Scottish Parliament, 31 January 2002

346 contributions from 76 members. The official report.

Introduction

Point of Order

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

The first item of business will be a debate on motion S1M-2625, in the name of Andy Kerr, on the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I rise to lay down a marker in relation to a story that appears in The Scotsman today. As members will be aware, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie, appeared before the Justice 2 Committee yesterday and was questioned on tenants' right to buy. Quite rightly, he said that that would be best dealt with in agricultural holdings legislation. However, the article in The Scotsman states:

"He told The Scotsman after the committee session ended: 'Pre-emptive right-to-buy for farm tenants will definitely be in that bill.'"

That rides roughshod over the consultation processes of which the Parliament is so proud. In the same article a large number of questions, which will result in insecurity for those who are involved in the farm tenanted sector, are raised by the leaders of the National Farmers Union of Scotland and others. It would have been far more appropriate if the statement had been made to Parliament, where those legitimate questions could have been put to the minister and such insecurities could have been put to rest.

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

I take note of what you say. It is early in the morning. I will have inquiries made and come back to you later in the morning.

Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill: Stage 1

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

As the minister with responsibility for public services, I especially welcome the opportunity to debate the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill. The bill is a prime example of devolution working for the benefit of the people of Scotland. It will create the framework for new public sector ombudsman arrangements that are specifically tailored to meet Scottish needs. With this bill, Scotland is taking the lead within the UK in an important policy area. The bill will put our public sector complaints system on a par with the most progressive systems elsewhere. It will contribute to our drive for better delivery of public services and further our commitment to promote the modernising government programme.

The people of Scotland have a right to expect modern, effective, high quality and first-class public services. Similarly, they have the right to expect a fair hearing if they consider that a failure in the delivery of those services has caused injustice or hardship. Effective ombudsman arrangements are a vital element in ensuring that the public are protected from such injustice or hardship. Better government needs an efficient complaints system to deal with that.

The bill aims to establish a complaints system that is accessible, open and accountable, and which commands the trust and confidence of the Scottish public. The bill fulfils the requirement in the Scotland Act 1998 for the Parliament to provide for the investigation of complaints, specifically those relating to actions of members of the Scottish Executive or other office-holders in the Scottish Administration.

The bill has been developed following two extensive consultation exercises undertaken by the Executive. About 800 organisations and individuals, including special interest and community groups, public bodies, trade unions and professional and trade organisations, were given the opportunity to comment on our proposals. We judged it to be essential that the consultation process take account of the views of real people in real processes. We therefore arranged for people who had recent experience of using the ombudsman system to contribute by offering views on not only our proposals but the effectiveness of the current arrangements. We are grateful for all the contributions that we have received.

The bill has benefited from extensive consultation, which has greatly assisted our wish to establish a complaints system that better reflects Scottish circumstances. Throughout the consultations, it has been clear to the Executive that many aspects of the existing ombudsman systems have proved extremely effective, so in drafting the bill we have sought to retain what has worked well and to complement that framework with a range of significant reforms to create a better complaints system for Scotland.

I am pleased that the Local Government Committee's report endorses the general principles of the bill and commends them to the Parliament. The report raises a number of issues to which I will respond. The Executive will, of course, consider carefully all the matters raised by the committee as work on the bill proceeds. I thank the convener, Trish Godman, and the other committee members for the significant amount of work that they have undertaken in scrutinising the bill.

The principal reform introduced by the bill is the creation of a one-stop shop combining the existing offices of the parliamentary, health service, local government and housing association ombudsmen in Scotland. The new office will also take over the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland's function of investigating complaints relating to mental health matters—as recommended by the Millan committee report—and complaints that are currently dealt with by the external complaints adjudicators for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

The one-stop shop will be headed by a single Scottish public sector ombudsman, who will be supported by up to three deputy ombudsmen. The question of an appropriate job title was thoroughly aired in both our consultation exercises. In particular, we sought suggestions for a gender-neutral title. A clear majority of respondents to both consultations favoured the title "ombudsman". I attach a degree of importance to that consultation and response. The term "ombudsman", which was coined for the role by the Scandinavians, is readily understood and recognised by the public, is by far the most commonly used title for this type of office throughout the world, and provides a clearer indication of the unique functions of the office than any alternative title. The committee's report suggested that the Executive should consider changing the title of the office-holder to the Scottish public services ombudsman. That is a helpful suggestion to which we will give positive consideration in advance of stage 2.

The ombudsman and deputies will be appointed by the Queen, on the recommendation of the Parliament. That arrangement reinforces the independence of the proposed office. To improve the accountability of those office-holders, they will be appointed for a fixed term of up to five years, which will be renewable once. A second renewal will be allowed only in exceptional circumstances.

A one-stop shop will provide benefits not only for the public, who will find it easier to make complaints, but for the ombudsman, who should realise tangible improvements in the operation and effectiveness of the complaints system. All complaints and information requests will be dealt with by the same office using standardised procedures. That will avoid the confusion that can arise at present when a complaint falls within the remit of more than one ombudsman. A single organisation dealing with public sector complaints will develop a higher public profile and will be easier to publicise. It will allow greater flexibility in the use of staff and other resources and will provide opportunities for more joint working and sharing of information.

The one-stop shop will be funded by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The funding associated with the existing ombudsmen will, where appropriate, be redirected to the SPCB. The Executive will also provide the Parliament with additional funding to support the start-up costs that are required to establish the new office. The bill empowers the SPCB to determine the pay, allowances and pensions of the ombudsman and deputy ombudsmen. Those provisions reflect the common approach to managing the offices of office-holders who are the responsibility of the Parliament, which was agreed after discussions at official level between the Executive and the Parliament.

There are a number of ways in which the bill seeks to make the ombudsman more accessible. It removes the need for complaints to go through MSPs and allows complaints to be made orally in special circumstances, or to be made by electronic means. It also allows a person to authorise a representative to complain on their behalf. Such arrangements taken alone will make a significant difference to the disadvantaged within Scottish society. Those who have difficulty with reading or writing or those who, for whatever reason, are currently discouraged from making a complaint or who are unable to make a complaint, will be encouraged to make full use of the complaints system, which is intended to be of benefit to all.

We attach great importance to promoting public awareness of the new ombudsman and his or her role. The bill requires the authorities that are listed in the bill to provide information about the right to complain to the ombudsman in, for example, leaflets, guidance and correspondence.

The committee's report suggested that the ombudsman should have a consistent range of investigatory powers within his or her jurisdiction. I understand that that suggestion arises mainly from the health service ombudsman's power to investigate matters of clinical judgment and the housing association ombudsman's ability to investigate matters other than maladministration.

We have not sought to retain the housing association ombudsman's wider remit because we have identified only one occasion on which it has been used. That case could have been dealt with as maladministration. Therefore, it was clear that the wider remit was unnecessary. Maladministration is a broad term and, in practice, it enables ombudsmen to look into a wide range of matters.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I seek clarification from the minister. I am confused about what will happen if someone complains about a social worker. Will they complain to the Scottish Social Services Council or to the Scottish public sector ombudsman? When I asked the Scottish Parliament information centre and the Executive about the complaints procedures for the Scottish Social Services Council and the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care, I was told that they are still out to consultation. I find it difficult to see the parameters of those new organisations and how they will fit with the role of the public sector ombudsman.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I will try to address that point now and perhaps follow it up by correspondence. In the first instance, the internal measures and mechanisms that are available within the local authority should be used for a complaint. The complaint would subsequently be passed on to the ombudsman. I will clarify the point that Mary Scanlon made, which is interesting, but that is my initial view.

Professional judgments, to which I referred in connection with the health service ombudsman's remit, are essentially discretionary decisions, which we propose to continue to exclude from the ombudsman's jurisdiction. That is because we do not wish to create conflict between the role of the ombudsman and the democratic accountability of elected representatives or, indeed, to trespass into areas for which the courts are the proper mechanism for recourse.

