Scottish Parliament, 22 November 2001

325 contributions from 80 members. The official report.

Introduction

Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill: Stage 1

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

Good morning. The first item of business is—

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry not to have given you notice of this point of order. A notice has been issued to members of the press regarding a visit to the chamber this afternoon by Mr Iain Duncan Smith. The final item in that notice reads:

"1515-1540: Mr Duncan Smith will be available for media interviews in the Black and White corridor".

Who gave permission for that to happen? Why was that permission given? Are reciprocal rights being granted to members of the Parliament to be interviewed in the lobby of the House of Commons? Has anybody, perhaps in the Conservative party, told Mr Duncan Smith that he will be a distraction from another event in the chamber this afternoon? I cannot imagine that many people will wish to address him.

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

As you rightly said, Mr Russell, you did not give me advance notice of that point of order. I will reflect and consult on it and come back to the chamber with a response as early as possible.

As I was saying, the first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2307, in the name of Angus MacKay, on the general principles of the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The bill is short but important for Scottish local government. It is a significant measure in providing stability for councils to do their job and in developing and strengthening local democracy throughout Scotland.

As members know, a three-month consultation period began at the end of March. There were more than 80 responses to the consultation, and all but one of Scotland's councils responded. The consultation responses show strong support for the measures in the bill.

The bill has three main provisions. The first is a four-year mandate for councillors. The second relates to council elections being rescheduled to coincide with ordinary elections of the Scottish Parliament and cancels the planned 2002 council elections. The third main element is a provision for ministers to approve pilot schemes for the modernisation of the administration of council elections. I will consider each of those measures in turn.

The four-year mandate for councillors is part of a process of trying to provide greater stability and better planning horizons for councils. It fits well with other measures that we have taken for more budgetary stability, such as introducing three-year budgets and, in turn, councils setting three-year council tax levels. Those provide the stability and greater planning horizons that everybody in local government has sought for many years.

The reorganisation of local government in 1995 shortened the term of councillors to three years. That is widely regarded as a mistake. It does not provide sufficient time for councils to plan properly, to develop policy properly or to deliver the service improvements that they and many others want. The proposal for a four-year mandate was widely supported in the consultation that we held earlier this year and the Local Government Committee supported it. I believe that that support was cross-party. We believe that the measure is sensible and look forward to the Parliament supporting it.

The second main provision is to make council elections coincide with ordinary elections of the Scottish Parliament. I stress the word "ordinary". I will explain more about that shortly. Coincident elections took place with the 1999 Scottish Parliament elections. Despite the reservations that many had in advance of that exercise, it was judged a considerable success. We want to consolidate that success and build on it for the future. The 1999 elections achieved a significant improvement in the number of votes cast for councillors, from an average of somewhere in the region of 40 per cent during 1975 to 1995 to an average of almost 60 per cent throughout Scotland in 1999.

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

Does the minister concede that the increase in votes cast at the local authority election was not because of greater voter interest in that election, but reflected the fact that voters happened to be in the polling booths for other purposes and so filled in the extra ballot paper?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am not sure that we can get into the mind of every voter in Scotland. The fact is that significantly more votes were cast for councillors in 1999 than in the recent past. That must improve the democratic legitimacy of councils. I will return later to Scottish Parliament elections taking place on the same day as council elections and the same number of people casting votes in the parliamentary election.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Given the logic of his argument, does the minister agree that if, in 2003, there is a lower turnout across Scotland—although I hope that there will not be—he will have to accept that in many respects the turnout in local elections has been dragged down?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

No. I hope, like others in the chamber, that there will be an increased vote for all levels of democratic elections. However, the important point is the coinciding of the parliamentary and local government elections. I will come back later—and in my summing-up speech—to the points that have been raised.

The increase in voting figures for council elections is a considerable achievement, which should not be underestimated. That achievement is at the root of the proposal for coincident elections, turnout at which will give mutual legitimacy to councils and Parliament and will enhance the prospect of mutual respect between the tiers of government. Coincident elections will also help to achieve the parity of esteem between the tiers of government that people seek and will strengthen the legitimacy of local government and the local democratic mandate. The measure also has the clear support of Scottish councils—two out of three support it—and is supported by the Local Government Committee, albeit on a division.

I am sorry that the Opposition parties do not feel able to support the measure. In my summing-up speech, I will pick up any points that they raise. There is still time for them to come on board and support this sensible measure and I invite them to do so.

The bill provides for a ministerial power to coincide council elections with extraordinary elections of the Parliament, but in limited circumstances. We have changed the proposal since the consultation and after discussions with the Local Government Committee. Concerns were expressed that the original power to ministers was too widely drawn. The bill has been changed to ensure that ministerial power is available only for a limited period, when elections are so close together as to make it sensible to combine them.

The bill defines a relevant period for that purpose. It begins on 11 March, which is the date by which councils must set their budgets, and runs to the normal date for a Scottish Parliament election or to the date of a Scottish Parliament election as varied by the Presiding Officer within his limited powers in that respect.

The third main provision in the bill is for ministers to be given power to approve pilot schemes that are designed to modernise the voting experience and assist with improving turnout. There are also powers to roll out successful pilots to other councils in Scotland, if it is shown that they will bring benefit throughout the system. The provision is new and is a response to points raised during the consultation period. It gives ministers similar powers to those in England and Wales and we believe that it is a sensible measure.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I believe that councils in England in Wales can experiment with holding elections on different days, in particular Saturdays, but I presume that that will not be possible under the bill. Does the minister think that that might operate against his intention to maximise local government election turnout?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The scope of the bill empowers ministers to consider any proposal that local authorities produce. I am not clear that the bill will rule out the possibility that Mr Tosh mentioned—we might be free to consider it. If that is the position, I am happy to investigate the matter further. Perhaps Mr Tosh will expand on his point during the debate.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I do not understand. The minister seems to be holding out the possibility that, in some council areas, there could be a vote in the Scottish Parliament election on a Thursday and a vote in a local authority election on the following Saturday. The minister's position seems to be anomalous.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I thought that the member was talking about by-elections, for which such experiments have been conducted in parts of England and Wales. We expect a number of councils to experiment with pilots, principally in by-elections. They will not be prevented from experimenting with coincidence with the Scottish Parliament election, although in that case there would be a clear problem and the minister would take that into account in considering such schemes.

The current procedures for voting are not the most modern of consumer experiences. As members have experienced, one can wander into a draughty village hall anywhere in Scotland and find a person sitting behind a trestle-table doing their knitting or reading a favourite novel while waiting for voters to arrive. One's name is then scored off a list—usually with a ruler and pencil—the ballot paper is stamped with an ancient machine and one walks into an upturned orange box. The system is so trusting that the pencil that one uses to cast the vote is tied to the wall. After leaving the ballot booth, one moves to the ballot box, which probably has not been painted since 1945, casts one's vote and leaves the hall.

That is not the most exciting of modern consumer experiences, which is why we want councils to be able to improve the administration of elections. As Murray Tosh indicated, in England and Wales there have been experiments with postal voting, new electronic means of casting votes, weekend voting and mobile polling stations. We are monitoring the results of those experiments. We do not want to limit the suggestions for pilot projects that councils may want to make to us. I am grateful to the Local Government Committee for its support for this new element of the bill.

I have outlined the main provisions of the bill. At a meeting of the Local Government Committee, Iain Smith helpfully pointed out a lack of clarity in relation to the bill's effect on the procedures that are to be followed when a vacancy occurs within six months of the date of an ordinary local election. At stage 2, we propose to introduce a provision that would make the application of the law very clear in that regard.

Once again, the Parliament's procedures for pre-legislative scrutiny have shown their worth. They have improved the bill significantly. The Local Government Committee's scrutiny of the bill has assisted the process greatly and I am grateful to the committee for its support for the bill. I am sure that the committee will continue its good work at stage 2.

The bill is about strengthening local government and the local mandate of councils. It is about giving councils a stable climate within which to develop, improve and modernise their services. It is part of our continuing commitment to local government, which is a key partner in delivering for the people of Scotland. I commend the general principles of the bill to the Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill.

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

Central to this bill is the assertion by ministers that only increased turnout in local government elections will increase democratic accountability, even if that increase is artificially manufactured. That is why the Executive claims that we need to synchronise the local government elections and the Scottish Parliament elections, which would mean postponing the 2002 elections.

If 100 per cent turnout conferred on local government complete democratic accountability, we would not today be discussing a bill to synchronise elections. Instead, we would be discussing a bill that would make it compulsory for every adult over the age of 18 to vote. We are not doing that, and I do not argue that we should.

The experience of 1999, when the Scottish Parliament elections were held on the same day as the local government elections, was that local government issues were not discussed. Indeed, all the Scottish Office propaganda material ignored the fact that local government elections were taking place.

Keir Bloomer, chief executive of Clackmannanshire Council, told the Local Government Committee:

"Local government is an important part of the constitutional framework. The existence of separate elected bodies with their own democratic mandates at national and local levels is a critical component of any pluralist society."

The SNP is committed to the objective of increasing voter turnout at local government elections. To ensure higher voter turnout, it is important that local government should be seen as relevant to the people whom it serves. The idea that artificially manufacturing turnout confers legitimacy is grossly misguided.

After a year of consultation, Kerley concluded:

"higher turnout could not be claimed as an increased democratic mandate for local government".

What we need is an examination of the record of local councils and councillors and whether they have delivered for their communities. With synchronised elections, those issues will not be examined.

Nobody in this chamber or beyond can reasonably argue that local council matters will even surface when Scottish Parliament elections are taking place. People can vote differently in Scottish Parliament and local government elections. They did so in 1999 and they will do so again. Their decisions in such elections would be taken without a full debate on or examination of local issues.

The bill shows how little esteem Labour has for local government in Scotland. Local government is not an extension of central Government. It is not there simply to implement the policies that are dictated by the Government of the day. It has a responsibility to be relevant and to serve the people of particular local areas.

We cannot begin to talk about relevance and legitimacy unless we deal with the one-party states that besmirch much of Scotland. What is missing, of course, is proportional representation for local government elections. PR for local government would ensure that every vote counted. It is obscene and, frankly, Stalinist for one party to gain 94 per cent of the seats on the basis of only 46 per cent of the vote. That system will continue unless we create the open, transparent and accountable Scotland that some of us aspire to.

That can be realised only through PR, which would ensure that every vote counts and that the electorate gets the council that it votes for. However, the bill is not about PR or about conferring legitimacy.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Tricia Marwick makes an interesting point. She seems to be saying that the use of PR leads to greater voter turnout, but what about the European elections? Would she care to comment on that?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Scotland is only one constituency.

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

Thank you, Kenneth. The problem with the European elections is that people do not think that they are relevant. The fact that Scotland is only one constituency led to the low turnout more than anything else did. The problem is not PR, but the manufactured way in which the elections came about.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

Is it not the case that the real reason for the low turnout in the European elections was the fact that supporters in the Westminster Parliament of the first-past-the-post system introduced the closed-list system for the European elections, to put off voters deliberately? That is what the Westminster Parliament meant to do in the first place.

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

I can add nothing to John McAllion's comments other than to agree with them entirely.

As I said, the bill is not about PR or about conferring legitimacy. It will not make local government more accountable and the SNP will oppose it at decision time.

I have quoted McIntosh and Kerley on many occasions in the past few days. I make no apology for doing so again, because the minister said that the bill has wide support when, in fact, that is not the case.

McIntosh and Kerley recently examined local government. McIntosh said:

"We recommend ... that the local government elections should be timed to take place at the mid-point of the Parliament."

Kerley said:

"separate elections would ensure that local government issues are at the heart of local government elections: this seems to us an essential part of democracy and democratic renewal."

The events of recent weeks have thrown into question the democratic legitimacy and practices that surround some of the worst examples of Labour fiefdoms. In many areas, there is a perception that matters are unclear. There should be an examination of the quango-council-Labour party network. Now, more than ever, there is a desperate urgency for matters to be clarified and made open and transparent.

I turn briefly to the measures in the bill that have found our support. We support four-year terms for councillors and the pilot voting schemes. However, it must be noted that the pilot schemes that may be trialled, to which the minister referred, will be trialled only for local government elections. They will not be trialled for the Scottish Parliament elections that are to take place on the same day. In other words, people might be able to go to their supermarket to vote for their local councillor, but they will still have to find a polling station to vote in the Scottish Parliament election.

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

Ridiculous.

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

I think I heard "Nonsense" from behind me. [Laughter.] They were referring to the nonsense that the Executive is proposing.

