our thinking, who have a Standards Committee and a Procedures Committee and who are so worried about lobbygate and sleaze—such is the way of things that I find that I have to phone up journalists to ask for information on the Scottish health plan in order to contribute to today's debate and respond to statements. If that practice continues, I will have to consider purchasing a few brown paper envelopes and arranging a few clandestine meetings, just to get some information for future debates. We could criticise the SNP for using its time to debate an unreleased health plan. But why not? After all, the health plan was not leaked to the press—it was briefed to the press.

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

I would advise the member to speak to the motion.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Why do we need a health plan? Precisely because, as the motion states, there are 3,000 blocked beds, waiting lists are rising by 15 per cent a year—in the past year in Tayside they have risen by 48 per cent because our hospital finances are in the red—there is a 10 to 20 per cent increase in emergency admissions, there are more hospital-acquired infections and there was a tragic winter crisis last year. Those are the reasons why we need a health plan. The minister's abolition of the internal market was not a great success. Even the Royal College of General Practitioners has said that clear benefits relating to the monitoring of the quality of hospital services, which were inherent in the internal market, have been lost, to the detriment of patient care. How right that is.

We need a health plan because Labour said that things could only get better. However, after Labour's four years in government, an extensive MORI poll showed that only 13 per cent of Scots—that is one in eight—thought that things had got better. It is time for drastic action. We also need a health plan after Tony Blair's television performance on Tuesday night. He is the man who follows drying paint and is told only the good news. To think that John Swinney and David McLetchie wrote to ITV to express their concerns.

A few weeks ago, the minister briefed us on the health plan. She talked about rewiring rather than restructuring the NHS. Well, the next time that I need an electrician, I know who not to call. The primary care trusts have had 18 months in which to make things work. Even managers in the Scottish Premier League get more time to build a winning team.

We read, courtesy of Tom Peterkin of Scotland on Sunday and Douglas Fraser of The Herald, that savings will be reinvested in patient care. Will that be on the same basis as the previous £44 million savings that were reinvested in the writing-off of Glasgow's housing debt?

We also read—my colleague, Ben Wallace, has just confirmed this—that councillors will be represented on the new health boards. Given the well-documented mess that councils have made of care in the community, the dissatisfaction with councils that was clearly shown by the MORI poll, the wait for assessments, the wait for treatment once assessed and the complete lack of openness and accountability, it is clear that the councils have created many of the problems that the Administration now faces. Unless care in the community is in place under a single budget with personal care being paid for, the NHS will continue to suffer from council-made problems. I do not remember ever seeing or hearing a councillor accept responsibility for the failings of care in the community. The only thing that matters is that people get the care and treatment that they expect, when they expect it, and in the hospital that they want.

Given that people are waiting longer than ever, with 2,000 more on the waiting list in Scotland than when Labour came to power, will the Executive clearly state its policy on the complementary role of the private health sector? If Jim Norris of Dunfermline can be treated privately on the basis that the NHS wait would have put him out of business, and his employees out of work, and then be able to claim the full cost of treatment—£1,500—from Fife Health Board, does that rule apply to all? The Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care must answer that today.

Why is there no word of the use of private beds to treat NHS patients when the service cannot cope, despite that being at the heart of Tony Blair's plan in England? Will the Scottish health plan address many of the points in the motion by agreeing with some of the points in the English health plan? I quote Alan Milburn:

"The time has now come for the NHS to engage more constructively with the private sector."

Again, Alan Milburn said:

"Ideological boundaries . . . should not stand in the way of . . . care for NHS patients."

Finally, Alan Milburn said:

"NHS care will remain free at the point of delivery, whether care is provided by an NHS hospital, a local GP, a private sector hospital or by a voluntary organisation."

Will we have equality of treatment in Scotland, or does no leak mean no commitment?

The thousands of frail and elderly people in Scotland are not interested in grandiose national plans. They want to know simply that they will be cared for with dignity and respect. We need to know whether the elderly will be given Henry McLeish care, Susan Deacon care, or Peter McMahon spin. That is not in the programme for government, so is that an admission that the issue is not at the heart of government? The elderly need to know.

I move amendment S1M-1453.2, to insert at end:

"and further notes the Royal Commission on Long Term Care's recommendation on free personal care and calls upon the Scottish Executive to unequivocally commit itself to this recommendation and come forward with a firm date for its implementation."

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

On a point of order. Everybody seems to have a copy of the ministerial statement except the MSPs who are debating the subject. Can you instruct the clerks to circulate a copy of the statement to all members in the chamber?