It is also important to remember that the primary function of ombudsmen in the public sector has always been to consider complaints about injustice or hardship caused by maladministration. We propose that that should remain the primary function of the new ombudsman. That approach was endorsed overwhelmingly by the majority of those who responded to our consultations.

An exception was made for the health service ombudsman to reflect the unique circumstances of the relationship between health care professionals and patients. In other parts of the public sector, professional judgments are generally exercised in providing advice or information to the elected representatives by whom the decisions are made.

The option of judicial review will remain open to anyone who is not satisfied with a decision based on a professional judgment. Furthermore, the bill allows for the processes leading up to such decisions to be open to scrutiny by the ombudsman, as is the case now. I consider that the approach that is taken in the bill strikes the right balance between ensuring that public authorities are properly held to account and making legislation that is clear and workable.

In its report, the committee has asked that the Executive look again at whether the bill safeguards and enhances the ability of the ombudsman to resolve disputes by informal means. I have already informed the committee that I welcome the practice of resolving complaints informally wherever possible. The bill is intended to provide the statutory framework for the ombudsman to operate effectively and the powers that are necessary for the ombudsman to undertake his or her formal functions. We deliberately avoided including any specific provision for informal resolution because we considered that that would have removed the informality and flexibility that are the key advantages of that process. Throughout the drafting of the bill we have kept in mind the need to allow the continued development of informal resolution and complete flexibility in the performance of those informal functions. We consider that the bill will not frustrate those aims.

I note the existing ombudsmen's concern that the fact that the bill does not make provision for informal resolution might lead to judicial review cases. However, to date, we have seen no evidence that such concern is justified. Indeed, we are concerned that any attempt to make specific provision for informal resolution could increase the likelihood of judicial review, because it would narrow the flexibility that is so important to all concerned. However, the Executive notes the concerns that the committee expressed and will give further consideration to whether any amendments are required to support the process of informal resolution.

On the recommendation of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, the Local Government Committee has requested that the powers to make subordinate legislation under the bill should be exercisable only as regards public functions. It has suggested that that be made clear in the bill—as it is in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill, which is also progressing through Parliament. Otherwise, the Subordinate Legislation Committee suggests, issues might arise under the European convention on human rights over the possibility that bodies that exercise public and private functions will be subject to investigation by the ombudsman in respect of their private functions. I note those concerns and am pleased to confirm that the Executive will lodge appropriate amendments at stage 2.

The openness and effectiveness of the ombudsman will be improved by the requirement for the ombudsman to publish all investigation reports and lay them before the Parliament. In addition, the bill empowers the ombudsman to publicise and lay before the Parliament special reports on cases in which an injustice or hardship has not been remedied. The ombudsman will also be required to report annually on the work of the office, and the Parliament will have power to direct the ombudsman as to the form and content of annual reports.

I hope that the Parliament will join me in welcoming the general principles of the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill. The key aims of the bill are access, clarity and accountability—greater access to the public sector complaints system, greater clarity in the purpose and operation of the system and greater accountability in that system. The bill is a concrete example of the Executive delivering on its continuing commitments to modern, open and accountable government and first-class public services.

I do not want the Parliament to consider the proposals that I have outlined today for reforming the existing complaints system without acknowledging the contribution of the current ombudsmen. They and the arrangements under which they work have served Scotland well and are held in high regard. The Executive welcomes that and wishes to record it in the debate. We all acknowledge the valuable contribution that the ombudsmen have made through their work to maintaining quality in Scottish public services.

The significant reforms that are set out in the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill will build on the legacy of the existing ombudsmen and play a major part in achieving the Executive's key goal of delivering better public services for the people of Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill.

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

As the minister said, the aim of the bill is to establish a public sector complaints system that is open, accountable, easily accessible to all and that has the trust of the Scottish public. That is quite a challenge. The bill generally meets that challenge.

I welcome the minister's comments about the number of amendments that he accepts from the Local Government Committee's report. I hope that he will continue to reflect on those that he has not yet accepted. I am sure that the convener and other members of the committee will press those points during the debate.

The bill will make it simpler and more effective for members of the public to make complaints about maladministration in the public sector. However, we need to be clear that a public sector ombudsman will not be a panacea and will not solve all the problems that the public have with public services. Although it is right and proper that we publicise the service as much as possible when it comes into being, we must also make it very clear that the ombudsman cannot solve problems that do not fit within the parameters of maladministration.

For many, one of the frustrations of the present system is that their complaints do not seem to fit into any category. We must consider that matter outwith the bill. Although I welcome the commitment to publicise the new service when the bill is enacted, we must be careful not to raise hopes that the service will do what it simply cannot do. I was struck by evidence that only something like 8 per cent of all the complaints that go to the present ombudsmen are dealt with. That means that a substantial number of complaints are not resolved in the ombudsman service. Although it is right that we have a single framework and that we publicise it, I do not want anybody to get the impression that any problem that they take to the ombudsman will be resolved, because the parameters for the ombudsman's work will still be defined within maladministration.

I was disappointed that the minister did not accept the need for amendments to the bill to safeguard and enhance the ombudsman's ability to resolve dispute by informal measures and means. I hope that the minister will reconsider. I was certainly persuaded by the evidence that the committee heard that informal resolution is sometimes better than formal resolution. I understand what the minister is saying, but there will be opportunities at stage 2 to lodge an amendment that will meet those concerns.

I am still not persuaded that the water authorities should not be brought within the scope of the bill. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities gave evidence to that effect. I hope that the minister will reconsider that issue during the passage of the bill. If he does not, concern will be expressed in the future about the water authorities not being included. Water is, and will continue to be, a vital public service.

I turn to the question of the consistency of the range of investigative powers that are included in the bill. At the moment, the Executive continues to allow the NHS ombudsman to have greater powers to investigate judgments as opposed to maladministration. The bill gives an opportunity to widen the range of powers. If we are to have a public services ombudsman, it will be helpful for the ombudsman's range of powers to be consistent. The committee felt strongly that the Executive should consider amending the bill to extend the range of investigative powers so that they are consistent across all authorities.

I will move on to a matter that arose in the evidence that was given to the committee. The Scottish parliamentary commissioner for administration expressed concern about the present ombudsman staff. He was not persuaded that the bill conforms to the code of practice for staff transfers in the public sector. When the minister appeared before the committee, he gave an assurance that the code of practice and the guidelines would be met and that staff would be protected at transfer. I am not persuaded that that is the case. I hope that the minister will examine the situation to ensure that staff will not be disadvantaged.

I thank the minister for his positive response to some of the committee's report. I am sure that several amendments will be lodged at stage 2—he is committed to lodging some, but there will be others. All members want the bill to work and want the new office to work well. However, members will lodge amendments to make the bill work better.

I hope that the minister will reflect positively on the comments that were made in the report. I hope that he will not give the usual Executive knee-jerk reaction of rejecting amendments that it does not want. I ask the minister to examine carefully and reflect on some of the amendments that will be lodged. The Scottish public sector ombudsman should be allowed to gain the trust of the people of Scotland. The office of the Scottish public sector ombudsman should be a genuine one-stop shop where the vast majority of complaints can be resolved.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am about to make a comment that the Presiding Officer will not hear often from an MSP. I am disappointed that I have been allocated 12 minutes to speak in the debate.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

So are we. [Laughter.]

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It's the way he tells them.

The truth is that a serious issue is involved in the way that we use our parliamentary time. This morning, we are to use two and a half hours to debate stage 1 of the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill, the principles of which committees of the Scottish Parliament have agreed to support. Stage 1 is all about the principles and not the detail. Why has so much time been allocated? We have only one and a half hours to debate the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2002 this afternoon—an issue of much greater importance to the daily lives of the general public as it determines their council tax and services for the coming year.

Putting aside the issue of time, I reaffirm the Scottish Conservatives' support for the general principles of the bill. We welcome the move to a one-stop shop for the public sector ombudsman. I also welcome the principle of further clarifying the ombudsman's independence from Government and to improving public transparency of the ombudsman's actions.