I have said that the SNP opposes the bill. An imperative has been placed on every MSP and on all elected members of Scottish councils to engage in the debate, to explain and to do everything in our power to encourage increased voter participation. The bill is not the way to do that, and no one in the chamber should pretend that it is.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Scottish Executive's decision to postpone the next council elections to 2003, so that they coincide with the next Scottish Parliament elections, is an affront to democracy. The Scottish Tories can support four-year terms and the piloting of innovations to improve turnout in local elections, but we must oppose the principles of the bill, because of the plans to synchronise elections.

Labour and the Lib Dems want to smother the council elections under the cover of darkness—that is, the Scottish Parliament election—to prevent light from shining on their appalling record of failure in councils throughout the nation.

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

Will the member give way?

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will give way in a moment—let me get a bit further into my speech.

To evidence my point, we need only reflect on the three council seats that the Scottish Tories have won from the Executive parties during the past two months.

How can local issues be highlighted and councils made more accountable if local government elections are treated as a mere sideshow to the Scottish Parliament elections?

The McIntosh commission and the Kerley working group agreed that local government elections needed to be held separately if council matters were to get proper prominence. McIntosh and Kerley recommended four-year terms for the very good reason that that would help councils to plan ahead and deliver policy priorities more effectively. Such a measure can play its part in ensuring efficient financial planning and give a reasonable time over which the electorate can judge an Administration's actions. McIntosh also said that the elections should be midway between Scottish Parliament elections to give local issues independent prominence.

Let us look at the history of the bill. The Government set up the McIntosh commission to look in detail at electoral issues. The report of the McIntosh commission concluded:

"We do not however think that local government elections should be held at the same time as the parliamentary elections: although that might produce a higher turnout, it does also mean that the local elections would tend always to be held under the shadow, as it were, of the parliamentary election and that national issues will dominate local elections even more than they tend to do whenever those elections are held. The result is to weaken the democratic mandate of local government ... We recommend therefore that the local government elections should be timed to take place at the mid-point of the Parliament."

In the Executive's response to the report of the McIntosh commission, the Executive noted that the issue would be further complicated by the views of the Kerley working group, which would need to be carefully considered. The Executive even acknowledged that

"parties campaigning in a national election tend to have little time or resources to spare for a distinct local campaign."

By implication, the Executive conceded that the elections should be held on separate days.

So what did Kerley say? In paragraph 100, Kerley states:

"the higher turnout could not be claimed as an increased democratic mandate for local government: it would not bring additional voters to the polls because of their involvement in local government issues. In fact, coincident elections"—

I think he means coinciding—

"would tend to reduce the electorate's focus on local government issues. Conversely, separate elections would ensure that local government issues are at the heart of local government elections: this seems to us an essential part of democracy and democratic renewal."

Even though Kerley argued for and McIntosh recommended separate elections, the Scottish Executive has ignored its own advice. Why did the Executive set up those supposedly high-powered committees—at vast expense—if it was simply going to ignore such a crucial recommendation?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I thank the member for giving way. I am pleased that he has referred to the recommendations of both those eminent committees. Does his party agree with their other recommendations on PR?

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Like other people, we are setting out a timetable to discuss the issue.

It seems that the Executive's initial view, which tended towards separate elections, changed only when Labour councillors, who favour hiding their poor performance, argued for larger turnouts from combined polls. Despite what the minister said, the results of the consultation on the bill give no more than lukewarm support for combined elections. In the main, the support for combined elections comes from councils in which the Executive parties have a majority. No wonder the public are cynical about politicians.

If the minister was truly concerned about local government, he would scrap the plans and continue to hold council elections at a separate time, so that the real issues and choices that face electors could be properly aired and debated. The only people to benefit from synchronised elections will be Labour and Lib Dem councillors. As with quangos, the Scottish Executive is putting cronyism in local government before democracy. We will oppose the bill.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Before we talk about the detail of the bill, let us be clear what the bill is about. The bill is about changing the timing of elections. Its primary purpose is to bring in a four-year term for local government, which is what the whole of Scotland wants.

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

Will the member give way?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Not yet. Give me some time to get started.

When the Conservatives attempted to destroy local government with their reforms, they reduced the term of Scottish local government to three years. Nobody understood why they did that. Even the Conservatives do not now understand why they did that. It is important that we get back to the four-year term. I would be interested to hear how the Conservatives and the SNP, who say that they would prefer a four-year term with elections at the mid-point between Scottish Parliament elections, propose to do that.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

May I reply to that?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Mr Harding will have time to reply in his summing-up.

Do the Conservatives want another three-year term for Scottish local government before it can move on to a four-year cycle? Or, like us, do they want to move Scottish local government to a four-year cycle right away?

The biggest controversy in the bill is to do with the timing of elections, which is the main point of debate.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

If Mr Smith is saying that the most important feature of the bill is the four-year cycle, he will surely accept that elections do not have to be coincident.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am about to discuss the timing. I have said that the most important thing is to move to a four-year cycle; we now have to discuss when the elections will take place. They have to take place at some point—they must either coincide with Scottish Parliament elections or not coincide with them. The arguments are not clear-cut. The matter is not simple. We cannot say that one idea or the other is definitely right. There has to be a balanced discussion.

McIntosh took his evidence before we had even had the experience of the 1999 elections. Much has changed since then. In evidence, the Local Government Committee heard that, of the 25 councils that responded to the second consultation on the issue, 21 now support coincident elections. That is different from the situation when McIntosh took his evidence in 1998.

Tricia Marwick claimed that local government would not feature if elections were coincident; she felt that local government would be ignored, but no one has presented any evidence to justify that claim. The committee heard no evidence to back it up.

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

Does Iain Smith agree that, in the 1999 joint elections, the propaganda issued by the Scottish Office did not even mention the local government elections? How much more evidence does he need?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

That is not evidence that electors did not take account of local factors when voting in the local government elections. There is clear evidence that people voted differently in the different elections that took place at the same time.

In written evidence on the draft bill to the Local Government Committee, John Curtice wrote:

"According to the 1999 Scottish Parliamentary Election Study/Scottish Social Attitudes survey, 28% of those who turned out in 1999 voted for a candidate of a different party in the local election than the one they supported with their first vote in the Scottish Parliamentary election."

A total of 28 per cent—more than one in four voters—voted differently in the local elections from how they voted in the Scottish Parliament elections. That does not suggest to me that people were not taking account of local factors.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Does the member agree that the results in 1999 in Morayshire and Perthshire indicated exactly what he is suggesting, and that that is precisely why the SNP opposes the bill?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Mr Stone has anticipated my next point. If we consider the evidence in many areas, we see that electors did indeed take account of local factors. They kicked out of office councils that they considered to be bad—such as those in Perth and Kinross and in Moray—but voted differently in the Scottish Parliament elections. There is also significant evidence from local elections in England and Wales, which quite often coincide with UK general elections, that people vote differently in the two elections and take account of local factors.

Another point is this: if local government elections had been held mid-term, they would have coincided with the UK general election. The chances are that that would happen often, because the UK elections now tend to be on a four-year cycle, even though they do not have to be.

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

Will the member give way?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am sorry—I am in injury time.

It is important to bear in mind the fact that it does not really matter whether local elections are at the same time as the general election or at a different time, because national coverage of local elections is abysmal at any time. Local elections do not get the coverage they deserve. It is local campaigning that makes a difference to results in local elections. In local elections, our party will continue to campaign vigorously on local issues, irrespective of whether the elections coincide or not. Other parties may choose to do things differently, but our party believes strongly in fighting local elections.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am sorry, but I am just about to finish.

I welcome the changes that were made to the draft bill in relation to extraordinary general elections. An important point, which justifies the limited power that remains for ministers to coincide elections within a strict period, is that evidence suggests that when local elections are held shortly after a general election, the turnout is extremely low. That was the experience in 1992 when the district council elections were held one month after the general election.

I welcome the proposed pilot schemes. It is important that we examine the rules for Scottish local government elections to try to ensure that, wherever possible, they are exactly the same as the rules for Scottish Parliament elections. Several issues need to be addressed, such as bringing the local elections into line with the Representation of the People Act 2000, which affects the Scottish Parliament elections. We need to work with the Scotland Office to ensure that, if the experiments and pilots for local elections are positive, it will consider allowing such pilots for the Scottish Parliament elections. Tricia Marwick's comments on that point are most valid.

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

We move to open debate.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

As members know, the Local Government Committee is the lead committee on the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill. Our scrutiny has been wide-ranging—consultations have been held with local councils, returning officers and others. The committee heard from several witnesses and received what appeared to be mountains of written evidence.

There was unanimous support for an extension to a four-year term for councils. There was also support for the pilot schemes, albeit with some serious reservations. However, the committee had to put to a vote the question on synchronised elections—a rare event for the Local Government Committee. There were considerable differences of opinion and powerful arguments were made both for and against synchronising elections. Some of the arguments in favour, such as evidence of a high turnout, have already been noted. The arguments against synchronising elections include the possibility that the electorate would vote on national rather than local issues, and that the level of interest in local issues would be lost, which would contribute to, rather than alleviate, a democratic deficit. However, there was also conflicting evidence to suggest that no matter when local elections are held, a certain number of people will vote on national issues anyway.

I cannot agree with those people who say that the Executive's bill is an attempt to hide local government's record and to save the Executive from embarrassing local election results before we go to the polls for the Scottish Parliament elections. That is absolute nonsense and is not what the bill is all about. I am prepared to shout from the rooftops about the good practice in local government and to engage with those councils that are perhaps a little slower in modernising their practices and procedures. All the councils have signed up to the modernising government agenda—some of them are doing it more quickly than others.

We had 18 years of a Tory Government that was totally opposed to delivery of services at local level. In 1995, the Tories reorganised local government and, because of the success of bodies such as Strathclyde Regional Council, which filled the Tories with fear, they resorted to some gerrymandering, which in the end did them no good whatsoever.

We are dealing with a mature electorate who can make two clear judgments on the same day. As Iain Smith said, there is evidence from the 1999 elections to prove that. To say that the electors are not capable of that distinction is sheer arrogance. However, I agree with Tricia Marwick that we must be sure that all the information that is given to electors reminds them that they have three votes, not two. That point was made very clear in the committee's scrutiny and we will continue to pursue it.

The provision that relates to extraordinary elections should not have been in the bill in the way that it was. The minister has addressed that.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

On the flow of information, does the member agree that by 2007 there should also be clear information on the three different voting systems that will be applied?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Electors should be given all the information that they need. There is no doubt that there was a grave error in the run-up to the 1999 elections, when people were told that there were two votes rather than three.

We must examine ways and means of encouraging higher voter turnout. We should do everything in our power to encourage voting at all elections. A more productive approach might be to examine the way that legislatures and councils relate and involve voters every day, rather than just on polling day. However, that is not for this bill, and neither is PR. This is a bill about administration, not systems.

I have a question for the minister, which has been asked already. If we have a pilot scheme to allow voting for a council election to take place in, for example, Safeway, we must not then ask those who wish to vote in the Scottish Parliament election on the same day to go to their local school. That would be absolute nonsense.

Another problem is that the next elections in 2003 will take place on a bank holiday weekend. Most vote counters are bank workers. With my trade union hat on, if I had to work on a holiday, I would fight for double time. That is fair enough. If there is a significant extra cost to councils, the Executive should pay that cost, given that this is an Executive bill. The other question that has to be answered is when the votes will be counted. Again, that may mean extra work.

The Local Government Committee has been assured that all the administrative difficulties can be overcome, but I am sure that there will be amendments at stage 2. In the meantime, I support the bill and I urge Parliament to support its general principles.

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

If members keep to four minutes, I will be able to get everyone in.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

This afternoon we will be asked to rubber-stamp our new First Minister—a First Minister given a shoo-in with the help of his friends in the Liberal Democrats, and for what? A promise to make progress on progress on PR. If the Liberal Democrats were serious, they would have had PR included in the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill. What price democracy?

This morning, we are being asked to vote on synchronised elections for local government. That would undermine local government, and greatly diminish the local issues at the heart of our local government democracy. Once again, the bill will be pushed through with the help of Labour's little helpers, the Liberal Democrats.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Can Sandra White tell us in which years the next two sets of Scottish local government elections would take place, under her proposals?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Certainly. I was going to clarify that. We would do the same as the Welsh Assembly, and put back the local government elections to 2004 or else hold them in 2002. Does that satisfy Hugh Henry? We certainly would not synchronise local government elections with the Scottish Parliament elections—a proposal that is being desperately pushed through with the help of Labour's Liberal Democrat helpers. I wonder what they got this time. Perhaps it was a new ministerial car.