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

Yes, we shall do what we can to assist that request. That is a different matter from the point of order raised by Tricia Marwick earlier. The sufficiency and advance notice of information are matters for the parties, but they are much to be encouraged.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is a bit rich for the Tories to talk about "grandiose national plans" after they messed up the situation in the first place, with the ideologically driven introduction of the internal market, which I opposed. The trouble is that the Tories are now so far to the right that they cannot be seen over the horizon after the next. I see that Frank McAveety is gesturing. That is his interpretation; how could I possibly comment?

I wish to make two important points. I am glad that there is close co-operation between the Executive and the Conservative party—I agree with the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care that they need all the help they can get—but I do not see why the Conservatives should have advance notice of the national plan before the party in partnership with Labour.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

rose—

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

rose—

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I have hardly started. Sit down and be quiet, Mr Neil, and do not be so excitable.

My second point is that I concur with comments that have been made about advance leaking to the press, whether it is briefing or

"sources close to the minister"

as some of the press refer to it. It is contempt of Parliament and the Executive has to stop it. It is also not in the Executive's interest because, as the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care knows—it has been pointed out to me—some of the briefings are open to misinterpretation by the press. He will know that we in this chamber are much more reliable than are the media in the gallery. Their shorthand may be rusty, but I would rather that we gave a first-hand comment on the Executive's plan than that there was a second-hand interpretation through our colleagues in the press, nice though they are. I say that in the spirit of Christmas.

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

All right Mr Raffan.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The press are nice, but inaccurate.

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

Order. Mr Raffan, speak to the motion. I dealt with this matter earlier. I made it clear that given what happened this morning, the Presiding Officers will continually review whether members are speaking to the motion. Get on with the subject, please.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am happy to get on with the subject, but—and I do not challenge your ruling—it is important that members in all parties have a right to make that point, particularly when we are in partnership with the Labour party.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On a point of order. I wish to clear up a misunderstanding. I do not have a copy of the ministerial statement; I have a copy of the NHS plan, which was forwarded to all members of the Health and Community Care Committee this morning. It will be sitting in their e-mail inboxes and those of certain members in all parties. Agreement for that was reached through the Parliamentary Bureau and the Health and Community Care Committee. If some members cannot be bothered to look at their e-mails, we should not be blamed.

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

That matter is being given attention by the health department staff in the chamber.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Perhaps as finance spokesman I am just used to a department that has been more co-operative and given us more advance notice of documents. I hope that that will spread to the health department. I am sure that the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care will take that in the spirit in which it is intended.

I say to the SNP that two of the three dates in the motion are prior to the inception of this Parliament. The spokesman for the SNP made several points about the Labour Government since 1997; we have had a Labour-Liberal Democrat partnership Government in Scotland since 1999.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. I make that clear because our party has made clear its criticism of the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, that while he is committed to long-term planning in public spending he has, according to The Economist last week, engaged in "bust and boom spending". It is no good having a commitment to long-term public spending and not practising it. That has led to a lot of the problems that the NHS has faced. We have continuously made that point as a Westminster party.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I must get on. I have made a crucial point about resources. We are happy to take our share of responsibility for the current position and for putting right things that are wrong, but we are not prepared to take any share of responsibility for the period before 1999. The SNP wants independence for Scotland, but it perpetually confuses Westminster and Holyrood and the different positions in those Parliaments.

I wish to address delayed discharge, lengthening waiting times and nurse recruitment. One of the key priorities of my party has been a department of health and community care to co-ordinate resource allocation and to co-ordinate the work of health and social services in local government. I know from the three health boards in my area that such co-ordination has not filtered down sufficiently into effective working co-operation between health boards, health trusts and local authorities. We had Executive packages on 4 July and 5 October to help with home care, but more needs to be done.

The issue of waiting times reveals the confusion within the SNP and the difference between the current spokesman and her predecessor, namely the muddled thinking over whether waiting lists or waiting times are the SNP's priority. It was in our manifesto, Labour's manifesto and the partnership agreement that waiting times were the priority. The First Minister was right to say on 23 November:

"It is vital that we have a consistent set of measures that everyone can use as a benchmark."—[Official Report, 23 November 2000; Vol 9, c 401.]

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am happy to take on Mr Raffan on waiting times. Perhaps he can comment on the fact that the number of patients who have been waiting for more than a year has increased by more than 43 per cent since 1997. Does he think that that is a good record?