The Local Government Committee heard evidence from a number of parties. We recommend that at stage 2 the minister should address a number of the issues that were raised. That is a detailed debate for another day, but I hope to receive an assurance from the minister today that a constructive debate will be held at stage 2. I am pleased that the minister will attempt, through amendments where necessary, to ensure that we achieve the aims of the committee, following its initial scrutiny of the bill.

The scrutiny produced six main issues on which the committee will be looking for action from the minister. In support of the committee, I will set out briefly the Conservative view of the issues. First, I agree with the Local Government Committee, rather than the Health and Community Care Committee, that flexibility is key when considering the expertise that is required of deputy ombudsmen. Let the ombudsman appoint a cross-section of deputies, who can cross-fertilise each other's experience. The minister should not box the ombudsman into specific appointments. The point of having a one-stop shop is that investigative staff with different backgrounds can gather experience gradually in all areas so as to provide a better service to the public. They can also respond to variations in work load.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

The member will be aware of the evidence that was taken by the Health and Community Care Committee, which showed that bodies such as the Mental Welfare Commission were keen for one of the deputy ombudsmen to have particular responsibility for health. The Health and Community Care Committee felt that, given the complexities of the areas that the health service ombudsman has to deal with, it would be preferable for one of the Scottish public sector ombudsman's deputies to have specific responsibility for health. Given that we do not have a problem with the ombudsman having overall responsibility, does the member agree that it would make sense for one of the deputies to have specific responsibility for health? That would be in the interests of all who have concerns about the health services.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank Janis Hughes for repeating some of the evidence that was given to the Health and Community Care Committee. The Conservatives took that evidence into account before we came to our conclusion. We believe that it is wrong to have specialised deputies. We believe that the deputies should cross-fertilise each other. Health is included in the framework. I do not want there to be specialist deputies. I thank Janis Hughes for her intervention, as it took a minute.

Secondly, I understand why we do not want to specify the means to be used for informal investigations, but I urge the minister to consider the ombudsman's information needs for that type of investigation. He must ensure that the ombudsman's office is protected properly from legal challenge. As Tricia Marwick said, amendments should be lodged to enhance the ombudsman's powers to resolve disputes by informal means.

Thirdly, I am concerned in particular about jointly planned and funded services in the health and social care sector. That is a grey area—one which causes public concern and doubt about who is responsible for service quality and service decision making. It would be even worse if the confusion was exacerbated by variations in the powers of an ombudsman who is supposed to be a one-stop shop. I agree fully with the Local Government Committee view that the Executive should

"consider whether there are ways of amending the Bill at Stage 2 to bring a consistent range of power of investigation across all the authorities which may be investigated."

Fourthly, I would like the minister to assure me that safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the confidentiality of the information that is available to the ombudsman in legal aid applications will not be removed without proper protection. We received compelling evidence that safeguards are needed to protect the quality and extent of information provided in applications.

I appreciated receiving a copy of the letter that the minister circulated to us all, to reassure us on that matter. However, I am concerned about this sentence:

"During the discussions, it emerged that cases where there was any possibility that the amendment might cause difficulty would be very few and far between."

The point is that there will be some such cases. The minister has to address that point.

Fifthly, I am pleased that the minister has said that he will reconsider the title of the new organisation. Housing associations are concerned about the inappropriate use of the words "public sector". Although the change may seem minor, the suggested title of "Scottish public services ombudsman" seems sensible.

Finally, the Local Government Committee endorsed the Subordinate Legislation Committee's view that the Executive should

"take steps to ensure the powers to make subordinate legislation under the Bill are exercisable only as regards public functions by making this clear on the face of the Bill in the same way that such limitations are drafted on the face of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill."

The minister must consider that point to ensure ECHR compliance and the competence of the bill.

The Scottish Conservatives welcome this worthwhile bill and support the general principles that we are debating today, but we will give careful consideration at stage 2 to the concerns raised by the Local Government Committee. I look forward to that more detailed debate, in which I may take a fuller part to impress on the minister the need to address those concerns. There is little more that I can say on the general principles of the bill, which I am sure the whole chamber will support.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Like other members who have spoken, I am concerned about the amount of time that I have been allocated. I assure the Presiding Officer that I do not intend to take up my full allocation.

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

We will be finished this morning by about 11.40—which is 50 minutes early. I ask the business managers to take note of that.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

This is an important bill, which merits a decent stage 1 debate. I hope that we have such a debate, even if we do not fill the two and a half hours that have been allocated. As Keith Harding said, the debate is about the general principles of the bill, but it is also an opportunity for those of us who have considered the bill to raise the aspects that we would like the Executive and the Local Government Committee to consider for amendment at stage 2.

The principle of a public sector ombudsman is important. We have had ombudspersons, ombudsmen or ombudsmans—whatever the Scandinavian plural is—in the public sector in the United Kingdom for a considerable time. They provide an important function: the basic principle is that they are a backstop in complaints procedures. People can take their complaints to the ombudsman for independent consideration after the complaints procedures of the authority that is the subject of the complaint have been exhausted.

There is often concern among the public that public authorities do not give fair consideration to their complaints and see them from the perspective of their own interests. My experience in public service—as a councillor for many years and as an MSP—is that if one is not satisfied with the response one receives from an official at a lower level and one writes to the chief executive of the council, the chief executive will check with the official with whom the complainant was not happy, so one ends up getting the same answer. There is an element of failure to consider matters—even within a council's own operations—independently. It is important to have independent consideration of complaints to fall back on.

For that reason, I am slightly concerned by the Executive's reluctance to consider extending the remit of the public sector ombudsman beyond the consideration of complaints within the traditional definition of maladministration. Although ombudsmen might understand the term maladministration, the public—and even councillors, MSPs and MPs—do not feel that they understand what it means. It is important to consider that point in the context of cases where injustice is felt to have been done in the public sector.

I draw the attention of the chamber, and particularly of the Executive, to the written submission from the Scottish Consumer Council, which is reproduced in the Local Government Committee's stage 1 report. In paragraph 11 of its submission, the Scottish Consumer Council says:

"The main ombudsman schemes in the public sector deal only with 'maladministration'. However, the Housing Association Ombudsman for Scotland 'may investigate and report on complaints other than those in which injustice has been caused by maladministration if he is satisfied that in the particular circumstances it is in the public interest to do so.' The Health Service Ombudsman can deal with complaints about 'poor service by a health service body'. The remit of the public service ombudsman should be extended beyond maladministration, to include the kind of cases already covered by these two schemes."

Therefore, there is an opportunity to look beyond maladministration, in cases where an injustice has been caused by a failure of service or by another means that does not fall under the technical definition of maladministration.

In paragraph 13 of its submission, the Scottish Consumer Council says:

"The guiding principle should be that which makes sense to consumers. If, at the end of an authority's complaints procedure, a problem remains unresolved, consumers should be able to expect an impartial overview by an ombudsman."

That is a useful principle. If, having gone through the complaints procedure of a council, health body or housing association, a consumer is still unsatisfied with the response, there should be the opportunity for independent consideration of the complaint. The ombudsman may come back and say that the consumer is wrong—often, people who feel that an injustice has been done do not have a case—but independent consideration should be available.

I urge the Executive to consider whether the remit of the ombudsman could be extended to allow consideration of failure of service and wider issues, as is the case with the housing association ombudsman. It is not acceptable to say that, because the extended remit of the housing association ombudsman has been used only once, it should not exist. The extended remit is a useful backstop and can allow the ombudsman to consider the informal channels that are available.

We should consider whether the definitions in the bill should contain an additional element to make it clear that the ombudsman has the power of informal investigation. There is concern that the bill makes clear only the powers of formal investigation that are open to ombudsmen; it does not make it clear that they continue to have the power to conduct informal investigations. The Scottish parliamentary commissioner for administration and the local government ombudsman both raised that concern in evidence to the committee.