Let us examine the policies in the bill. The bill proposes a four-year term for councils. That is fine; we agree with the four-year term. As the Deputy Minister for Finance and Local Government said, we need a four-year term to plan ahead and sustain local government. That is vital and welcome.

Pilot schemes to examine new and innovative ways of getting people—particularly disabled people and the disadvantaged—to polling stations have been mentioned. We welcome that. Capability Scotland's briefing paper outlined the need for access for all. But do we need elections to be held on the same day? No, we do not. Many members have mentioned that in their speeches.

Many statistics have been bandied about. Iain Smith mentioned raising the voter turnout figures.

In response, I say that the Welsh Assembly has put back local government elections to 2004 to prevent them clashing with the Welsh Assembly elections. Iain Smith should note that.

As I said, we do not need the elections to be held on the same day. As has been said many times, there is a great danger that local government elections will be swamped by national issues. That would not be good for local democracy.

Trish Godman referred to the counting of votes, with which there is a problem. Will counts be done simultaneously? Will they be done on the same day or on different days? Who will do the counting? Will counters be paid overtime? Will we have counter fatigue? We do not know. The minister must answer those questions and answer them quickly.

People will go along to polling stations and have PR for one election, no PR for another, and half-and-half PR for the Scottish Parliament elections. That must be examined. People will wonder what is going on. They may go to the supermarket to vote, but they will have to go somewhere else to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections. That is not clear enough for those people who wish to vote. It will be confusing for everyone.

The Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill will introduce synchronised elections, allegedly with the aim of increasing voter turnout. I do not think that turnout will increase. The best way to increase turnout is to have good government, not to undermine local government.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Presiding Officer, I should read my party's instructions more carefully—I thought that I was closing the debate. That means that my speech, which was prepared in three minutes, might not be as fluent as I would wish. I will do my best—I know that Alasdair Morgan always appreciates that.

As Keith Harding said, we accept parts of the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill. We have reflected on the issue of three-year terms as opposed to four-year terms and we accept that the three-year term was an error of judgment. The restoration of the original four-year term is therefore an improvement on existing practice. We are happy to support that.

Given that, at times, we are quite a radical party, we are perfectly content to consider the issue of experimenting with pilot schemes for elections. Clearly, there have been legitimate concerns about the turnout for all elections. It is appropriate for us to experiment with voting in different places, in different manners and on different days. Earlier, I was a bit startled by the minister's indication that the pilot schemes would extend only to local government by-elections. Presumably, however, there is an intention that if positive lessons are learned from that, they might be applied in other areas.

However, from the point of view of experimentation and building quickly on the results of that experimentation, it might have been better if we had not had synchronisation of local authority elections. It is clear that, under the intentions of the bill, it will not be possible for a council that experiments successfully with Saturday voting in by-elections to move to Saturday voting as a general principle. In some respects, therefore, the synchronisation of the two elections undermines the scope for experimentation and pilot studies in electoral practice, which is a considerable pity.

I sympathise with the minister's point about enhancing the mandate of local authorities by increasing turnout. Increased turnout is clearly a positive thing. I am not sure that I agree that there is such a thing as an unnaturally enhanced turnout; increased turnout has to be good, however it might happen.

I come from a local authority background; I was a councillor for Kyle and Carrick. During my time there, and subsequently in South Ayrshire, as Dr Murray will know, the area typically had a relatively high turnout in local authority elections. It was normal to find wards where the turnout in local council elections exceeded 50 per cent, and not at all unusual for some wards to exceed 60 per cent, because there was a high level of interest in local activity. Dr Murray is pointing out that she was elected on more than 60 per cent of the vote—I do not know that she got more than 60 per cent of the vote, but there was 60 per cent turnout in her ward.

High turnout is a positive thing—it is something that I find quite natural and it does not worry me politically. From a partisan point of view, we do not regard high turnout in local elections as a disadvantage. Indeed, in the last South Ayrshire Council elections—when there was a relatively higher turnout at the coincident elections—my party advanced from four seats out of 25 to 13 seats out of 30. We are happy to think that the higher turnout brought out more of our vote on that occasion.

It is possible to get high turnout in local authority elections by vigorously contesting the elections on local issues. With all due respect, I am not talking about Perth and Kinross Council and Moray Council—I do not think that the circumstances of those councils are necessarily analogous to those of central Scotland. Their elections are heavily influenced by independent candidates and strongly local issues and not by the sort of partisan politics that are prevalent in the central belt.

The fact that turnout in some areas is low while turnout in other areas is high might be a reflection on the way in which we have all conducted politics in some areas. In the course of the study, it would have been interesting if the Executive could have identified some of the reasons for that.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Is turnout lower in some areas because people think that the result is a foregone conclusion and that there is little point in voting? Does the member agree that, if we introduced proportional representation, people would have a real chance to have a say and therefore turnout would increase?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I accept that there is an argument to be put on that. I find it surprising that the Liberal Democrats' enthusiasm for proportional representation apparently extends until 2007, when they could—if they did not support the bill—introduce a 2005 deadline. If local authority elections were to be held in 2005, the Liberal Democrats would have time to implement the cast-iron guarantee that I understand that they have received from Jack McConnell. I am glad to see mirth from Labour members, because they understand better what is likely to happen.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Does Murray Tosh realise, in his enthusiasm, that if the Conservatives changed their mind on proportional representation, an absolute majority in the Parliament would support PR?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am afraid that we Conservatives are still too excited about the recent local authority by-election in Aberdeenshire, which we managed to turn largely into a referendum on the local MSP and where we won a seat from the Liberal Democrats, which took away the majority on Aberdeenshire Council.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Go on, Murray.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I risk saying something more personal than I have already, so I had better move on.

My difficulty with the bill stems from my experience of vigorous local elections, which are desirable. I regret the absence of such elections in many local authority areas. I am worried that the bill will, in effect, nationalise local elections, because it will make it much harder to focus on local issues. That is unhealthy for our local democracy.

I thought that we could run with the Kerley and McIntosh proposals and find out the effect of properly timetabled and staggered elections over a reasonable period. The Executive has rushed to judgment on an issue that might have been dealt with better from experience than from the genuine motivation behind the bill—the calculation that parties in power do rather better if they avoid mid-term local elections and have them held on the same day as that on which they hope to win a parliamentary election. That rather undermines our democracy, despite some of the good intentions that the minister evinced. We will oppose the bill.

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

Before I leave the chair, I will comment on the point of order that Michael Russell raised at the start of today's proceedings, about Iain Duncan Smith's visit to Parliament today.

I have made inquiries. The press notice was issued by the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. It does not refer to a press conference, but says that Mr Duncan Smith will be available to speak to the media in the black and white corridor. That is in line with arrangements that have been made for other distinguished visitors to the VIP gallery—especially those who are doing live interviews. Arrangements have been made through the usual channels to ensure that the visit will not interfere with the timing of another event later today.

Mr Russell also talked about reciprocal links with Westminster. We have the openness of the black and white corridor, and Westminster has St Stephen's green. Any Scots leader who goes to Westminster can appear on St Stephen's green too. I hope that that is clear.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

On a point of order.

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

I feared that this would happen.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will you offer Mr Russell guidance about the continued attendance in the chamber of a member who raises a point of order and expects an answer?

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

Yes. I shall give Mr Russell a slight slap in that respect.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

I thank the Scottish Parliament information centre for its research paper on the bill, which is informative, particularly about the pilots that have been undertaken in England. We can continue to discuss those further.

As members have said, the bill concerns the timing and administration of elections. It does not deal with voting systems. The minister and others have listed the bill's aims, so I will not spend time on those. As has been said, discussion in the Local Government Committee centred on whether elections for local government and for the Scottish Parliament should be synchronised or, if the elections were to be held at alternative times, whether there should be mid-term elections for local government, which have been mostly suggested. I will return to that.

Other discussion has concerned how to ease the administration of the two elections by harmonising election procedures—by aligning legislation, for example—and by deciding on the best way of counting and declaring the results of two elections. The general feeling that I picked up is that, in most areas, that would be done over two days.

I turn now to the evidence. What does the Scottish Executive and local government consultation show? First, there is agreement about the four-year term for local council elections. Secondly, although the Local Government Committee could not reach consensus on the question of synchronised polls, the committee received feedback that 19 out of 25 councils and 18 out of 21 returning officers supported synchronised elections.

The Local Government Committee recognised that strong arguments existed on both sides. Points were made by Keith Harding about McIntosh and mid-term elections. However, as Iain Smith said, and others told us, we also recognised that things have moved on since the McIntosh report.

Keith Harding made a point about Kerley, but I understand that, on balance, Kerley was for synchronised elections. The minister mentioned that, because of increased turnout, synchronised elections would strengthen councils' democratic legitimacy and the evidence for that is clear. Against that view is the great concern, which is the SNP's main argument, that local government issues would be overwhelmed by coverage of parliamentary elections and would become secondary to Scottish Parliament election issues.

It is important that we do not lose sight of one of the statements that was made by Keir Bloomer of Clackmannanshire Council, who made the case for mid-term elections. He also said that the bigger issue was that

"the elected bodies are somehow out of touch with the needs of ordinary people and that politics is failing to address the issues that concern people."

Murray Tosh spoke about issues that are more important than just whether elections should be held on the same day. We have to address those bigger issues.

Another issue that was raised during the committee's discussions was the administration of elections. The minister reported that a working group of Scottish Executive and Scotland Office officials had been set up to examine all aspects of election administration, including publicity. That issue was one of our main concerns, and I quote:

"the Committee would wish to receive more detailed assurances from the Deputy Minister that specific action will be taken to ensure that the electorate receives sufficient information to make voters aware that local government elections are being held on the same day as the Scottish Parliamentary elections."

That is, that three votes are to be cast and not two, as was indicated in the 1999 election, and that message must go out loud and clear. Better publicity is required.

The convener of the Local Government Committee mentioned pilots. Voter confusion may become an issue if the pilots are held for local government elections but not for Scottish Parliament elections. That point was well made. Who will pay for the pilots? The committee is looking for more information on that question.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The member should wind up.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers made a point about finance:

"Notwithstanding the current requirement placed on councils to support the administration of elections, consideration should be given to the sizeable drain on councils' finances caused by the cost of staff time over and above the B4 limits."

SOLACE also mentioned the need to provide better facilities at counts and, as I have said, remuneration for staff.

The Equal Opportunities Committee was keen that we include in our report the point about improving accessibility for certain excluded groups. We supported that request. The Equal Opportunities Committee also raised the need for disability awareness training.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The member must now come to a close.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Specific sub-groups must be looked at. We must not simply look at an increase in overall numbers when we examine the question of voter turnout.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I understand what the minister wants to achieve, which is larger turnout for council elections. However, I have serious reservations about the means of achieving that goal. A large turnout tends to benefit the party in power, or the one that is most likely to succeed nationally. On the morning after the count for the Scottish Parliament elections, I was at Paisley town hall at the count for the local government elections. A local Labour convener remarked to me that that was exactly what was anticipated as a result of having coincident elections.

There will, of course, be a day when the SNP will be the top political party and coincident elections will work against the Opposition parties of the day. We should worry about the precedents that we set, because sometimes they come back to haunt us. From that point of view alone, separate elections are a good idea.

In council wards, candidates try to focus public attention on their solutions to housing, social tenants, green belt issues, proposed school closures, holes in the road, lack of police and the siting of dog litter bins. All those issues are of great day-to-day importance to the ordinary people of the country who are trying to get a fair deal and live a decent life, but the local issues are completely overshadowed by national elections and the razzmatazz that goes with them. High-cost advertising, the fevered press speculation of election time and head-to-head television debates all take up public attention.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

On Mr Campbell's point about the possibility of parliamentary elections dominating local issues, what does he advocate should happen in a year when a general election coincides with council elections? Would he propose to cancel the council elections?

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Council elections traditionally take place on a slightly different date to the general election. A general election is a moveable feast in the United Kingdom. It would be perfectly feasible to structure local authority elections in mid-term for Scottish parliamentary elections. As for the UK elections, in the fullness of time we will not be indulging in those.

Although voters are perfectly capable of distinguishing between their local and national loyalties, which may or may not be the same, the coincidence of national elections with council elections makes the council candidates' task much harder. It is difficult enough for some parties, such as those of our colleagues on the Tory and Lib Dem benches, to find sufficient candidates for council elections without them being forced to compete with, and be almost wholly swamped by, national politics.