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I made it clear that we take responsibility from 1999.

The SNP chooses whatever date suits it. That is its trouble. SNP members are long on diagnosis and short on treatment. In the last part of Miss Sturgeon's speech, she referred to alternative policies, but gave no details whatever about them. She indicates that the policies will be produced in due time, but we will never see their policies.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

rose—

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have already given way to Miss Robison.

It is a favourite trick in debates to say that a party will produce policies nearer the time of the election. Which one? When will we see details of the SNP's policies? Until the SNP provides alternative detailed policies, any attack on the Executive will be blunted. It is as simple as that.

I am nearing the end of my allotted time, but I hope that I will have some injury time. I am concerned about waiting times. The emphasis on them is important—they should be the consistent benchmark.

The recent Royal College of Nursing research paints a stark picture on nurse recruitment. There is difficulty in attracting younger nurses and the imminent departure on retirement of a large number of nurses who are over 50 will aggravate the situation. I am concerned about the increasing dependence on agency nurses. I met one of the chairmen of my local acute trusts, who talked about the high expense of the Christmas shifts for agency nurses, yet he has no option but increasingly to rely on them. He said that for the cost of employing 33 agency nurses, he could have 45 full-time, permanent nurses. It is also undesirable for patients continually to see different faces and in some cases to have nurses asking what is wrong with them. There is a problem with agency nurses that the Executive must address.

I will quickly make three proposals on pay, careers and conditions. It is clear that improved pay for nurses must be considered on a UK-wide basis. The recruitment position will not improve dramatically until we do that. A much clearer career structure is needed. The appointment of 12 nurse consultants in Scotland is simply not enough to develop a career structure.

As for conditions, Liberal Democrats have long advocated more flexible hours to help staff to meet family commitments. That issue was taken up in the most recent edition of the Nursing Times. I commend that to members, because it made the point succinctly.

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

Right, that is it, Mr Raffan.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Okay. Thank you.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

On a point of order. Will the Presiding Officer give a ruling on the release of statements and information, as was requested? Although the press statement has been requested, no member in the chamber has received it. No copies are available. I think that the Executive is holding Parliament in contempt.

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

I have made it clear that investigations are being conducted about which documents will be available, and when. Members will be informed about that as soon as information comes to hand. We will push on now with the debate. Members have a maximum of four minutes.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

The motion refers to policies that have not adequately addressed issues. Surely the greatest health issue of all for ministers is telling the public and Parliament the truth and listening to criticism. Today, all members can see that Malcolm Chisholm has been dumped with the debate. I have the greatest respect for Malcolm, whom I have known for years, but he is only newly in his job as Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care. He did not conceive the policies. Miss Susan Deacon did that, but the jammy dodger is not with us. She has dumped Malcolm right in it. Where is she? Has she now reached radio Rockall in her desperation for publicity? Is she on daytime TV in Arizona, drowning in the electronic lens of the Executive's narcissism?

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

That is enough of that. Please move on to the motion.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

What members face, and what the Executive's behaviour today exemplifies, is the virus of secrecy and the old ways that have spread from Westminster to this shiny, almost new Parliament, such as the old way of not facing the truth. The most appalling example of that lies in the great duvet of waffle that the Minister for Health and Community Care has cast over the Parliament for the past 18 months. She has almost suffocated us with Labour newspeak.

Failure to tell people clearly and precisely what is happening with health issues can be deadly. The worst case of that is the terrible treatment of Scottish haemophilia sufferers, which is a searing scandal. The missing minister has even dodged their representatives.

One third—some say up to a half—of people with haemophilia in Scotland are estimated to have been infected with hepatitis C through contaminated blood products in the 1980s. Despite that, the minister cleared the so-called experts of the time, skipped over the heinous responsibility of the contemporary politicians and offered not one penny of compensation to people whose lives have been wrecked.