Michael Buckley, the Scottish parliamentary commissioner, said:

"I am concerned at the well-nigh exclusive emphasis in the Bill on investigation. The only substantive functions of the new Ombudsman mentioned in the Bill are to investigate and to report. Yet the overwhelming majority of cases are currently settled, and are likely to continue to be so settled ... in a way other than that to be provided for by statute ... I believe that the new Ombudsman may be vulnerable to challenge, not only in the courts but also by the auditors, if he or she adopts the sort of working methods (such as informal resolution) that I believe to be appropriate."

That practitioner is genuinely concerned that, because the bill does not make it clear that the ombudsman has the powers, there might be a challenge. That needs to be resolved.

I am not talking about heavy-handed legislation; a problem is that our draftsmen and civil servants think that if something is put into legislation, there must also be miles of regulation. I am talking about including a section to enable informal investigation to take place and to ensure that it is clear in statute that the ombudsman has that power. I hope that the Executive will consider that at stage 2.

The Health and Community Care Committee has concerns about the designation of deputy ombudsmen. We should not end up with an extra layer of bureaucracy because we have set up a series of doors, with one door on top of them. Instead, we should have a one-door stop, which allows the ombudsman flexibility to ensure that all investigations are dealt with adequately and effectively. That does not mean that there should not be expertise. I have no doubt that the ombudsman, when appointed, will ensure that there is expertise in housing, health, local government and the public sector in general, as covered by the parliamentary ombudsman. Those are important areas that must be covered. Let us not lay down in statute the structure for the new public sector—or services—ombudsman.

I support the proposal to change the name to the Scottish public services ombudsman. It is neat because if there is already stationery with the initials printed on, it will not need to be changed.

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

I call Trish Godman, who may if she wishes have an infinity of time. However, it is my intention to suspend the meeting at about 11.40.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. That is the first time that I have been told that I can speak for as long as I like. The Local Government Committee was in the chamber last week, is here this week, and will be here next week and the week after that. I suggest that our names are put on the seats so that we know where to sit.

The committee and the clerks have been extremely busy. I want to put on record my thanks to committee members, as the committee has met weekly for as long as I can remember. Last Tuesday, we met at quarter to two and the meeting did not close until about 20 past six.

We consider carefully the bills that come before us and, from the responses from ministers, it seems that we are doing an excellent job, because many of the suggestions that we have made have been accepted.

Today, we are considering the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill. As others have said, the policy objective is to have a one-stop shop, headed by a new Scottish public sector ombudsman, to deal with complaints. At the moment, complaints are dealt with by a Scottish parliamentary commissioner for administration, a health ombudsman, a local administration ombudsman and a housing association ombudsman. The thrust of the bill is to establish an open, accountable and easily accessible public sector complaints system, which has the trust of the Scottish people. The bill will make the system simpler, more effective and more transparent, and will improve publicity.

In their written and oral evidence, all witnesses welcomed the one-stop-shop proposals but, as usual, some of them had concerns. One of those was that we should not lose the extensive knowledge and expertise built up over the years by individual ombudsmen and their officials. The committee agreed with those sentiments, but we did not support the suggestion that there should be a deputy ombudsman for either health or housing. I have to disagree with my comrade Janis Hughes and agree with Iain Smith on that point.

Members should be forewarned that the Local Government Committee will bring discussions on community planning to the Parliament. The committee felt that, because of the integrated approach implied by the emergence of community planning, it was important to allow the new body to develop as flexibly as possible. We acknowledge that the existing expertise needs to be retained, but we feel that people should start to work together in the new one-stop shop and learn from one another, rather than being separated.

Witnesses noted the bill's emphasis on investigations. Some expressed concern that, as the bill stands, the ombudsman may be vulnerable to challenge, in the courts or by auditors. Tricia Marwick spoke about that. The Health and Community Care Committee and the Scottish parliamentary commissioner for administration also expressed those concerns. However, the Minister for Finance and Public Services was of the opinion that the bill provided a statutory framework for the ombudsman to carry out his or her duties and that the fact that the bill contains no provision on what can or cannot be done means that there will be wider scope to deal with issues as the ombudsman sees fit. The committee was not wholly convinced by the minister's comments. We ask him to consider whether amendments are needed to safeguard the ability of the ombudsman to resolve disputes informally. I note what the minister has said today.

The provision for local authorities to ask the ombudsman to initiate an investigation is new. Although the housing association ombudsman was concerned that there might be a risk that an authority would use the new ombudsman to manage its own complaints, the committee was persuaded by other evidence that it was helpful for authorities to be able to request that an investigation be initiated. However, we cited the example of a complete service failure by an executive agency such as a local enterprise company, which we believed would be more properly investigated by a parliamentary committee than by an ombudsman. I draw the Executive's attention to that example.

We consider that, at this point, there is no need to add to the list of bodies, as that can be done later. I acknowledge Tricia Marwick's comments about water authorities.

The bill still allows the ombudsman to investigate matters of clinical judgment in the health service, but only matters of maladministration may be investigated in complaints against local authorities. Many witnesses felt that the new body's remit should be wider than the investigation of maladministration. However, the minister does not hold that view. He believes that organisations such as local authorities are democratically accountable and so a wider investigatory remit is not necessary.

The committee decided that, with the growth of joint, multidisciplinary working—and eventually with community planning—the differences between what can be investigated could cause problems. For example, witnesses from the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland pointed out that all their work is conducted closely with health services and local authorities and that it would be difficult to unravel who was responsible for problems in the event of a complaint being investigated. We asked the Executive to consider ways of amending the bill at stage 2 to make the range of powers of investigation consistent across all authorities.

The power to investigate maladministration in relation to the internal management and organisation of schools is new. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Glasgow City Council were unhappy about the proposals, as they felt that they would allow the ombudsman to stray into investigating matters of professional judgment, such as the curriculum and teaching management. However, the minister made it very clear that the bill would limit the ombudsman in investigating matters of professional judgment. The committee considered that question for some time and discussed it in detail. We finally agreed that it is appropriate for the ombudsman to investigate administration and management in schools, and nothing else.

The confidentiality of information provided was another question on which the committee spent some time. The bill will remove restrictions on the ombudsman's access to information from the Scottish Legal Aid Board. The committee still had concerns and sought assurances from the minister that safeguards will be in place to protect the applicant, so that the quality and extent of the information provided is not adversely affected.

We welcomed the inclusion of provisions to publicise the service. We talked a lot about that, because we think that it is very important. We also think it important that local complaints procedures should be exhausted before the ombudsman is approached. Mary Scanlon raised that. We welcomed the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body's assurances on the independence of the ombudsman's post. The SPCB will consider the pay, allowances and pension of the ombudsman. We are satisfied that sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure that there will be no conflict of interest.

The minister has given assurances that safeguards are also in place on staff transfer arrangements. As the minister said, the committee suggested that the name should be the Scottish public services ombudsman. I am pleased that he appears to have accepted that suggestion.

I have spoken for seven minutes; that is the longest speech I have ever made in the chamber. I ask members to agree to the general principles of the bill.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I congratulate Trish Godman on her speech. She has taken seven minutes, which might cut my time by about two minutes. She raised some of the points that I was going to make, and did so more eloquently than I could have done. She covered practically everything in the bill.

As Trish Godman and other members said, everyone in the Parliament favours a one-stop shop. It is right and proper that people should not be confused—deliberately or not—about whom they should approach. The one-stop-shop approach is sensible and I am sure that the public will welcome it as long as it is transparent, open and fair.

After leaving Glasgow at half-past 6 this morning, I sat for nearly two hours in a traffic jam, so I looked at the list of organisations that are covered by the bill to see whether long-suffering motorists might be included, but unfortunately they are not. Perhaps that is something that I should address in a private bill. The only transport-related organisation that I could see listed was the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority. Perhaps the needs of long-suffering motorists should be considered.

Members have raised a number of concerns. Trish Godman explained very well the concerns of Michael Buckley and the housing association ombudsman about informal resolutions and the ombudsman's vulnerability to challenge. I think that the minister has taken those concerns on board. If he has not already mentioned that point, I am sure that he will do so in summing up. Committee members and witnesses also expressed concern about formal investigations. Other members have mentioned that point and I am sure that the minister will comment on it when he sums up. Witnesses from the Office of the Housing Association Ombudsman and James Dyer of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland raised that concern as well, and those people should be listened to.