For genuinely independent candidates—I do not know many of those, because they do not operate in the west of Scotland—the situation is even worse, because they lack the compensatory elements of joint planning and mutual support of council and national campaigns that are available to political parties. However, the major difficulty lies in information overload—real or imagined—for voters. How often in an election campaign have we heard people complaining that they see politicians only at election time and that they are sick of politics and television? A candidate may be campaigning for their council election, but get zapped with the national election campaign. People are sick of having leaflets put through the door and will not take leaflets on the street because they have had it up to here with two elections.

Separate elections would diminish the overload and encourage the electorate to take a more informed view and focus in a more relaxed way on separate sets of issues. Together with the other suggested measures, they would encourage fuller participation in the democratic process.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

When I was first elected to Ross and Cromarty District Council in 1986, it was on a 33 per cent turnout, which was not great. Some would say that it was an awful thing that I ever appeared at all. However, in subsequent elections I managed to sweat it up to about 53 per cent. Despite what Murray Tosh said, in general the turnout for local authority elections in Scotland is deplorable. If anyone tries to defend that as an example of democracy working, they are up a gum tree.

What the SNP is really saying is that is it scared of a high turnout. We saw what happened with the high turnouts in Morayshire and Perth and Kinross. Make no mistake colleagues, that is the agenda on the SNP benches. They are feart. They do not like a proper battle. Quite frankly, anyone who says that a high turnout is not a good thing is barking—the higher the better. As Murray Tosh said, by whichever means we get there, high turnout is a good thing.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

We should not get carried away with ourselves. We are talking about a turnout in 1999 of 59 per cent. Does the member accept that, compared with elections in Europe, that is not a high turnout?

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

It is a whole lot better than turnouts that we have seen in previous years for local authority elections. I have to tell Mr Sheridan that there has been some talk about the independents. In the Highlands, the high turnout was widely welcomed by councillors and candidates alike. The independents did not suffer at all. Nor, for that matter, did the nationalists. It was democracy speaking. I just want to underline that point.

Murray Tosh more or less agreed with what the Lib Dems and Labour are saying in the bill, but he had to say what he said for party political reasons, which I accept. Really, Murray ought to take the plunge and cross over to us. He would have a very happy home here.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am sure that I would have a happy home wherever I was. I am clearly making the point that I believe in local elections and local government and I want high turnout. However, I believe that local authority elections should, as far as possible, be influenced by and dominated by local issues and local considerations. Most experience to date suggests that we do not get that if we swamp the local authority elections with other parliamentary elections.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

That is absolute rubbish and Mr Tosh knows it. It is an insult to the electorate, who are far more intelligent than many members give them credit for. The very fact that people cast their three votes in three different directions—which they most certainly did in the Highlands—shows that they think very carefully. I bet that when Murray Tosh was canvassing in 1999 as a candidate for the Scottish Parliament, he was asked more often on the doorstep about dog litter bins and holes in the pavement than he was about national issues. That is certainly what we tend to get up our way.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

What did they campaign on?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Those issues.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Those are their national issues.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I know that this is an exciting debate, but Mr Gibson and Mr Tosh should calm themselves.

Access for disabled people has been mentioned. We all know that, for disabled people, the present situation is not acceptable. We have all seen people who use crutches or a wheelchair trying to get into some of our voting booths. It ain't great. For people who have visual impairments, it is not easy. I have heard people in the booth shouting out, "Which one do I vote for?" "You vote for Jamie Stone," I hope people say, but they do not always say that.

There is still a lot of confusion about postal votes and proxy votes and getting the form in on time. We should look again at those issues. I welcome proposals to modernise voting, but we must not have voting in a supermarket for a council by-election and voting somewhere else for the Scottish Parliament election. That is ridiculous. We must synchronise timing, methods and places of voting.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I wish to speak in favour of the bill. I believe that it reflects the unanimous support of political parties and local authorities for an extension of council terms from three to four years. It meets the McIntosh committee's recommendation that a four-year term would allow councils

"sufficient time to plan effectively, to take measured decisions, to have an effective role in community planning and"—

most important—

"to permit the public to reach a considered judgement upon their performance."

I do not think that anyone in the chamber would quarrel with that, and nor should they.

I acknowledge the fact that Tory and SNP colleagues have concerns about the coincidental nature of local and Scottish Parliament elections that the bill proposes. As someone who has about 14 years' experience as an elected member at local government level, I do not share those concerns.

Agreement obviously could not be reached on the synchronisation of polls. There is a worry that that would lead to local issues being submerged beneath national concerns. As someone who has fought and won five local government contests, I believe that national politics always impinges to some extent on local elections. That is inescapable. Unlike Tricia Marwick, Keith Harding and Colin Campbell, I do not believe that local concerns are ignored. It is my experience that the local and the national are inextricably linked in the minds of most electors, whether the elections are separate or, as is proposed in the bill, coincidental.

I am comforted by the inescapable evidence culled from the 1999 elections. One reason why I support the proposed change is that, as Jamie Stone said, after years of decline in voter turnout, from 1974 to 1999, the trend has been reversed. That can only be a good thing. Although 44.9 per cent of electors cast their votes in 1995, the figure rose to 58.5 per cent in 1999. To say that that is bad for democracy is unacceptable—the opposite is the case. However, Tommy Sheridan is right to say that turnout is not high enough. All parties must try by all possible means to ensure that the decline in voting is reversed; that should be the aim of all members.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Bill Butler wants to increase turnout. Could that be achieved by introducing proportional representation? That would ensure that every council ward is likely to be contested in Scotland. At the previous elections, 59 wards had only one candidate.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I will answer Kenneth Gibson's question, although it is about administration rather than electoral systems. There is evidence of low turnout and high turnout both in PR elections and in first-past-the-post elections. That is an interesting debate and is still to be had. I will fight my corner in my party on the question, as will others. The process will continue and we will make progress towards electoral reform, as the coalition has agreed.

Some say that voters cannot distinguish between elections when they cast their votes—that is a worry. Professor John Curtice gave useful evidence to the Local Government Committee. He said:

"According to survey data, 28 per cent of people voted differently in the local elections from how they voted in the Scottish Parliament election, so voters do not necessarily vote in the same way in local elections as they do in parliamentary elections.—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 8 May 2001; c 1897.]

The bill will help rather than hinder the drive towards broader voter participation and is therefore worthy of support by all parties.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Councillors who were elected in May 1999 were elected for a three-year term and were given a three-year rather than a four-year democratic mandate. It is anti-democratic to propose to change that.

There are all sorts of joint boards in which cosy deals—particularly between the Executive parties—have been entered into. The chairmen of those boards have rotated after 18 months. Those deals have had to be unpicked and changed as a result of the bill. Such arrangements are fundamentally undemocratic.

Hugh Henry said that, if there are to be mid-term Scottish council elections rather than council elections that coincide with Scottish Parliament elections, we need to find a mechanism for that. That is a perfectly legitimate point and the problem is not insurmountable. We can deal with that for the future rather than retrospectively change the mandate of councillors who were elected for three years.

We seem to have skated over the technical problems that arose at the May 1999 elections. The Local Government Committee has considered those problems and will undoubtedly continue to do so. The problem does not simply relate to whether people were aware that they had three votes or knew which boxes they were supposed to put their votes in; there was the shambles of the count. The fact that the count for the local authority elections was put off until the next day indicated to the local authority councillors that they were much less important. It suggested that we did not need to know the local election results; we needed to know the Scottish Parliament election results. There was a shambles throughout Scotland that day and I am not confident that we will not see such a shambles again if we continue to hold local and national elections at the same time. Local council elections are devalued by being held at the same time as Scottish Parliament elections.

Some say that local elections are held nationally anyway and that 28 per cent of people voted differently in the local and national elections. However, there is a range of candidates under different labels at local elections as opposed to at national elections. It is not surprising that there are different outcomes, particularly in the area where Jamie Stone used to be a councillor and is now an MSP. The number of independents standing in parliamentary elections is not significant. We have not unpicked the 28 per cent to find out whether the votes for independents in local elections contributed significantly to that figure. Elections in rural areas are not primarily fought on party-political grounds.

There is a range of issues. There is a fundamentally undemocratic approach. If someone has been given a mandate, they should adhere to that mandate. There might be technical problems in making the change. No one is suggesting that we should retain the three-year arrangement in perpetuity. If we have to have two elections at three-year intervals in order to get a mid-term arrangement, so be it. We do not have to have the election at the mid-point—

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will the member give way?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The member is winding up.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The local coverage that was given to the elections in 1999 bore no relation to local council issues. In my area, what was going to happen at Holyrood was covered. In 1999, there was no proper public debate about the stewardship of councillors, in terms of their individual wards and the parties that were running local councils. If we have joint elections permanently, such debate will be totally subsumed. That is anti-democratic.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

A number of comments have been made, particularly by the minister, about pilot schemes for elections. I cannot resist the temptation of suggesting that the Labour party should examine those schemes and have some internal elections. I am sure that that would be good for democracy.

The problem with the bill is that it has the new Labour imprint; it is unfortunate that it appears to have the new Liberal imprint as well. I am not surprised that none of the new Labour members has referred to the policy memorandum, which makes a remarkable statement. It says:

"From the voter's perspective, combining Parliamentary and local government elections will result in being asked to vote less frequently and therefore will have a positive impact on voter attitudes."

So there we have it: if we ask people to vote less frequently, they will be more positively inclined towards elections. Obviously, that is what the Scottish Labour party has tried when choosing its past three leaders. The problem is that, rather than having any positive impact, that approach has resulted in the loss of about 30,000 members.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Is Tommy Sheridan arguing that a mandate of 44.9 per cent, as in 1995, is better than a mandate of 59.8 per cent?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Not at all. I am arguing, as I hope we all are, that we should try to improve voter turnout at all elections. I am against the big bang theory that says that we should just have one big election, but that is what we are moving towards. Indeed, recent stories in the press make me think that, if new Labour gets its way, we will have just one newspaper.

If we want to renew democracy, we need positive proposals. Where is the proposal for allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote? Where is the proposal for automatic voter registration? Where is the proposal for guaranteed transport to the polling station for the elderly and infirm? Where is the proposal for mandatory hustings in every electoral ward? Indeed, where is the proposal for proportional representation? One of the factors that led to the higher turnout in 1999 has been missed, even though it was one of the most significant features of the election: proportional representation made people believe that their vote counted. That is what is required.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Does the member agree that turnout for the Scottish Parliament election was lower than the turnout for the 2001 Westminster election? That is a fact.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The fact is that people thought that the 1999 election was more relevant to them and felt that they had the extra choice. They knew that, because their votes counted, it would be better to use them.

Trish Godman did not mention the reports that the Liberal Democrats have, with much gnashing of teeth and banging on desks, squeezed out of Labour the assurance that, by 2007, there will be PR in local government elections. If what we are being told is true, three different electoral systems will be used on the one day. It is not one big vote that is going to renew democracy in those elections; it is one big vote done in three different ways.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

rose—

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I assume that Mr Rumbles wants to tell us about the deal.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Not at all.

Mr Sheridan is underestimating the intelligence of the voters. In my constituency, people voted Liberal Democrat for their local MSP, Conservative on the list and in many cases for independent councillors. The electorate are not stupid; they can cope with different systems.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Absolutely. They can cope with different systems and different elections. We want local government elections that are dominated by local government issues. We want the main issue to be the record of the achievements, or underachievements, of local authorities. The idea that gathering all the elections together in one big vote is good for democracy is nonsense. We must improve local government democracy by ensuring that people are aware of local government issues. We should give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote and enable people to vote in different places, for example. Those improvements do not require synchronised voting. It is from that point of view that I believe the bill does not deserve to be supported.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I will deal with an issue that Bill Butler mentioned briefly but that no other members have discussed. The assumption is that, if local elections are held midway through a parliamentary term, the electors will focus on local issues and vote accordingly. Experience shows that that is not true.

Members who took part in the local elections in 1982, which coincided with the Falklands campaign, will know that Conservative support increased daily because of the popularity of Mrs Thatcher, jingoism and all that, which had nothing to do with the local council.

The English have had repeated experience of council elections being held midway through a parliamentary term when the Government—whether the Prime Minister was Mr Wilson, Mr Callaghan or Mrs Thatcher—has been deeply unpopular and a raft of competent councillors from the Government party have been knocked out because the people voted on national issues. Whether we like it or not, national issues are the main points in many voters' minds. If the only election that is taking place is a local election, the way that voters can express their disgust with Mrs Thatcher or whomever—it may be Mr Blair in the future—is to vote down the people of the same party in the local election.

Experience has shown that, when the two elections are held together, people are more able to distinguish between them. In Moray and in Perth and Kinross there were, for various reasons, very unpopular local councils. The councillors were driven out in large numbers but the MSP from the same party did quite well. People can distinguish between the elections.