As parliamentarians heard during the transport debate, Railtrack will have to pay £240 million in compensation to train companies because trains have run late. What about the lives that will end early because the wrong political decisions were taken in the 1980s? We now know that, at that time, it was known that something existed that was called non-A, non-B hepatitis. The minister told our Health and Community Care Committee that hepatitis C was not identified until about 1991. That was truthful and correct. It was not identified as hepatitis C but, thanks to The Scotsman, it has been revealed that, in the 1980s—

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

On a point of order. Keith Raffan was—rightly—interrupted by the Presiding Officer for failing to address the motion. With due respect, Presiding Officer, I request that Dorothy-Grace Elder be asked to return to the terms of the SNP motion.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I am addressing the motion. I started by making it clear—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Order.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I made it very, very clear that the motion referred to policies that were not—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Order. I have still to respond to Dr Simpson's point of order.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Pardon me for interrupting, Presiding Officer.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Dr Simpson is absolutely right. Ms Elder has already been advised that she should stick to the terms of the motion. I would be grateful if she did that now.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I refer to the part of the motion that says that the Executive's policies have not adequately addressed issues. Surely the greatest issue of all in health is telling the truth, and that is the overall policy issue that I am trying to address.

It has now been revealed that, in the 1980s—and, it is suspected, back into the 1970s—non-A, non-B hepatitis existed.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

On a point of order.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Oh, come on.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Dorothy-Grace Elder is continuing to address haemophilia.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Yes, why not?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

If we are to have a debate on haemophilia, all members must be allowed to participate. We should not have to listen to Dorothy-Grace Elder's lies. Will she be stopped?

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I beg your pardon?

On a point of order. Dr Simpson should be censured.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Please may I deal with one point of order before the next? Thank you.

Dr Simpson's substantive point is correct. I would be grateful if Ms Elder stuck to the motion, as she has twice been asked to do. However, I ask Dr Simpson to withdraw his previous remark.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

They were gross distortions, rather than lies.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I think that Dr Simpson should withdraw his remark more accurately.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The motion asks that the Parliament

"notes the imminent publication of the Scottish Health Plan, and calls on the Scottish Executive to include in that plan practical and adequately funded proposals".

Haemophilia is a legitimate issue in the terms of the motion.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I thank Mr Neil for reading out the motion. I have it in front of me. I ask Ms Elder to stick strictly to the terms of the motion, which I am sure she has read.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I understand Dr Simpson's reluctance when it comes to this issue being aired. I will ask the minister one question before I finish my speech. I have been told that haemophilia patients from Perth informed the minister, long before The Scotsman was informed, that documents exist to prove that a form of hepatitis C was known to exist in the 1970s and 1980s. I invite the minister to address that point—which should have been addressed in the plan. I urge that truth be brought to bear on all health issues because—perhaps unlike others—health is an area in which lives are often at stake and honesty is needed. I urge members to support the motion.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Before I call the next speaker, I want to make it clear that, in a motion as wide ranging as this, members may of course raise points of more general interest, but they must be in the context of the motion.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I am not sure whether I should make a declaration, but I refer members to my membership of various medical societies.

It has taken Nicola Sturgeon only two debates in her new position as Scottish National Party spokesperson on health to reach, in this motion, what is probably the lowest point. To dissect the motion, one needs the skills of a forensic pathologist, since it is so buried in the past that it bears little resemblance to a modern party's approach to health. For a party that would like us to think that it is an alternative Government in waiting, the motion is a disgrace.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

No, not yet.

Let me explain first, then I will allow— [Interruption.] Later.

First, let us deal with bed reductions. If I were in opposition, the aspect of our Government that I would attack is that we are moving too slowly on bed reductions. I have spent a professional lifetime as a psychiatrist trying to persuade Government after Government to provide decent, effective support to people in their own homes—including supported, group and sheltered homes—so that we do not continue the bad old habits of putting people with learning difficulties into asylums and large hospitals and, in essence, forgetting about them.

An 80-year-old constituent was recently given a new lease of life on their release from the Royal Scottish National hospital to a group home. In its motion, the SNP is saying to that patient, "We are sorry—we will reopen your bed and put you back into old-fashioned care."

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I will take the point in a moment.

The 3,000 beds that have been closed are long-stay beds that were long overdue for closure. Will the SNP come back to us in two and a half years' time, in 2003, when we have closed a further 2,300 learning disability beds, and say, "More bed reductions"? Let us have a clear policy—Nicola Sturgeon promised it to us in her speech, but she revealed nothing of the positive policies of the SNP. Will the SNP support us in closing the beds that are long overdue for closure? We should accelerate the closure.

In her new brief, Nicola Sturgeon should indulge in some reading. For her Christmas stocking, I suggest Irving Goffman's "Asylums", which was written in the 1960s, but is a seminal work on institutionalisation. In fact, I will buy it for her.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank Dr Simpson. For the record, will he first clarify whether he is denying the essential facts in the SNP motion? Secondly, does he think that when waiting lists are rising at a rate of 15 per cent and waiting times are not going down, a 5 per cent reduction in acute beds is justified?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I will come to that.