I very much favour the proposal to remove the MSP filter. I have had representations on that point. At present, any complainant who wants to approach the Scottish parliamentary commissioner for administration must do so through an MSP. The bill proposes that that filter be removed, so that approaches can be made through another process. I am pleased about that and I am sure that, once the bill is passed, the constituents who have approached me will also be pleased.

It has been said that a one-stop shop for the people of Scotland—I think that the minister used those exact words—will be welcomed by the people of Scotland. It is certainly welcomed by the Parliament. The Local Government Committee scrutinised the bill in great detail and suggested various ideas. Members of the committee and SNP members will lodge amendments at stage 2. I recognise that the minister has taken on board most of the Local Government Committee's concerns and I look forward to stage 2 of the bill.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

At this stage of the debate, it is difficult to be original, but I will try my best.

Members have not really dealt with consultation. The Executive undertook two consultations—that is important—and the committee asked witnesses about the process. They said that the process had been thorough. Every witness who gave written or oral evidence was in favour of the one-stop approach to complaints in the public sector.

Stage 1 consideration of the general principles of a bill is something of a non-event. There was general agreement in the Local Government Committee that the bill should proceed. However, as Iain Smith argued, it is important that issues are aired to find out whether the Executive can be urged to change its mind about them—it certainly has in some areas—or whether amendments will be needed at stage 2.

What are those issues? Janis Hughes raised the important issue of expertise. How can expertise be retained in health or housing? She was concerned that it would be difficult to retain expertise if there is not a deputy ombudsman with particular responsibility for health, for example. Although the Local Government Committee knew about such concerns, it felt that such proposals might not alter the structure of the present system. All that would happen is that another person—another layer—would be put on top and in charge of the public sector ombudsmen. Perhaps we should have considered the structure of the new body more carefully when we took evidence, to find out how expertise could be retained. That would not necessarily mean a deputy layer.

Another concern relates to the wording of the bill. There is concern that, if the investigative role is seen as the main role, that would not allow for an informal procedure, in which a case could be resolved informally before an investigation starts. I take on board what the minister said—that such a procedure will still be allowed—but the ombudsmen were genuinely concerned about that.

Iain Smith argued well on the extent of the investigatory remit and how it should be consistent across all areas. The public should know what to expect from the ombudsman's service, but the ombudsmen currently have different structures and getting consistency will take time. I have an education background and am well aware that we spent a long time talking about the professional role of teachers and how we did not want the ombudsman's role to input into teaching and learning in the curriculum. The area is complex and there was much discussion about it. Consistency is important so that members of the public know what is happening and how they will be treated.

Tricia Marwick made an excellent point about publicity. We must not raise unrealistic expectations. When we consider how to discuss the service and how to make more people aware of it, we should be careful how we put the message across.

I have no hesitation in supporting the bill at stage 1 and I hope that all members will support it.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Members may think that the bill is fairly straightforward, but we should not forget those who are pursuing complaints in the system. As Sylvia Jackson spoke, I could not help thinking about a lady who came to my surgery. Her mother, who was in a local authority home, had dementia and was taken into a psychiatric hospital where she was to be assessed and where it was to be decided where she would go. The lady went to the council, which said that the matter had nothing to do with it, as the mother was in a primary care trust. The lady went to New Craigs hospital, where her mother was being assessed. The hospital said that the matter had nothing to do with it, but concerned the social workers. The lady tried to get a social worker, but was told that the matter had nothing to do with them. She went to her doctor, who said that it was not their responsibility. She went to see her councillor, who said that it was nothing to do with them, but was a hospital matter. Members are saying that the bill is okay, but we should not forget the trauma that people go through in finding their way through the system.

I support the proposal to have one ombudsman and a one-stop shop. However, at stage 2, I ask the minister to take into account the complaints procedures for the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care and the Scottish Social Services Council. There may be no overlap and things may be crystal clear, but this morning I found out that the Executive is still deliberating on consultation responses—we still do not know the details of the complaints procedures for the Scottish Social Services Council or the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. I ask the minister to be open to amendments at stage 2 and to clarify that matter.

I will make two small points before I come to my main one. The first relates to Scottish Health Advisory Service reports. They are first class, but I have often seen reports that say that recommendations were made three years ago but nothing has been done. I ask the minister to ensure in the bill that the public sector ombudsman's recommendations are monitored and acted on.

The second point is that I was shocked that Michael Buckley said almost proudly that the time taken to process complaints had been reduced from 45 to 42 weeks. Any move in that direction is welcome, but I know the trauma that many people go through in pursuing complaints. I hope that thoroughness can be maintained, but that the time taken to process complaints can be reduced.

My main point was raised by Trish Godman. It concerns the joint-working aspect of care in the community. If a person who receives care complains about their treatment, is not satisfied with the local resolution and goes to the public sector ombudsman, who is to say whether the complaint is a health complaint or a local government complaint? The difficulty arises from the fact that the ombudsman can consider only those complaints that are based on clinical judgments that relate to health service personnel and, in respect of social workers, can examine only the process followed and maladministration. The best submission that the Health and Community Care Committee received was from the Mental Welfare Commission, which said:

"This Bill contains many provisions which will achieve the objectives of the Executive that the public sector complaints system will become simpler and more effective".

We all agree with that. However, the commission also said that the bill

"will also mean that the decisions and actions of professionals who do not operate clinical judgement, but who do use other forms of professional judgement, will not be open to the same scrutiny as those of their colleagues within the health service. This does not seem to be in the public interest."

There will soon be even greater emphasis on joint working and joint decision making: for example, there will be multidisciplinary teams and care plans will be jointly decided. Moreover, both the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 and the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Bill stress joint working. We can see how difficult it will be to assess who has made a decision when that decision has been made jointly.

It is surely unfair if a health service employee must be more accountable for a decision than a local government employee is. For example, a person could complain about being refused a home care service, about not being referred to a day centre, about respite care to help the carer or because, as a carer, they disagree that their mother should be taken into care. Are the judgments that would be involved in those situations clinical or administrative? Do those judgments take into account all factors, including social and clinical factors and the health of the rest of the family? That point was raised in the Health and Community Care Committee.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I have a point of clarification. My understanding is that the purpose of the one-stop shop is precisely to overcome such problems. We will not identify deputy health or deputy housing association ombudsmen; the expertise will be built up so that, when someone goes to that one-stop shop, they will have a choice of guidance. I thought that that was the whole thrust of the bill.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Yes, so did I. My evidence comes from the Mental Welfare Commission and others who felt that, when the commission examined a complaint, it examined it as a whole. The commission made the same point as the member—there is now a blurring because of joint decision making. If two people make a decision, it cannot be right that one is held to account for a clinical judgment but the other is not. In addition, if a person complains that an elderly person's discharge is being delayed because a local authority does not provide appropriate care, to whom do they complain and who is responsible? I feel that that needs clarification.

The ombudsman can investigate the action of independent providers, but only when the services are provided under arrangements that were commissioned by a health service body or a family health service. In other words, the ombudsman can investigate voluntary and independent care services that are commissioned by the NHS, but cannot investigate services that are self-financing. That means that two people in the same day care centre could have different complaints procedures, because one of them is deemed to be receiving a service that is self-financing and the other is receiving a service that was commissioned by a family general practitioner or the NHS. That undoubtedly needs clarification.

There must be clarity about the professional judgments of social workers and the clinical judgments of NHS staff in relation to mental health in the community. The target time should be reduced and, at stage 2, the complaints procedures should be clarified, especially in relation to the two new organisations.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Having just got used to speaking for a lot less time than usual, I will try, primarily in the interests of my colleagues' well-being, not to be tempted by the Presiding Officer's suggestion of going on for an infinite period.