In Edinburgh South, the Liberal Democrats came third in the parliamentary election, but won the local election. From the votes cast, we won five of the 10 wards. People are capable of distinguishing between the two elections; they are more capable of doing so when they can cast their national vote on national issues in the national election and are then free to consider whether to vote for the nice man or woman who is the local councillor or for a group that has a good idea about dealing with lampposts or whatever.

Contrary to the received wisdom—which many in my party share, along with McIntosh, Kerley and others—that synchronised elections reduce interest in the local government content, I think that they encourage greater interest.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Can we assume from those comments that Donald Gorrie no longer agrees that

"The council elections should be midway between the Scottish Parliament elections"?

That was the statement that Mr Gorrie made to the McIntosh committee before it made a decision on the matter. Perhaps he could enlighten us on that, as it seems to be hypocrisy run wild.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I learn from experience.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Ah!

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Well, if the Tories do not learn from experience, they are a unique force in politics. They oppose a Parliament and a voting system that are the only reasons for their being here at all. I have never met such an issue in my life.

The Executive must give serious attention to the publicity for the local elections and ensure that there is every opportunity for those elections to be covered by the local and national media. That was badly done in the past but, where there is a fair playing field, local activity by councillors and candidates can encourage concentration on the local issues.

I do not know what happens in other parties but, in the Liberal Democrats, candidates for Parliament and for councils talk to each other. They can share leaflets and campaign jointly on the issues that are national and local. The arguments against having local elections on the same day as Scottish Parliament elections are misplaced although, I am sure, strongly felt. We should support the bill.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The minister said in his opening speech:

"The bill is short but important for Scottish local government."

It is certainly short. It is also important, but the degree of importance that the Executive has attached to it is conditioned more by Labour's electoral chances than by any democratic principle.

Aspects of the bill have some merit. The four-year term is one. However, as my colleagues Keith Harding and Murray Tosh have pointed out, that, too, has more to do with Labour's electoral chances than with any democratic principle. Labour is running scared on the basis of recent by-election results.

We must consider various ways in which to make our voting system friendlier. When the minister gave his rather doleful description of polling in the north of Scotland, one could almost feel the mirk and the chill descending from the hills. Although the situation in Glasgow, for example, is less daunting, polling there is hardly the social occasion of the year, I fully concede. There is therefore some merit in considering ways in which we can make voting easier.

However, some of the suggestions that have been made do not have much credibility. The supermarket, the bookie's and the pub have been suggested. What next? We could be voting by phone, but one of the Labour members would have to be reminded that she could do so only once. There might be concern about that, too.

Of course, some important issues have been raised. Tricia Marwick was the first to say—correctly—that there is a danger that local issues will become subsumed by the national political climate of the time. That is regrettable. However, it is not correct to say, as Bill Butler did, that the situation is inescapable. As the Liberal Democrats have demonstrated, there are differences in electors' political views at national elections and at local elections. That is good and should be encouraged. Those involved in local government should be able to stand in splendid isolation and should be accountable to their electorate on the basis of their personal record and commitment to their constituencies—those are important principles of democracy.

It is surprising indeed that the Labour party should simply fly in the face of the recommendations made by Kerley and McIntosh on the timing of elections. Of course, political expediency has to a great extent overruled principle. That creates the ideal climate for the machine politician to flourish. At a time when the Labour party is increasingly becoming the subject of accusations of cronyism and is attempting to maintain an unsatisfactory and unacceptable status quo, it is regrettable that it should seek to create such a climate. Local government is very important.

There are also practical difficulties in holding coinciding elections. The counts last year, despite the best efforts of those involved, were a shambles in many areas. People from Edinburgh will have a particular recollection of that. We must examine the system in much greater detail.

It is indeed unfortunate that the Labour party and its happy little helpers—the Liberal Democrats—should be seeking to introduce a measure that goes against principles that they have expounded time and again. This is not a good day for democracy.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The bill is a missed opportunity. As McIntosh suggested, local government elections should be held at the mid-point between Scottish Parliament elections, with the current three-year cycle changing to a four-year one from 2005. Elections scheduled for next year should go ahead to ensure that voters have an opportunity to vote not on national issues, but on local ones.

We understand that the majority of councils have said that they want a delay to the elections that are due to be held in 2003, but turkeys do not necessarily want an early Christmas and, of course, most of those councils are Lib-Lab local authorities.

Tricia Marwick mentioned that, in 1999, Scottish voters were told of the two Scottish parliamentary ballots but not of the council ballots. Indeed, this year the farce was intensified, as Scottish voters heard from television adverts that there were going to be council elections this year, whereas in fact the adverts were referring to English council elections. That shows how abysmal advice to the public has been; it also shows how important it is that we in Scotland have control over broadcasting in this country.

The consultation on the bill was announced in a reply to a written question—before that question had been published—on the day of the Anniesland by-election and after that day's close of parliamentary business. I do not believe that the consultation has been as genuine, open and alive as the minister said it was in evidence to the Local Government Committee.

One issue that has not been talked about—although Tommy Sheridan touched on it—is the habit of voting. In many countries in Europe—in fact, in almost all countries in Europe—people vote more frequently than people in this country do. They also have greater turnouts and PR. There is a habit of voting whereby people get used to voting every year or every second year. However, if we put all our eggs into one basket and have an election once in a blue moon, people are turned off by voting and do not believe that their votes count.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The member will be aware that a large number of English local authorities have elections in a third of their electoral wards each year. The evidence from those areas is that turnout is falling even more dramatically than it is in Scotland—it is down to less than 20 per cent in some places.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Perhaps PR is the solution, so it is regrettable that Iain Smith's party distances itself from that.

I take issue with paragraph 22 of the Local Government Committee's 14th report in 2001, which states:

"while the McIntosh report favoured mid-term elections, the Kerley report, on balance, called for local government elections to be held on the same day as those for the Scottish Parliament."

Sylvia Jackson reiterated that point. In fact, the Kerley report did nothing of the sort. Paragraph 100 of the Kerley report, which Tricia Marwick referred to, states:

"higher turnout could not be claimed as an increased democratic mandate for local government: it would not bring additional voters to the polls because of their involvement in local government issues. In fact, coincident elections would tend to reduce the electorate's focus on local government issues. Conversely, separate elections would ensure that local government issues are at the heart of local government elections: this seems to us an essential part of democracy and democratic renewal."

The report was produced by an all-party working group, the majority of whose members were, I understand, Labour party or former Labour party members. Liberal members did not dissent from that view so I wonder what has changed their minds since the report was published.

The bill is not about strengthening local government, as Peter Peacock claimed. He should have been honest: it is about strengthening the Liberal and Labour parties in local government. The Labour and Liberal parties have undergone a road-to-Damascus change in attitude on the issue. I remember, as will Tommy Sheridan and Bill Aitken, that all parties in Glasgow City Council supported holding elections on separate days. The change came about because the Labour party thinks it can gain an advantage.

That scion of the Labour movement and well-known conviction politician, Peter Peacock, has contempt for Labour and Liberal voters. He obviously believes that they are not committed to local government and are less likely to get out of their scratchers to vote—which disadvantages the electoral prospects of the coalition parties—unless council elections are tagged on to parliamentary elections. I do not share the contempt shown by Peter Peacock and the Liberal and Labour parties towards Labour and Liberal voters, who I believe are just as likely to come out to vote regardless of when the election is held. People are more likely to vote if the negative, victory-of-fear-over-hope style of the 1999 campaign is not repeated.

Of course, when the Liberals made their submission to the McIntosh commission, they did not advocate waiting until the experience of the 1999 elections. I wonder what other recommendations of the McIntosh commission, apart from those relating to PR, they have distanced themselves from. I say to Donald Gorrie that, if he intends to wind up for the Liberal Democrats in a debate as important as this one, it would help if he turned up for more than 10 minutes of that debate.

A number of important issues have been touched on. Sandra White talked about improving access for disabled people.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am not sure whether I heard the member correctly, but I point out that I have been in the chamber throughout the debate.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

So speaks the invisible man. None of us managed to see him.

Colin Campbell argued that mid-term elections, rather than coincident local government and Scottish Parliament elections, would maximise turnout. We agree with him.

I am sorry that my old sparring partner Frank McAveety was unable to attend this morning's debate.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Are you sure that he is not here?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

No doubt he is busy pledging himself in turn to each of this afternoon's candidates for the office of First Minister.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

This has been a useful and, for the most part, interesting debate. I am grateful to members for the strong support that they have expressed for at least two of the major principles of the bill, the first of which is the four-year term of office for councillors. Murray Tosh recognised that it was a mistake to introduce the current three-year term, and I am glad that we are in a position to rectify that.

I am also grateful to members for their support for the pilot schemes that are proposed and for the principle that we should be able to experiment with how elections are conducted in order to encourage greater participation in the electoral process.

A number of members—Iain Smith, Trish Godman, Tricia Marwick and Murray Tosh—suggested that, if Scottish Parliament and local government elections are to take place on the same day, the same rules should apply to both sets of elections. The Secretary of State for Scotland has indicated that, in relation to future Scottish Parliament elections, it would be sensible to legislate for pilots and provisions similar to those that we are discussing today. The Electoral Commission, together with the Scottish Executive and others, is considering the matter. The issue is not a matter for this Parliament, but no doubt in due course provisions can be enacted that will address the concerns that members have raised. The point that Murray Tosh made about elections over a longer period can also be addressed in that context.

I accept that there is a difference of view on the merits of coincident elections. As Iain Smith said, we need to make a balanced judgment about what best serves local democracy. The Executive is clearly of the view that local democracy is best served by coincident local government and Scottish Parliament elections. A number of members referred to the McIntosh commission's recommendation that there should be mid-term elections. However, the McIntosh commission took its evidence prior to the experience of the 1999 elections. As Donald Gorrie said, we should all learn from that experience. Before the 1999 elections, I had reservations about coincident elections. However, the evidence suggests that the practice was a great success and that it resulted in increased turnout. We want to build on that success in the way that I have described.

I want to deal with a number of other points that members made. Keith Harding and Tricia Marwick suggested that, if there were coincident local government and Scottish Parliament elections, local government elections would be swamped by national issues. Tricia Godman raised the same issue, but in a different sense. I do not agree that local government elections will become a sideshow if they are held at the same time as Scottish Parliament elections. Far from local issues being hidden from the electorate, on a day when the turnout will be higher than would otherwise be the case, more people will have a chance to vote on their council's performance.

As Donald Gorrie and Bill Butler pointed out, all the evidence suggests that local elections are used by political parties and by commentators to pass judgments on national, rather than local, issues. That is an indisputable fact. Leaflets that I suspect all political parties have produced for local elections have referred to national issues. Commentators and parties invite members of the public to cast their votes as part of a referendum on the Government of the day.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

rose—

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Before I give way to Murray Tosh, I should point out that he himself revealed the problem. He illustrated what happened recently in Aberdeenshire, where the Conservative party sought to turn the local election into what he described as a referendum on the local MSP. That proves the point that local elections are often about national issues, rather than local issues.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I confess that my jibe at Mr Rumbles was somewhat facetious. It turns out that he was not the local MSP after all.

I understand absolutely, and accept, that many electors often see local elections as an opportunity to pass a verdict on national politics and politicians. Nevertheless, in purely local elections, it is far easier to focus on local issues, personalities and records and to get voters to treat those local issues as determining factors that will at least influence the way in which they cast their votes.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I simply do not agree with Murray Tosh and I do not think that the evidence supports his point of view. Members of all political parties have hijacked local issues in order to pass judgment on national issues. The merit of holding elections on the same day is that the issues cannot be hijacked to the same extent. In those circumstances, people will know that they will have three votes for two elections. They will be able to distinguish between those issues that are truly attributable to the national politicians and to cast their votes accordingly. Equally, they will be able to attribute those issues that are down to local politicians and again cast their vote accordingly. The bill provides people with an opportunity to separate out and judge better the two tiers of government, rather than hiding one tier within the other. A number of members have said that the bill is an advance on the status quo. Voters demonstrate time and again that they can make those distinctions and vote in different ways. Bill Butler indicated that about 28 per cent of people did so at the previous election.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Surely people have to make different choices. In the most recent local government elections, there was no SNP candidate in 165 wards, no Labour candidate in 262 wards, no Conservative candidate in 499 wards and no Liberal Democrat candidate in 612 wards. Surely there must be a difference in the percentages between parliamentary and local government election simply because political parties do not contest all the wards.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Kenneth Gibson's point has some validity. Nonetheless, he did not disprove my argument. The researchers' evidence is that people are perfectly capable of distinguishing between the democratically elected tiers of government in elections that are held on the same day and of casting their votes accordingly.