It is not that the facts in the motion are wrong; it is that they are so irrelevant and so damaging to the development of modern health care that they are a disgrace. That is the problem.

Scotland has proportionately substantially more acute beds than England. Why? Because we in Scotland have not moved as fast in introducing day care operations. Will the SNP really say to us, "We want to reverse that policy"? I will give some examples. Is the SNP saying, for example, that we should return to the point in the 1960s when there was a maternity lie-in period of 14 days after having a baby? Or does it accept that the length of time in hospital for maternity is now two days and dropping because we are providing better care and getting people home more quickly?

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Some women do not want to be hustled out of hospital after two and a half days. As the member knows, some women subsequently develop severe problems and are glad to return to hospital. Some would wish to be in hospital for a week or more.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

And there are others who want to go in, have the baby, and come out again within a few hours—we are not adequately supporting them yet either.

There are plenty of areas on which the SNP can criticise the Government—we are not moving fast enough on many issues—but the motion is a disgrace.

Delayed discharge is also mentioned in the motion.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Very briefly, please.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I hope that you will give me a little latitude, as I have been interrupted at length.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I have to ask you to wind up, Dr Simpson.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I will wind up.

For the first time, we have a proper information services division survey of delayed discharges. They are the first accurate figures that we have ever had, but instead of concentrating on some positive policies and supporting the suggestions that I have made to ministers—for example, that because we now have the information we should have targets to say that no one should wait in delayed discharge for more than a year or nine months and that we should clear the orthopaedic bed waiting lists to deal with the orthopaedic bed problems—the SNP comes out with a bland statement.

I am utterly appalled at the motion. Of the SNP's motions on health, it will be one of the easiest to vote against. In the past, the SNP has talked some sense. There is plenty of scope for constructive criticism and encouragement, but the motion is appalling and I hope that the chamber will reject it.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Before I call the next speakers, I advise members that copies of the ministerial statement are now available at the Scottish Parliament information centre desk at the back of the chamber.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

There has been much discussion this morning of waiting lists and beds and there have been challenges to discuss waiting times.

I want to highlight the situation in the Grampian health authority area, which contains about one tenth of the population of Scotland. The most up-to-date figures show that almost half of all Scotland's patients who are waiting beyond the guaranteed waiting times live in that area. That is a disgrace. Such significant disparities in what is supposed to be a national health service represent exactly the kind of situation that is not acceptable.

It is not only about waiting longer than the guaranteed waiting times for various procedures; there is a similar problem with waiting for referral to a specialist.

Grampian has the highest percentages of patients who are waiting beyond nine weeks and beyond 18 weeks. Waiting times are a better measure of need than waiting lists, but even waiting times mask the fact that there is greater need in some procedures than in others. We have not yet found a measure that adequately addresses that, but if we consider figures relating to real needs and real demands—not artificial ones—Grampian has the worst figures in Scotland. The balance there is so out of kilter that the Administration must address the matter relatively quickly.

An attempt was made in the Arbuthnott report to address the measure of need across the health service in Scotland, but the Arbuthnott formula will exacerbate the situation in Grampian because the area will be one of the significant losers. I suggest to the minister that, in addressing health needs and in relation to the health plan, we should measure needs directly, rather than use the indirect measures that Arbuthnott relies on heavily. I ask the minister to consider the detail of the Arbuthnott formula to see whether those important measures can be addressed.

On the acute sector, the Grampian University Hospitals NHS Trust medical advisory committee has told us that the trust is in crisis because it does not have the resources to tackle the problems. It is having difficulty recruiting and retaining staff. The difficulty with retaining staff arises because the work load in Grampian is disproportionate. That can be seen in the information and statistics division figures, which suggest that the throughput per member of staff across a range of specialties is much higher in Grampian than in other areas.

The Arbuthnott formula will drive the process in the wrong direction. We will get to a point in the cycle at which it will be difficult to recruit anybody, because no one will be attracted to work in Grampian because the work load there is much higher than it is in other parts of the country. I hope that the minister will address that point.