I very much welcome the bill as part of our on-going commitment to modernising government. The creation of a Scottish public sector ombudsman, who will bring together the existing ombudsmen for health, housing, local government and the Parliament, will establish a simple one-door approach for the public. It is good that there will be less bureaucratic clutter, but the real potential is for an open, accountable and accessible system that will deal with people's complaints about maladministration in the public sector. I particularly welcome the steps to make the process more accessible to those who are disadvantaged, as a result of disability or a lack of literacy, for example, so that the process is truly open to all.

I will focus my comments on the housing aspects of the new service. I have a minor point on the terminology that is used, which has been mentioned. The bill's title refers to the "Public Sector Ombudsman". Housing associations are not public sector bodies; they are governed by the requirements placed on them by friendly societies. Therefore, the bill's title does not reflect the full range of organisations that could be subject to investigation. That lack of clarity might lead to confusion among tenants. I have no doubt that that issue can be resolved by publicising the nature of the service. However, the Executive is recognising the value and the potential of mutual and social economy organisations and we should reflect that diversity in the bill's title. The Local Government Committee suggested a minor change to make the bill's title more inclusive. I welcome the minister's positive comments about considering that matter again before stage 2.

My second point, which is perhaps more substantive, is on the ombudsman's investigative powers. Trish Godman and others have eloquently dealt with the issue, but I will repeat some of their points. The housing association ombudsman's remit currently extends beyond cases of maladministration to possible cases of injustice. The health service ombudsman has a similarly wide remit. However, the other ombudsmen focus solely on maladministration. I can foresee potential difficulties with that situation because of the increasing focus on multidisciplinary working. We could end up creating an unhelpful and unnecessary obstacle to the ombudsman's fully investigating an issue.

If we descend into technical arguments about who has the power to do what and in what circumstances, that will not be in the complainer's interests and it will not help us to fulfil our intentions. A consistent set of powers across all the functions is therefore essential. I ask the minister to reflect further on that issue. We believe in first-class public services, so we should give the ombudsman the flexibility to deal with injustice and service failure beyond the narrow definitions of maladministration.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

What is the member's view of what the minister said about the broader interpretation of the word "maladministration" and of the difficulties in some areas, particularly education, of taking a wider view?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I accept that there are difficulties in taking wider views, but if our primary objective is to ensure that there are first-class public services, we should reflect on the fact that maladministration can be treated in definitive terms. The correct way forward is to enhance the remit so that it is similar to those already enjoyed by the housing association ombudsman and the health ombudsman. It is not beyond the capability of the minister and the civil servants to work their way round that issue.

I welcome the provisions in section 20 of the bill, which will ensure that the service is publicised. The public need to be aware of their right to complain and of the process for doing so. We know that all too often people are left struggling and at a loss about where they can turn to for help. It can be daunting for an individual to perceive themselves as being up against an organised system. Ensuring that people have information about their rights is therefore absolutely critical. That need not necessarily be a matter for the bill, but I ask the Executive to look creatively at awareness raising to ensure that everyone in Scotland has access to that information. I also ask the Executive to consider using voluntary agencies, which are in the business of providing advice to communities.

I have gone over my allotted time. I believe that the bill's principles are worthy of members' support, because by opening up government and making it more accountable and transparent at every level we will ultimately benefit the people whom we seek to serve. We should all strive to deliver that.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I am impressed by the work that the Local Government Committee has done. We have received yet another stage 1 report from the committee, which these days seems to be on as often as "Coronation Street". Perhaps the masses do not follow the committee quite so faithfully, but it is probably as important.

I congratulate the committee on its clear and helpful report and I note its capacity to generate reports that enjoy consensus in the Parliament. It is significant that we can tackle issues on which we are agreed and that we can carry out our work accordingly. That underlines the importance of the Parliament's committees. It is essential that they are properly supported in carrying out their important work.

The consultation on the bill is regarded as having been effective. That is important, because the quality of the consultation that the Executive carries out is developing as a key issue both locally—in my constituency—and among organisations with which the Social Justice Committee comes into contact. In some cases, there is a feeling that consultation, although it is taking place, is not a genuine dialogue. This is a good example of the importance of real consultation with those who have an interest in the subject.

Complaints against public bodies feature strongly in my casework, and I am sure that I am not alone in being approached by people who have such concerns. Generally, I am happy with the responses of public organisations when I pursue complaints on behalf of my constituents. However, there is a danger that the message that goes out to the general public is that only the intervention of MSPs gets results. That is nice for an MSP who has managed to get a result for somebody, but it suggests something about the attitude that is taken towards the public when they seek to complain on their own behalf.

It is essential that public services should strive to get things right at the beginning, so that people do not want to complain. It is also essential that, when a complaint is made, the response that is given at an early stage is helpful. We are talking about a last resort rather than a first resort, although a lot of the problems arise when people first raise a concern and are confronted by a less than helpful, puzzled or bemused attitude from an organisation.

Often, constituents have come to me when they have been exasperated and frustrated by the lack of progress that they have experienced. If citizens have no faith in the system's capacity to acknowledge and address their concerns, we should not underestimate the impact of that on their commitment to and belief in public services. The perception has been expressed to me on several occasions that organisations are policing themselves and that there is no independent scrutiny of what is going on at an early stage. It is important that people have faith in the system. Few cases are taken up by the ombudsmen and the complainer receives support in only a few of those cases. That has an impact on people's confidence in the system. The system has to be seen to take complaints seriously. There is an issue about support for the person who is pursuing a complaint, which I shall return to in a moment.

Another theme that has become apparent to me is the anxiety of officials or those who work in public services about being frank and explicit when a complaint is raised with them. They may argue that they fear litigation. We must acknowledge that that fear can be genuine. However, it could also be a convenient excuse to avoid being transparent and open to comment. If there is an alleged threat of litigation, we must find ways in which those who are being complained against can be made to feel confident and protected in being explicit about their experience of the person who is pursuing a complaint. The traffic should not be one way.

A key issue is that those who feel that they have been treated badly often have to make their complaint at a difficult and painful time. The complaints system should be accessible regardless of an individual's resources and we must support people through the complexities of the system. I am particularly concerned that the most disadvantaged people in our communities—those who are most reliant on public services—are probably the least supported in pursuing their complaints. We must therefore reconsider the resourcing of local support systems, such as citizens advice bureaux, so that money does not determine people's capacity to enter into the complaints system and individuals can sustain themselves throughout the complaints procedure.

As I said, the ombudsman is the last resort. In my experience, the best results are achieved when those who work in the public sector are willing to meet at an early stage those who have concerns and want to pursue complaints. It is remarkable how many cases have been resolved through a willingness to be open rather than through transparency at a later stage. Commitment to that attitude underpins our approach to public services and is at the heart of what a lot of people who work in public services believe in. I add my support for the general principles of the bill and look forward to the debates at stages 2 and 3.

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

Before we move to closing speeches, I ask members who want to speak in the next debate—the mini-debate on procedures—to be in the chamber an hour early, at 11 o'clock rather than at 12 o'clock.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I welcome the bill. It is a great step forward to bring several ombudsmen's tasks together in one group. The bill also goes some way towards widening and increasing the powers of the ombudsmen.

In my brief time as an MP and my rather longer time as a councillor, I formed the view that there was ombudsmania, as every organisation created an ombudsman post as part of its public relations. Most of those ombudsmen were a complete waste of time because, when any really good issue arose, they said that it did not fall within their remit and that they could not pursue it. If they actually pursued an issue, they almost always came to a conclusion that I thought was contrary to natural justice. It is therefore a good step forward to have one, overarching ombudsman with a strong team.

Nevertheless, there are ways in which the bill could be strengthened, some of which have been mentioned. The bill says that the ombudsman can investigate a complaint

"only if a member of the public claims to have sustained injustice or hardship".

The wording of the ombudsmen's remits in the past sometimes included the words "financial loss", so what we have in the bill is perhaps a bit better. However, it is hard for someone to prove that they have sustained injustice or hardship personally. Why should not a community council or residents association, for example, be able to put in a claim that a council or a health board has made wrong decisions—based on maladministration or whatever—which have been to the detriment of the community? Communities must be considered as well as individuals.