The second argument that members made—Tricia Marwick introduced it—is that somehow turnout for local elections is made artificially high if those elections are held on the same day as parliamentary elections. I do not accept that argument. It is a fact that a higher turnout is achieved in those circumstances, but what is the alternative? Do we really want to stick to holding council and parliamentary elections on different days? All the evidence shows that the turnout for council elections would be lower than the turnout for parliamentary elections if those elections were held on a different day. How would that serve local democracy?

People—perhaps even MSPs—would say that the Parliament is more legitimate because parliamentary elections attracted a higher turnout than the council elections did. That does not serve local democracy at all and it does not make councils more legitimate. That is why the Labour party and I, in partnership with our Liberal Democrat colleagues, are committed to making the measure work. We believe that it is the right step to take to improve quality and legitimacy.

A number of members, including Tricia Marwick, Trish Godman, Sylvia Jackson and Donald Gorrie, rightly pointed to the difficulty that was encountered with the publicity about the 1999 election. I both understand and support that point. We must improve co-ordination between the Scotland Office and the Executive on that important issue in order to ensure that, come the next election, people are clearly informed about which elections are taking place and how many votes they have in the Scottish Parliament election and in the council election. The Executive is working with the Scotland Office, the Electoral Commission and returning officers to plan much more effectively for the future and to overcome that problem. I want our advertising to make it clear that people will have three votes in two elections. I am committed to making that happen and I have instructed our officials to ensure that they argue that point of view within the working groups.

I want briefly to touch on other points that members raised during the debate. The administrative issue of counting votes was raised. I advise Sandra White and Brian Adam that the system worked in 1999, although there were undoubtedly teething problems. The returning officers and the staff involved have learned from those problems and are confident that they can undertake the counts more effectively in future. I have complete confidence in their ability to do so. I do not think that the issue is particularly worrying.

It is time for me to conclude. As Bill Aitken and I indicated, the bill is short but significant. It is designed to strengthen local government, to give it more stability to do its job and, above all, to strengthen its democratic legitimacy. The bill is part of the Administration's commitment to local government, which is a key partner in delivering for Scotland. I commend the bill to the Parliament.

Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill: Financial Resolution

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I ask Peter Peacock to move motion S1M-2440, on the financial resolution in respect of the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill, agrees to any increase in expenditure payable out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund in consequence of the Act.— [Peter Peacock.]

NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2458, in the name of Susan Deacon, on the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, which is UK legislation.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have seen that we may start question time at 11:30. The NHS Reform and Health Care Professionals Bill is an important issue, so I hope that you will allow us more time than the 20 minutes remaining.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I do not think that I have any latitude on that. However, I have not so far been inundated with speakers for this debate, so I suspect that I shall not have too much of a problem. I will bear your comment in mind, Mr Wallace.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The motion relates to the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, which has received its second reading in the House of Commons, where it will commence its committee stage on 27 November.

Clauses 23 to 27, together with schedule 7, propose the establishment of a council for the regulation of health care professionals and set out its functions and powers. The Scotland Act 1998 defines the regulation of the health professions as a matter that is reserved to Westminster. However, some powers in this policy area are potentially devolved. That is why we are debating the motion.

Before I come to the devolved issues, let me say briefly what the proposed council will do and why we support its establishment. The council will be an overarching body to oversee the various bodies that carry out professional self-regulation. It is designed to improve the effectiveness of self-regulation to enhance public protection. It will do that by bringing greater consistency and spreading good practice. If necessary, it will exercise its powers to require changes to the rules of a regulatory body. The council will not deal with the fitness of individuals for professional practice, but it will have a power to appeal to the courts against individual regulatory decisions, where it thinks that it is in the public interest to do so.

The proposals for the council for the regulation of health care professionals in essence follow the recommendations of the Kennedy report of the Bristol inquiry. The council's remit will extend across the United Kingdom. That is entirely appropriate to ensure consistent standards and to reflect and encourage the mobility of health professionals. The council is designed to be independent of Government. We look forward to the benefits that it will bring to Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

I shall now explain the devolved issues. The Scotland Act 1998 reserved regulation of the health professions that were covered by the eight regulatory bodies that existed at that time. Scotland cannot legislate for those bodies nor, by extension, for a body to oversee them. However, the Health Act 1999 gave powers for further regulatory bodies for other health professionals to be created by an order in council. An order could be made to provide a separate regulatory body for Scotland. If new Scottish regulators were thus established, it would in theory be possible for the Scottish Parliament to create its own body to oversee them, which would be a Scottish equivalent of the council for the regulation of health care professionals. That is the main reason why there is a devolved aspect to the bill.

From what I have said, members will appreciate that I value the United Kingdom dimension to the body that the bill proposes. For that reason and because it is important that the same body should oversee both the eight reserved regulatory bodies and any new regulators, I do not favour the creation of a separate body to oversee any Scottish regulators, which in theory could be created.

Two other aspects of the bill affect devolved competence. They flow from the intention that the remit of the new council should cover the United Kingdom. First, Scottish ministers will be given the power to appoint one of the members of the council. That is to be welcomed. That power will, of course, be exercised in accordance with the Nolan principles. Secondly, Scottish ministers will have the power to fund the body through payments or loans. That will allow the commissioning of work from the council; it does not affect the fact that the costs of the council will be met by Westminster.

I commend the motion to members and ask them to consent to Westminster's legislating for a body that will bring considerable improvements to the regulation of health care professionals in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom.

I move,

That the Parliament endorses the principle that the Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals, which is to be created to oversee the regulatory bodies for healthcare professionals under the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, should also have power to oversee any regulatory bodies which might be established in future and which fall within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament; agrees that the Council be made accountable to the Scottish Parliament in respect of such of its functions as fall within devolved competence; agrees that the function should be conferred upon Scottish ministers of appointing one of the members of the Council, agrees that power should be conferred on Scottish ministers to make payments and loans to the Council, and finally agrees that the relevant provisions to achieve this end in the Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Important though this issue is, I suspect that it is not what most people in Scotland were talking about over their cornflakes this morning. However, it is important that the Parliament closely scrutinises all Sewel motions. We have few enough powers in some areas, so we should not abdicate those that we do have without very good reason.

The council for the regulation of health professionals will, as the minister has said, oversee the work only of those regulatory bodies that are listed in section 23 of the UK bill, powers over all of which are currently reserved to Westminster. The Scottish Parliament has the power to set up new bodies. One of the effects of this Sewel motion will be to ensure that any body that is established by this Parliament falls under the aegis of the new council. On the face of it, that seems a pretty minor matter. According to the Executive, having a Sewel motion is the sensible way to proceed. The argument that the minister puts forward is that it is important to ensure that the regulation of health professionals is consistent across the UK.

For the purposes of this debate, let us put to one side the substance of that argument—which is that even though we do not have a UK health service, even though we have different systems of education and training for many health professionals and, indeed, even though we have a different system of clinical governance, we should nevertheless have a UK system of regulation. Even if we put that to one side, there is a false logic in the argument that the Executive is putting forward. If this Parliament decides, in future, to set up a new regulatory body, it will mean that the Parliament has decided—for whatever reasons and in whatever circumstances—that a UK approach is not appropriate and that a Scotland-only body suits a particular set of circumstances that pertain at a particular time. All that may seem highly theoretical, but the Executive itself says in the memorandum that goes with the motion that it cannot envisage the circumstances in which it would want to set up a separate Scottish regulatory body. That begs the question why there is any need for legislation for something that the Executive does not think will ever happen.

A far more important question is this: if the Executive cannot envisage the circumstances in which it would want to set up a new body, how does it know, at this stage, that if such circumstances did arise, it would be appropriate for a distinct Scottish body—no doubt established for distinct Scottish reasons—to be part of a UK framework? Is this not just a case of tying the Parliament's hands unnecessarily? Why do we not wait until circumstances arise in which we might want to establish a separate Scottish body and then decide whether it would be appropriate for that body to fall under the aegis of the UK regulatory council?

Shona Robison will address other areas of concern to do with the Sewel motion. I do not think that the Executive is trying to do anything devious this morning. To be frank, on the evidence of yesterday's meeting of the Health and Community Care Committee, I do not think that the Executive understands what it is trying to do or why. The best explanation given yesterday was that it was important to allow Westminster to legislate on a devolved matter for a set of circumstances that the Executive thinks will never arise. I do not think that that is an especially good reason for ceding power to the Westminster Parliament—unless, when summing up, the minister can convince me otherwise.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Scottish Conservatives welcome the chance to offer our support for a council to regulate health care professionals in the United Kingdom. We acknowledge the extra reassurance that such a body will bring to patients and relatives, as well as to some health care professionals themselves.

However, before we give our permission—for that, simply, is what a Sewel motion does—for Westminster to deal with some regulatory powers on our behalf, we seek answers to a few questions. I watched the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care give evidence at the Health and Community Care Committee yesterday, and many of those questions were not properly answered. I hope that he will take this opportunity to give clearer answers.

On a procedural matter, given the devolved aspects of the bill, it is a bit rich to have this motion before us when Westminster has already completed its first reading. I ask that the Presiding Officer keep an eye on such things—we in this Parliament should not be taken for granted.

On the functions of the new council, the Scottish Conservatives seek answers that are clearer than the ones that the minister gave yesterday. For example, how will the new council fit in with the health service ombudsman for Scotland? What measures does the Executive intend to take to ensure that the public are fully informed and understand what the council can and cannot do.

On the composition of the council, it must be asked why the political appointees outweigh those from the professions. Can the minister guarantee a transparent and open procedure in appointments?

The policy memorandum that accompanies the bill is somewhat contradictory throughout. The memorandum makes clear that any future appointment will be accountable to Parliament—it does not make clear which Parliament that means—rather than the secretary of state. Perhaps the minister would consider allowing the Health and Community Care Committee to choose Scotland's appointment to the council. I hope that he will consider that idea.

For any regulatory body to have real power, it must have real teeth. I have examined the detail of the bill and found that the new council can do plenty of recommending but little directing. That could cause problems in the future, particularly given that the council's birth is a result of the difficulties that arose between patients and the administration at Bristol royal infirmary.

We live in a Scotland that is striving to achieve better joined-up government and the on-going community care debate has shown just how important that is. I seek an assurance from the minister that he will lobby his counterparts in the UK Government to ensure that the council will encompass social services and take a more joined-up approach.

The Scottish Conservatives will support the motion. Our concerns and the minister's answers will be communicated to our counterparts at Westminster.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The Liberal Democrats support the Sewel motion and welcome the establishment of the council for the regulation of health care professionals. We note particularly that it was a recommendation of the Kennedy report on the Bristol inquiry.

The council for the regulation of health care professionals will oversee the work of the current regulatory bodies and ensure that they function in the public interest and co-operate with each other. We agree with the establishment of an overarching body that will bring consistency and monitoring to the eight regulatory bodies across the UK that are covered and hope that it will lead to the sharing of best practice.

The regulation of the professions is a reserved matter, but under the Scotland Act 1998 the Scottish Parliament has the power to create an overseeing body. Today we need to decide whether we are happy to cede that power to Westminster. For the sake of consistency we are happy to do so.

We support the fact that the majority of council members will be lay people, rather than professionals. That will go some way towards allaying growing public concern about recent events such as the Shipman case and the situation in Bristol. We also welcome the fact that the appeals procedures will be harmonised across professions and that appeals against decisions on fitness to practice would go to the courts rather than to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. However, like earlier speakers, I have concerns, some of which we debated at yesterday's meeting of the Health and Community Care Committee.

My main concern relates to accountability. Any new regulatory body set up in Scotland would be a devolved matter. We need clarification on how the new council, and who from the council, would be accountable to the Scottish Parliament. My understanding, based on comments made yesterday by Malcolm Chisholm, is that in relation to the existing regulatory bodies, the annual report and accounts of the council would be set before the Westminster Parliament and that only the Scottish representative on the council could be held accountable to the Health and Community Care Committee of the Scottish Parliament. However if our scrutiny was in connection with a new body that had been set up by the Scottish Parliament, we would be entitled to scrutinise the chief executive of the council.

Further clarity is needed in respect of accountability. Where will the power to scrutinise the workings of the council lie? Will its report and accounts be laid before both Parliaments? What powers will the general public have in bringing concerns to the council? We understand that the council will not have the power to intervene in specific cases and understand why. However, what powers will members of the public or their representatives have if they have a genuine concern that a regulatory body is dragging its heels over an issue of general public concern?

We also have some concern about how decisions will be taken about whether Scottish bodies will be covered by the bill. For example, the Executive has decided not to include the Scottish social services council, which was recently established under the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001.