I recently got a letter from the daughter of a 90-year-old patient who is now ready for discharge. A suitable place is available for her, but the finance is not in place and will not be for another nine months. That is utterly unacceptable. It is terrible economics: it costs £1,600 a week to maintain someone in a hospital bed, but only a little over £300 a week to keep them in a residential home. It makes no sense whatsoever and we must consider the transfer of resources to tackle those specific needs.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Before I get into any deep trouble, I should say that I think I have assessed roughly where the SNP was supposed to be going this morning. It was going to address capacity, discharge, staffing and resources. I hope that you agree, Presiding Officer, that I am on the right subject. However, we have not heard any solutions at all today, and that is what I would like Miss Sturgeon to tell us. The temptress as usual, she said that all would be revealed, but she did not answer a single point today.

The capacity shortage means that we have to balance the access to private facilities that will help out in key areas of the health service. We must do that in a measured and responsible way that does not mean that the health service gives up control or ceases to measure the standards.

I strongly support some of what Brian Adam said about Grampian. He talked about a delay in patients being seen. On Saturday, someone came to my surgery to tell me of a problem with a relative who had only one good eye and had developed a cataract. That patient was told that they will not be seen until next May. When I followed that through, I was told that the situation is a result of a problem with staffing and resources. It is not that the system will not work; it is a question of attracting and retaining people at the right level throughout the Scottish health service.

Scotland's shortages in key hospital medical posts are twice those of the rest of the UK. We produce more people through the Scottish universities, but we export them and cannot attract them back into the system. That is a key part of the problem.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I do not disagree with too much of what David Davidson has said so far about addressing shortages in medical specialties. Will he tell us about the Conservatives' manifesto commitment to have modern matrons? Can he tell Parliament what modern matrons are and how they would be different from ward sisters?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

If Pauline McNeill reads Mr Milburn's plan, she will find that he has adopted that idea in full.

We have now got to a stage—this alters how people get through the system—where much of the equipment in Scotland's hospitals is beginning to approach the end of its fit-for-purpose period. It is still functioning, but spare parts are becoming a problem. In Grampian alone, it will cost £6 million to maintain and upgrade equipment. Across the whole of Scotland, a large sum of money will be required, but it will speed up access and treatment. People will not have to be tied up in hospital if the equipment is in place. If we have the equipment, we also need the trained staff to operate it.

The medics tell us time and again that the medico-political dynamics are causing tensions. In other words, the minister cannot decide that three areas only are the priorities of care when the illness that presents itself at any one time is the most important illness to the patient and to the clinician. We must have an assurance from the minister that clinicians will be free to prioritise according to their specialties.

Staff shortages have already been mentioned, but there is another important aspect of that issue that affects Scotland's teaching hospitals. Where hospitals have an academic role there are also shortages and tremendous pressure on staff. As Brian Adam rightly said, that puts an additional load on them. At the next stage, there is also a problem with the allocation of research funding in teaching hospitals, which must also be examined.

The Arbuthnott report goes very badly against many parts of the health service in Scotland, particularly those where demand is rising. Arbuthnott does not recognise that the health service—the minister put down the SNP for not talking about our modern health service—is now a demand-led service.

There is a range of issues that we must address and I hope that the health plan will address them. We must ensure that we control the rate of removal of beds from hospitals and work to ensure that people can be cared for in the community. That will mean additional resources and staffing will be needed in the community, which is the best place for many patients, as Richard Simpson said. To do that, however, we must also have a proper linkage with our schools of medicine, nursing and dentistry.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I was entertained earlier in the debate when I heard what I thought were rehearsals for the Scottish panto season. We heard cries from across the chamber of "Oh, yes it is!" and "Oh, no it's not!" There seemed to be a discussion between Nicola Sturgeon and Kay Ullrich about whether they were talking about waiting times or waiting lists. One was saying "Oh, yes it is!" and the other was saying "Oh, no it's not!" In my opinion, however, the pièce de résistance was the Widow Twankey performance from Dorothy-Grace Elder, which focused accurately on the issues of today's discussion.

Many members who have contributed to the debate missed some of the key elements of the issue. A whole package of resources is now available throughout Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will Mr McAveety give way?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I shall let Nicola Sturgeon intervene in a moment, once she has had a few more rehearsals.

We want to deal with the issue of how to connect health spending to the other fundamental issues involved in changing the health of Scotland. The health plan that Susan Deacon will advocate today will address many of those issues in a much more integrated and strategic way. It is not sufficient to talk about health without addressing housing, educational attainment and opportunity, and employment. Those are the connections that seem to have been missed by the Opposition spokespersons today.

We have substantially more resources in the Scottish health service per head of population than the health service elsewhere in the UK has. It is not solely a question of the resource base; it is a question of managing and advocating those resources.