I apologise for coming late to this debate. One of my regrets in life is that I am no longer a member of the Local Government Committee, which I greatly enjoyed. My colleague, Iain Smith, does a very good job. However, the reduction in the membership of committees has had serious effects. I may, therefore, have missed something.

I find section 5(4) fairly incomprehensible or stupid. Why can the ombudsman investigate something only if

"it has been alleged publicly ... that one or more members of the public have sustained injustice or hardship",

when, later in the bill, we are told that the ombudsman is not to mention people's names? That seems peculiar. Subsection (4)(b) says that the ombudsman may investigate a matter only if he or she is satisfied that

"the listed authority in question has taken all reasonable steps to deal with the matter to which the allegation relates."

I presume that, if a local authority or quango persistently refuses to take reasonable steps, the ombudsman will not be able to investigate a matter. I must have missed something. That section does not seem very sensible. We can widen the remit of the ombudsman, and I hope that the matter will be addressed at stage 2.

Another concern is what happens to the ombudsman's report. As I understand it, the ombudsman will report to the ministers and to Parliament, but I have seen nothing in the bill that indicates what Parliament is supposed to do with the report, although I may have missed something. As Trish Godman and others have said, our committees are heavily employed at the moment and the ombudsman's reports may languish somewhere and not be given proper attention. Proper arrangements have to be made in the Parliament to ensure that, if the ombudsman's report criticises an organisation, something is done about it. In the past, there have been examples of people just shrugging off the ombudsman's report.

The bill is a serious attempt to improve the situation and I welcome it, but it, too, could be improved. The ombudsman should have as wide a scope and as few forbidden territories as possible and he or she should have strong powers to straighten out people who are not doing things right. There must be a wide interpretation of maladministration, as the boundary between a case of maladministration and a bad decision is difficult to discern. Some bad decisions are based on a serious bias rather than on an error of judgment and I think that the ombudsman should be able to examine such cases.

I support the bill and hope that the committee will improve it in its next stage.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Scottish Conservatives welcome the bill for the reasons that Keith Harding set out. The bill is not particularly controversial. I have a few brief points to make but, as I think we have had a good thrash at the subject already, I signal to those who are still to speak that it is unlikely that I will take up my allotted time. I agree with the serious point that Keith Harding made about timing. It seems odd that we are spending most of this morning on this rather uncontroversial stage 1 debate and that we spent an hour and a half yesterday debating the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill when we could be spending our time debating rather more important topics.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

What issues would the member like to debate in the chamber?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We could talk about the state of the national health service and the fall in the number of nurses in Scotland that was announced last week. We could talk about the state of the roads as a result of lack of investment. We could discuss all sorts of Executive failures, but the Executive does not want to bring those subjects to the chamber.

However, let us talk about the matter in hand. Before I came to the Scottish Parliament, I was a lawyer in private practice and I had some experience of advising clients and taking cases to the local government ombudsman. I believe that the system, though not without faults, works well. What is frustrating is the time that it takes to investigate matters, particularly where delays are caused by the time that it takes public authorities to reply to the ombudsman's inquiries. As Mary Scanlon said, although it is all very well to say that the ombudsman has got the time that it takes to get a determination down to 42 weeks—and those of us who are used to dealing with public agencies might regard that as a move in the right direction—for members of the public who are faced with a wait of 42 weeks, that seems a long time. However, I suspect that that is a matter of good practice rather than a matter for legislation.

We generally welcome the principle of putting various departments into one department and we hope that there might be some economies of scale—Scottish Conservatives are always on the side of the taxpayer.

We welcome the fact that the public will be able to complain directly to the ombudsman in relation to what were the powers of the Scottish parliamentary commissioner for administration. Not all citizens want to have to go through an MSP. That might also have a marginally beneficial effect on our work load, although I doubt that the public will have much sympathy with us on that score.

The ombudsman should be a one-stop shop. The last thing that a member of the public who is complaining about a public body wants is for the situation to be made worse as they are passed from pillar to post. The Government and the various public agencies need to be more responsive in dealing with public complaints.

I congratulate the Executive on its decision to retain the good old title "ombudsman" rather than going down the road of political correctness by trying to find some title that is not gender specific. That is a marvellous development.

I do not wish to take up any more time so I will simply say that the Scottish Conservatives support the general principles of the bill.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I was caught short by Murdo Fraser's brevity.

On this occasion, I have a certain sympathy with the decision to debate the matter for only so long because there is a broad general agreement about it. I am tempted to say that I more or less agree with everything that everyone has said and sit down. However, I want some points to be clarified.

We have all said how wonderful it is that the ombudsman service will be a one-stop shop. However, there are certain exceptions. Tricia Marwick mentioned the water boards, Mary Scanlon mentioned social work complaints and, in committee, Iain Smith talked about prison complaints. The ombudsman service will not be a one-stop shop for everybody.

Before anyone jumps up to intervene, I am saying not that the Executive has got it wrong, but that we must be careful. When we publicise the ombudsman—as is necessary—we must not raise false expectations. If we are not careful, people might believe that, no matter what their complaint about any element of the public service, it will be solved by going to the one-stop shop. We need to exercise caution about how we frame the advertising and the publicity.

I am pleased by the independence of the office, as that is crucial. I know that the ombudsman is to be appointed by the Parliament, but I would like the minister to state how he envisages that appointment taking place. Will there be a vote in the chamber? Will the parties co-operate through a body such as the Parliamentary Bureau? There should be no perception that there has been any political interference in the appointment of the ombudsman.

The definition of maladministration was mentioned. I know that the bill will not contain such a definition. The matter relates to discretion and informal resolution, which has been mentioned by many people. The only experience that I have of dealing with an ombudsman—I hasten to add that I was not being investigated at the time—was when I dealt with the housing association ombudsman. One of the great strengths of that office was the informal resolution mechanism. It would be a great loss if the new ombudsman did not have a similar element of discretion. If a member of the public thinks that as soon as they pick up a phone to make a complaint a formal investigation will start up, they might be deterred by that formality. Sometimes, informal resolution can work much better. I noticed that the minister said that, following the recommendation of the Local Government Committee, he would consider that matter again. I urge him to do so carefully.

Keith Harding talked about there being no specialised deputies. That point has worried me since it was raised at a Local Government Committee meeting that I attended. I have since read about it in the Local Government Committee report and I am still open-minded about the matter. I sympathise with Janis Hughes and I understand Trish Godman's point about the possibility of ending up with a situation similar to that which exists at the moment—a fractured service in an umbrella organisation. I ask the Local Government Committee to consider the issue again during stage 2.

Consistency of powers is important. It is confusing that one element of the ombudsman service should have greater powers than other elements in relation to maladministration. I do not accept that that greater power should be taken away from housing associations because it has been used only once. As Iain Smith said, that is not a valid reason.

Johann Lamont touched on an important point when she said that the least advantaged people in society are the least likely to get satisfaction from a public agency. Before the Local Government Committee's report was published, I put a query to the Scottish Parliament information centre about that. I was pleased by the clarification in the bill that a third party can be authorised to complain on behalf of someone. That is crucial.

My query was about whether voluntary organisations could complain to the new ombudsman. The bill shows that voluntary organisations will be able to complain on their own behalf and on behalf of an individual. Voluntary organisations will be able to use that role well, because they tend to have good relationships with people in their communities. Donald Gorrie talked about communities. Voluntary organisations are well placed and people have confidence in them to take up complaints. Their being able to do that on behalf of individuals is an important step forward.

I reaffirm the SNP's support for the bill. I apologise for my colleague Tricia Marwick's not being present—she is unwell. I look forward with great confidence to the Local Government Committee's detailed investigation of the bill at stage 2. I thank the minister for his willingness to consider amendments.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Tricia Marwick had the courtesy to send us a note to explain why she was leaving the debate. I am sorry that she is unwell.