In conclusion, I echo Ben Wallace's comments on Sewel motions and timing in general. At no time should the Scottish Parliament's support be taken for granted. We would expect the concerns raised yesterday at the Health and Community Care Committee and during today's debate to be taken forward by the minister as part of the on-going consideration of the bill at Westminster.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

This Parliament should scrutinise all Sewel motions. I put on record my concern at the number of Sewel motions that the Executive is bringing to the Parliament. We all recognise the need for effective regulation and promotion of the public interest. There is a strong argument that that could best be achieved at a Scottish level, but I will leave that argument to one side for now.

My concern is accountability. The council for the regulation of health care professionals will be accountable to the UK Parliament. The CRHP will also have the power to regulate any future regulatory bodies that are established by the Scottish Parliament, even if such new bodies regulate activity in a devolved area. The motion says that the council will

"be made accountable to the Scottish Parliament in respect of such of its functions as fall within devolved competence"

but it does not say how that will be achieved. We accept that provision is made for reports from the CRHP to be laid before this Parliament, but there appear to be no powers to compel the chair of the CRHP to appear before the Parliament. In essence, we will see the reports but we will have no power to hold the council to account. That is a major weakness.

I highlight an issue of general concern, which is that we expect one representative from Scotland to represent the interests of eight professional bodies. Given that there will be specific Scottish interests, I am not sure how that will work in practice. Perhaps the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care will address that in summing up.

To conclude, the Executive has not thought through this legislation properly and has not answered the key question that was posed by Nicola Sturgeon: why does the Executive think it is important to allow Westminster to legislate on a devolved matter for a set of circumstances that the Executive does not think will arise? Perhaps the minister will have another go at answering that question in his summing up.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I assure Nicola Sturgeon and Shona Robison that we understand entirely what we are trying to do and why. In contrast to the content of their speeches, which once again showed us the SNP attempting to dance on the head of a constitutional pin, an overarching body was strongly recommended by the Kennedy report, which I suggest they read. I quote one sentence:

"In addition, a single body should be charged with the overall co-ordination of the various professional bodies and with integrating the various systems of regulation."

There is a strong case for consistency and oversight. If that is the objective, it would be illogical to increase inconsistency, which is what the SNP is proposing. It would be nonsense to have a separate Scottish co-ordinating body that could not oversee the reserved regulatory bodies in Scotland. We would have the ridiculous situation of having two bodies. The objective of consistency would be sabotaged.

Ben Wallace asked about informing the public. I agree that it is important that that should be done so that the public understand the role of the body and know that there is a new strong route for dealing with public complaints and concerns. As I said in my opening speech, the council could appeal to the courts about decisions by regulatory bodies, and will also have an ombudsman role with reference to those bodies. Ben Wallace also asked about the appointment procedure; I assure him that it will be transparent and open. It is a good thing that members of the public will be in the majority over the health professionals on that body.

Margaret Smith asked about accountability. Reports and accounts will be laid before the Scottish Parliament as well as the Westminster Parliament. Clearly, the council will deal substantially with reserved areas, but the Health and Community Care Committee will be able to question the Scottish member of the council and, if the council takes on devolved areas, the Health and Community Care Committee will be able to question the chair of the council. On the timing of the motion, to which Margaret Smith referred, the agreement is that the debate on the motion should take place before the committee stage, which is precisely what is happening.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I am almost out of time, so I am unable to do so.

I conclude by saying that we value and wish to empower front-line public service workers, but we also wish to protect the public in the few cases where something goes wrong. There is a need for an open and transparent regulatory framework that puts the needs and interests of patients and the public first. We have made a judgment based on those enduring principles, while the SNP once again shows its preference for constitutional nit-picking and a single ideological obsession.

Question Time — scottish executive

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it has made towards improving the quality of NHS dental services in the Grampian Health Board area. (S1O-4121)

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I am aware of current difficulties in the provision of NHS dental treatment in Grampian, due principally to local staff shortages. I understand that NHS Grampian has recently been successful in filling some vacant posts and that urgent cases are still seen quickly as a priority.

In addition, a range of measures is being advanced nationally to improve the supply of dentists and to improve NHS dental services across Scotland.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I thank the minister for that reply. I am sure the minister will realise that there is a shortage of dentists. In Aberdeenshire there is one dentist for every 5,000 people. The British Dental Association says that there should be one dentist for every 2,000 people. There are two solutions and I ask the minister to examine them.

First, will the minister consider recruiting dentists from European Union countries, where there is a surplus of dentists, as a short-term measure? Secondly, could the welcome initiative to attract rural general practitioners to the north of Scotland be extended to attract dentists to rural areas in the north-east of Scotland?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I am pleased to advise Mike Rumbles that work is already under way on that. In Grampian, the board is already investigating whether recruitment from overseas would bring in the necessary staff.

In addition, I understand that four Scottish dental access initiative grants have been awarded in Grampian. Those will contribute to improving the circumstances there. I also say to Mike Rumbles that we acknowledge that many different things need to be done to recruit into rural areas in particular. I am pleased to have met recently with the British Dental Association and held discussions on a range of solutions.

I am also pleased that, only this week, the remote and rural areas initiative held a conference in Perth. It was developing further ideas that we will be progressing.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister go on record as saying that it is unacceptable for people in Grampian to wait perhaps two to three months for a check-up at the local dentist, and three or four years for treatment from an orthodontist based at the local hospital? Will she give an undertaking to work with local MSPs to plot a way forward for the service in Grampian and perhaps agree to a meeting with a cross-party group of MSPs to discuss the matter?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I am always happy to work with local MSPs when they wish to explore with us, positively and constructively, what practical solutions can be developed. In many parts of the country I have done just that. I am encouraged that remote and rural recruitment issues are being addressed not just as NHS issues, but often through the involvement of local enterprise companies and others. When MSPs are prepared to work on a constructive and positive basis, I am more than happy to work with them.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I return the minister to the answer that she gave to Mr Rumbles about advertising for dentists. Does she know that the health board did not pass on all the grant that was available for advertising outwith Scotland last year? Is she aware that we cannot attract trainee dentists into the area because of inadequate training support? There is no institute, as there is in other parts of Scotland. What will the minister do about that?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

We must be absolutely clear on two points. As far as the Executive is concerned, we do not shirk from the fact that there are real issues about recruitment into dentistry—particularly in rural areas. We also recognise that the problem is multifaceted and has multifaceted solutions—it is not simply a question of investment. As I indicated in my response to Richard Lochhead, it is not even just an issue of how the NHS responds in isolation to recruitment issues in rural areas. There are many ways forward that must be explored. As I indicated, we are doing that actively, together with the profession.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps are being taken to promote culture and the arts as being integral to the regeneration of communities. (S1O-4148)

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Many factors contribute to the regeneration of communities. We recognise that the promotion of the arts and the broader cultural agenda is an important element of that regeneration and that many agencies have a part to play in that. For example, we have requested that the Scottish Arts Council ensures that all social inclusion partnerships have an arts component and I am pleased to say that so far 30 of the 48 SIPs are in the process of putting that component in place.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank the minister for her reply. Is she aware of interesting initiatives in my constituency, such as the Pollok Kist, The Village storytelling project and the planned heritage centre? They are interesting examples of the way in which the arts and culture are being promoted.

Those initiatives are supported and driven by local people. They are of interest and benefit to the local community, but will the minister reassure me that the Executive recognises the importance of promoting arts and culture and of making the wider community aware of such initiatives? That should create the infrastructure to allow broader accessibility to such initiatives and broader community interest in the arts, which would support economic regeneration in communities such as those which I represent.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I reassure Johann Lamont that the Scottish Executive is well aware of many local community arts and cultural projects. Recently, I had the pleasure of visiting Rutherglen and Cambuslang, at the invitation of Janis Hughes. Young people there were enabled to produce a play to articulate their experiences of the drugs issue. As we know, Cumbernauld Theatre also does much work with young people, to good effect.

Johann Lamont's central point is correct. Much of Scotland's great art was produced through the experience of ordinary working people. The Executive is committed to assisting people to promote the arts of their local communities and take that to the broader agenda. We always support access to the greatest arts in Scotland, but we also support local community arts and work hard to bring together the social justice and arts agendas.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Does the minister agree that community regeneration should be community-led, not least in arts and culture? What role will KickStart play in that process?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

As Kenny Gibson knows, we have pushed forward the KickStart programme and workers are about to be put in place. I am happy to encourage those workers to develop the community arts agenda.

Such work should be community-led, but we are not naive about the need for local support for communities that have been excluded from the arts. We need to support them in articulating their demands through resources and supporting staff in the KickStart programme.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

In many areas, the powers that be still do not accept that cultural activity in the community is a great help to young people. Often, all that is needed is a bit of help, a modest amount of money and some professional know-how. Will the minister work with local government, when it is not pursuing such a policy, to encourage it to do that more?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Yes. Donald Gorrie makes his point well. Often, modest amounts of money produce great returns for communities. I have been impressed by the range of activities that local authorities have undertaken. Glasgow City Council is developing a good track record with its arts and cultural strategy. In greater Easterhouse in my constituency, Scottish Opera recently attended a community event at very little cost. Such integrated partnership working between arts agencies and local authorities is the answer to dealing with the great reservoirs of untapped talent in our communities that we are committed to releasing.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it expects to announce final details of the wind-up of the Scottish Transport Group pension schemes. (S1O-4156)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I am keen for ex gratia payments to Scottish Transport Group pension members to be made as soon as possible. However, that cannot happen until the pension schemes are wound up, and that is entirely a matter for the pension scheme's trustees. As soon as the schemes are wound up, the Scottish Transport Group will be dissolved, the surplus will be transferred and ex gratia payments will be processed.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

The minister said that the relevant dissolution order would be brought to the Parliament in autumn last year and later changed that date to autumn this year. Bearing that in mind, what is the Scottish Executive's definition of autumn? Will the minister ensure that pensioners receive interim payments from the surplus before Christmas and that the final payments total much more than the £100 million that has been promised, given that the gross surplus is £250 million plus interest?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No one is keener than I am to ensure that the pensioners have justice. The Executive has not delayed. The fact is that we cannot pay out until the trustees have wound up the scheme. We cannot access the detailed information on all the pensioners until the scheme is wound up and the trustees pass that information to us. As soon as we have that information, I think that we should issue full payments and not mess around with interim payments or delay the final settlement that the pensioners have waited far too long for.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the minister appreciate that her colleagues at the top of the Government in London blame the Executive for unacceptable delays in paying Scottish citizens their own money? Even the chancellor is said to be furious. Is Gordon Brown right or wrong to be furious at the Executive? Is he furious because payments to pensioners have been delayed or because there has been a delay in the Treasury getting its hands on pensioners' money? Is not it acutely ironic that thousands of ordinary Scots have waited 10 years for their own money, when a First Minister has been handed a chunk of a pension after one year of failure?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I will stick to the substance of the question. The Executive has not delayed. We are working hard to get the schemes through. We will be at the Finance Committee next week to ensure that we have the powers to pay the money.

I want the money to be paid as soon as possible. That is also the UK Government's position. Until we have the final wind-up from the trustees, we cannot pay the money. We must ensure that that work goes ahead as soon as possible, once the Parliament and the Executive have the authority to pay the money.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I am pleased to hear that the minister wants to see this expedited as quickly as possible. From the minister's discussions with the Transport and General Workers Union, she will be aware that many people are unclear about the process. There may also be people who have not yet come forward and others who are unaware that they are entitled to something from the pension fund. Will the minister give an indication of the steps that the Executive has taken and the procedures that are about to be put in place to ensure that everyone who is entitled to a payment from the scheme gets one, as soon as the scheme is wound up?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

First, we are in discussion with the trade unions to ensure that they know the criteria on which we will disperse the money. Secondly, as soon as the Executive has the money and we are able to make payments, we will have the widest possible advertising campaign to ensure that every single pensioner who might benefit from the funds knows about it. That will ensure that the records are up-to-date and will allow us to make payments.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

The minister will be aware that I have received many representations from constituents in my part of the world. It is essential that the matter be brought to a speedy and satisfactory conclusion. If it is necessary for the minister to co-ordinate with United Kingdom ministers, will she give me an assurance that that will be done?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Absolutely. We have worked closely with UK ministers. We have an Executive team that is ready and waiting to pay out the money as soon as we have it and the records from the STG. We are ready to pay out the money, but we need to have the money for us to be able to do that.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive whether its programme for road projects will include upgrading the remaining single-track section of the A830 between Fort William and Mallaig and whether it will seek any European transitional funding for such an upgrade. (S1O-4154)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

The remaining single-track section of the A830 is included in the agreed list of schemes for which European transitional funding will be sought. Highland Council will shortly be undertaking the necessary outstanding work, leading to the publication of a draft order. The scheme will be a candidate for future trunk road programme funding, taking account of the availability of European transitional funding.

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

My question is again one about delay. Is the minister aware of the visit yesterday of the Lord Russell-Johnston? In his maiden speech to the House of Commons, Lord Russell-Johnston raised the question of the Mallaig road. He did that in 1964.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It was a Liberal priority. [Laughter.]

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

Liberals have a certain sense of timing.

Does the minister agree that the delay is acceptable? Does she consider the delay to be much of an advert for the so-called benefits of the union?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

As everybody knows, the Executive was set up at the same time as the Parliament. That was in 1999. Six months after the Scottish Parliament was set up, I gave the go-ahead for work on the second-last stretch of the A830. This summer, I visited the work site. The-second-last stretch of the road is now going ahead. The Executive has made that a priority. We have already instructed Highland Council to do the preparatory work for the final stage. Fergus Ewing can take from that that we have a full awareness of the importance of getting on with the work.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Given the large amount of traffic on the A830 from Mallaig harbour, safety is often compromised, not only for travellers but for the communities that are cut off when the road is closed due to accidents. That also prohibits further economic development of the harbour. For those reasons, will the minister explore all funding options, including funds available for road safety and economic development?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I can give Rhoda Grant a commitment that we will do that. We have to make tough choices throughout our trunk roads network, but the fact that we have one final stretch of single-track road in Scotland is a lasting issue, which must be taken into account when we next consider priorities throughout the trunk roads programme.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it is making with its policy of improving the Scottish diet. (S1O-4150)

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

We are taking forward the Scottish diet action plan "Eating for Health" in a number of areas, for example by appointing the first Scottish food and health co-ordinator, injecting substantial resources from the health improvement fund and working to develop higher nutritional standards for school meals.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Does the minister agree that real long-term improvements involve getting fruit and vegetables into the mouths and stomachs of children—not necessarily the same task—particularly the poorest children, and that that should be a key health priority? Will she welcome and support initiatives such as the cashless school meals system that operates at Turnbull High School in my constituency as examples of the elimination of a stigma that has no place in 21 st century Scotland?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

This is an appropriate time to praise the efforts that have been made throughout Scotland in communities and schools and by local authorities, voluntary organisations, the health service and many others, to ensure that we make a difference to the diet of our nation. Change will not happen overnight, but it can and will happen if people continue to work together to make a difference. I am pleased that education, health and social justice ministers have joined together this week to take forward our latest series of measures to ensure that children in schools have access to healthy school meals. I welcome steps that have been taken by schools such as that in Brian Fitzpatrick's constituency, which will remove the stigma of free school meals and ensure that the barriers are removed so that the poorest in our society get the healthy, nutritious food that they need.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

What is the Executive doing to tackle the growing problem of childhood obesity, particularly given the serious impact that that has on health throughout life and on the development of conditions such as diabetes and heart disease? Will she assure us that action on diet will be taken throughout all relevant Executive departments?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Margaret Smith is right to highlight the growing problem of childhood obesity. It is in part a product of diet, but also of other lifestyle factors, not least the lack of exercise that many children experience as a consequence of changed habits. The problem is being tackled throughout Government. I am pleased that much is being done, for example in initiatives such as the Have a Heart Paisley national health demonstration project, to develop exercise and dietary improvement in schools. All of those projects together will start to make a difference. However, it is a big challenge and one that we must address together.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Given that poor diet is second only to smoking as the biggest contributor to early death in Scotland, does the minister agree that it requires radical thought and far-reaching measures? Will she agree therefore that the Parliament should give serious consideration to the free school meals bill?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I agree absolutely that improvement in that area needs radical and far-reaching methods and I am proud that the Executive is developing such measures. Anyone who has been closely involved in that area—and all the experts who gathered together at a food in schools conference earlier this year—would agree that the proposals in Tommy Sheridan's bill would not be an effective use of resources and, just as importantly, would not be effective in ensuring that our children actually eat nutritious meals.

What we are doing, however, is introducing practical measures that will ensure just that. The measures that we have set out this week will introduce minimum nutritional standards in schools and practical measures to end the stigma attached to free school meals. To ensure that we really are successful, we have written this week to directors of education in every local authority in Scotland to involve them in that work.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Is the Executive still on course for achieving the targets, aims and objectives that were set out in "Eating for Health: a Diet Action Plan for Scotland", which was written by my colleague Lord James Douglas Hamilton when he was Scottish health minister in 1996?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Mary Scanlon may be aware that one of the few occasions when I am on record as praising something from a previous Conservative Government is that on which I praised the Scottish national diet action plan. To this day, there is broad agreement that that plan represents the way forward in improving diet. However, it is not enough to have the plan. We must also put action, energy and investment into implementing it, and that is what we are now doing.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Some 250,000 people in Scotland are at risk of malnutrition, and 310,000 children in Scotland live in poverty. Those are almost third-world figures in relation to our population size. Much more radical action needs to be taken. I suggest that the Executive's investigatory groups look at one place where meals are highly subsidised, very nutritious, delicious and cheap: the Scottish Parliament. Our children should be as well fed as we are, instead of having to buy rubbishy sweets out of vending machines to make schools money.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

However desirable it may be, it is not possible to give the nation's children access to the Scottish Parliament canteen. However, a growing number of Scottish children have access to breakfast clubs, to healthy eating initiatives in communities and to fruit in schools and nursery schools. That is the kind of thing that we are doing to reach out and end the problems of generations in this country.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it plans to promote physical education within the school curriculum. (S1O-4122)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

From food to exercise. The Scottish Executive is anxious to promote physical education in all our schools. In terms of the school curriculum, performance measures for physical activity have now been developed and will be included in guidance for local authorities on the preparation of individual school improvement plans.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Does the minister agree that, although we have a tradition of football and rugby in Scottish schools, it is just as important to promote non-competitive sport? Will he join me in congratulating Greenwood Academy, in my constituency, on introducing fitness days which allow pupils to participate in contemporary exercise such as step aerobics, circuits and boxercise?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I am happy to congratulate Irene Oldfather's local school on that initiative. Although I agree that the issue is wider than specific competitive or team sports, I believe that such competitive and team sports are very important. The performance measures that are being issued reflect that balance. There are to be nationally determined performance measures on the percentage of schools with health-promoting school status, and those measures should cover issues such as diet as well as exercise. The measures will reflect the range of physical activity provided by schools including, but not exclusively, sport. There will also be a locally determined measure on the percentage of pupils participating in key cultural, sporting and social activities outside the formal school curriculum.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

That will really make the kids want to go out and get into sport. To what extent have the well-known findings of the Linwood primary school PE experiment been incorporated in the minister's programme for PE in schools?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I do not know. [Laughter.]

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I admire the minister for his honesty. He will be aware of my considerable interest in the subject. Does he accept that one of the best ways of ensuring that young people and children are involved in physical activity in school is to co-ordinate that within local communities and sports clubs? Will he undertake to examine what action is being taken to ensure that that work is better co-ordinated? If necessary, will he return to the matter and consider what further steps need to be taken in the school curriculum?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I agree that it is important to deliver at local level. Whatever national performance measures we may have, the key is local delivery. That is why we have set up the physical activity task force, under the chairmanship of John Beattie.

I will meet him and other members of the task force this afternoon to consider some of its early proposals. We have made it clear that we are prepared to take on the task force's recommendations and consider its proposals for change. We will consider amending and changing our quality indicators, if the task force sees fit. Members should forgive the pun.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it expects to introduce legislation to facilitate competition in the delivery of water and sewerage services. (S1O-4128)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

We will not legislate to facilitate competition in the water industry. However, as part of the water environment and water services bill planned for next year, we will establish a legislative framework to ensure that if competition develops, it does so in the interests of all customers, while public health, the environment and our social objectives continue to be safeguarded.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

Private water companies will be delighted with the proposal to ask tax payers to continue to bear the burden of maintaining a costly and heavily-regulated water and sewerage infrastructure. Will the minister explain why that is in the public interest? It seems that the loss-making parts of the industry are to be kept in public ownership while the money-making parts are to be passed over to the real cronies of today's politics—the predatory private companies that are out to stuff their pockets with taxpayers' money at the expense of public services.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Mr McAllion has no evidence to put to Parliament that we have any intention to do other than retain Scottish Water in public ownership for the benefit of the company.

If the Parliament approves the creation of Scottish Water, that company, in public ownership and delivering the highest quality water and sewage services at the most competitive price, will see off the competition.

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

Does the minister agree that the establishment of Scottish Water will create the largest quango in Scotland's history, with an annual expenditure of almost £1 billion? With the creation of that super quango, does he accept that it is important to ensure a fair, open and transparent appointment process for board members? Will he therefore give a commitment to submit the list of board members for Parliament's approval? Is this Liberal minister prepared to halt the gravy train of Labour party members being paid from the public service?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I found no substance in John McAllion's opening question and find even less substance in Bruce Crawford's question.

Members will be appointed to the board of Scottish Water on the basis of their ability to contribute to the running of a major public corporation.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

On the basis of their ability to contribute to the Labour party.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The member has misunderstood entirely. If any member is suggesting that they would wish to put Scottish Water into private ownership, they can pursue that. The Executive is committed to keeping Scottish Water in public ownership as a public corporation and those who will serve on its board will be chosen entirely on their merits.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Is the minister aware that we use only a small percentage of our own water for domestic requirements? Are studies in hand to find out if we could help out—either commercially or for humanitarian purposes—in the event of drought in developing nations where there could be substantial and urgent demand for water?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am not aware of such studies, although, as I come from Greenock, I am aware of a surplus of water in Scotland. I will write to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on whether such surveys exist.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in relation to the powers granted to the Secretary of State for that department to determine the boundary between English and Scottish territorial waters by virtue of section 1(3) of the National Heritage Bill. (S1O-4120)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

My officials have worked closely with officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the National Heritage Bill. Any order made under section 1(3) of the National Heritage Bill will be made in consultation with the Scottish Executive and will be consistent with the terms of the Scotland Act 1998 and the Scotland Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 (SI 1999/1126).

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As the bill will allow the boundary between English and Scottish territorial waters to be determined solely by the minister in London without any need for consultation with the Scottish ministers or with the Parliament, is the minister concerned that it is contrary to the spirit of devolution? Does it not set an unwelcome precedent for future bills?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

For Mr Fraser's benefit, I repeat what I said in response to the initial question—he obviously did not hear it. There is no possibility that that decision will be made other than in the spirit of the concordats that have been agreed between Westminster and us.

I find the sudden Tory interest in boundary issues very odd given that the Tories were completely opposed to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in the first place. This is my first experience of Mr Fraser. I can certainly see why Andrew Neil, that right-wing publisher of The Scotsman described Mr Fraser last week as the Tory Taliban. I advise Mr McLetchie to watch his back very carefully in future.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps are being taken to prevent any deterioration of coastal waters resulting from expansion of the fish farming industry. (S1O-4125)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

There is a wide range of measures in place to ensure that the impact of fish farming on the marine environment is controlled.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The minister is, of course, aware that fish farming is not the only contributor to nutrients in our coastal waters. Is the minister aware that, under the terms of the European water framework directive, it is not permissible to allow activities that will result in the deterioration of the quality of our surface waters? Will she provide evidence that any expansion of aquaculture will not result in such a deterioration of water quality, thereby resulting in a breach of the directive?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

We are obviously aware of the terms of the directive. In the meantime, we will do everything that we can to ensure that anything that we do now does not in any way compromise the objectives of the water framework directive.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister will be aware of the evidence that was given to the Transport and the Environment Committee yesterday by people with wild fish interests, shellfish growers and environmental non-governmental organisations. Could she reassure me that the consultation on the development of a strategy of aquaculture will be inclusive and will include those stakeholders as well as the fish farmers?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am happy to give Maureen Macmillan that categorical assurance. The consultation will be fully inclusive. The consultation paper has already been issued and I am about to embark on a series of meetings with the various stakeholders. I intend to set up an expert group to take that work forward. I pay tribute to the work that the Transport and the Environment Committee has done to examine the issue and especially to the work of Robin Harper and Maureen Macmillan, who are that committee's reporters.

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

I am glad that the minister mentioned the rolling inquiry and the evidence that is being taken by the Transport and the Environment Committee.

Will the minister consider restricting any further expansion of sea-cage fish farming in our coastal waters until that inquiry is concluded?