I welcome the all-party support for the bill's general principles. I thank the Local Government Committee for its work so far. It will continue to scrutinise the bill at stage 2 and pursue the points that have been raised.

Members welcomed the one-stop shop approach that has been proposed. Jackie Baillie was right to say that that is part of a process of modernising the delivery of public services and making it easier for the consumer to access a proper complaints procedure.

As Johann Lamont said, although the new ombudsman is a one-stop shop, it is also a last-resort shop. I hope that the public services—the health service, local government, non-departmental public bodies and others—have proper procedures, not only for scrutinising complaints, but for using consumer feedback about the way in which they deliver their services in order to improve those services constantly. The theme of constantly improving public services runs through all the Executive's work. The system should not leave people to the last resort of approaching an ombudsman. We hope that most issues will be resolved well before that.

I welcomed the Local Government Committee's support for the Executive's view on deploying the deputy ombudsmen and on the bill's not tying them down to a set of specialisms. That is not to say that expertise should not develop or that people should not take a particular interest in some matters. Janis Hughes talked about that. The position in the bill is not rigid. Several members suggested that we have adopted the correct approach.

Trish Godman asked about and supported the new ombudsman's ability to consider requests from organisations for it to investigate. She cited the possibility of the complete failure of a public service and asked how that would be handled and how parliamentary committees would be involved. Such a situation would still relate to maladministration, which falls within the ombudsman's powers. Maladministration alone might not cause the complete breakdown of a service. If it did, the ombudsman could consider that, but it is clear that that would never fetter parliamentary committees. In the main, parliamentary committees would look for other failures in an organisation—such as a non-departmental public body—that met the conditions that Trish Godman described.

Members supported the extension of powers to examine the management and organisation of schools, but not professional judgments in schools. In part, that highlights some of the difficulties to which Sylvia Jackson alluded. If we extended the ombudsman's remit to professional judgment, it would run smack bang into difficulties concerning teachers' day-by-day work, head teachers' management of schools and decisions about learning for pupils. Those would be compromised. We have found the right balance, but I will shortly go into questions of professional judgment in more depth.

Linda Fabiani asked about the appointments process. I welcome the chamber's welcome for ensuring that the post is independent. It is for the Parliament to decide how to do that. A precedent was set by how the Parliament handled the Auditor General's appointment, but the freedom of information commissioner and the public appointments commissioner will also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny on the way to being appointed by the Queen, so the Parliament will have to consider them. That is a matter for Parliament, not for the Executive.

Despite all the welcomes, members expressed some concerns, which I will deal with as fully as I can. Members asked whether the water industry falls within the purview of the ombudsman's office. The water industry will have its own commissioner, who will have a much wider range of functions than just considering complaints, so that commissioner will fall within the purview of the ombudsman's office. If people have concerns about maladministration in the office of the water commissioner, there will be recourse to the public sector ombudsman.

Members asked about the Subordinate Legislation Committee's recommendations. As Andy Kerr said, we will lodge an amendment at stage 2 to deal with the matters that that committee raised about separating organisations' public duties, which would be subject to the ombudsman's scrutiny, from their private operations, which would not be.

Mary Scanlon asked about the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care and the Scottish Social Services Council. We believe that they will fall within the scope of the ombudsman's remit, but they will have internal procedures that will have to be exhausted first. After that, there will be recourse to the ombudsman. However, we will check that position and keep it under close scrutiny as the bill progresses through Parliament.

Mary Scanlon also asked about the time that an ombudsman takes to complete a report. Although we welcome the improvement in the time taken, we agree that that time scale should be constantly borne down on and made more effective in the interests of the consumer.

Tricia Marwick and Trish Godman asked about the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. The bill is designed to give trade unions and staff flexibility on transfer to negotiate the best terms that they can. Different pension schemes operate, but taken as a whole we do not expect employees to be worse off. We do not expect anyone to be disadvantaged and we want to ensure that that is the case. However, we must leave flexibility for staff to negotiate. That may be a levelling up of workers' rights, rather than a levelling down. If the bill were worded differently, it might even prevent such flexibility. Our intentions are honourable. We want to ensure that staff do not transfer at a disadvantage.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the minister have details on the number of posts in the new office compared with the number of posts in the existing services? I am not asking about people who move to the new office and take voluntary redundancy, for example, and whose post disappears. My question is about posts rather than people.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

That question concerns detailed operational matters that we have not considered yet. Given that the combined offices will have no less work than they do now, I suspect that the scope for significant change will be limited. We will have to leave that to the new organisation, the existing organisations, their staff and the unions to consider.

Almost every member who spoke was concerned that the bill might not give the new ombudsman an explicit power to resolve matters by an informal process, which is a feature of the current system. We have examined the issue carefully. Members will be aware that the informal processes are voluntary arrangements between ombudsmen and all the parties concerned with a complaint. People must volunteer to accept such an arrangement—nobody can be forced into it.

The bill does not say what the new ombudsman can and cannot do with regard to informal arrangements. That leaves the way clear for the ombudsman to make such voluntary arrangements. If we include a tighter definition of the ombudsman's powers, we would have to describe in detail the circumstances in which informal resolution arrangements came into play. The danger is that that would reduce the flexibility that we want to give the ombudsman and take us into difficult drafting and legal territory.

The bill is written to permit a function other than investigation to be used to resolve a complaint. The bill refers to the ombudsman's being able to consider a complaint without necessarily incurring an investigation at each stage. We thought carefully about that and we have also listened to the concerns expressed by members today. We will revisit the matter and see whether we can find a way to give the assurance that members seek without compromising the flexibility that we seek for the ombudsman and without having to define closely the circumstances in which he can act. We have no reason to believe that the bill does not give suitable provision, but we will revisit the matter in the light of members' comments and will keep members advised of the situation as the bill moves to stage 2.

The next major question is whether we should extend the ombudsman's remit on questions of professional judgment beyond the health service, where currently the ombudsman may consider clinical judgments. The bill maintains the status quo as far as the health service is concerned; it does not seek to change the provisions that have operated for a long time and that have worked perfectly satisfactorily. For the purposes of the bill, clinical and professional judgments are forms of discretionary decision. Such decisions, for the reasons that have been outlined, lie outwith the powers of the ombudsman, who is prevented from investigating them. The exception is clinical judgment. That reflects the unique relationship between health care professionals and their patients.

Elsewhere in the public sector, professional judgments often inform the choices and decisions of elected members and are therefore subject to a democratic test and are democratically accountable. No official should be able to cut across those final discretionary decisions made by members. Mary Scanlon made an interesting point about the way in which care services are changing and raised the question whether there is a danger that social workers may be making similar judgments to those made by care professionals in the health service while being subject to different rules.

I understand the point, but there is a critical difference. People working in local government service and those who work on their behalf are working with authority devolved from the local council, which is exercising discretion in how to implement its decisions. It is not clear that we can interrupt that relationship without giving rise to confusion and losing the current clarity of the critical distinction between the clinical judgments that a doctor or nurse makes and the devolved decisions made in a local authority set-up. We will have a further think about that in the light of the comments that have been made. If we clarify that situation further, we might be entering a legal minefield, and we are not convinced that we need to do that. We will reflect on what has been said today and will think further about what the possibilities are.

I was asked about the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the need to ensure that those people who access it do not have their confidentiality broken as a result of the ombudsman's intervention. The issue concerns the requirement under the bill for the Scottish Legal Aid Board to disclose information to the ombudsman. The bill seeks to close a loophole for the only part of the public sector in which one exists. All the other parts must comply with the obligation. The Scottish Legal Aid Board is not unique in that respect.

However, the ombudsman is absolutely bound by confidentiality and could not disclose any individual's name. In fact, the ombudsman must not mention the name of an individual in his or her report. The Legal Aid Board will see drafts of any report about such matters and would have the opportunity to correct any matters of fact or to influence the ombudsman's report to satisfy itself that confidentiality will not be broken. We are satisfied that we can meet the board's requirements in that regard.

We have consulted the Legal Aid Board and have given it the reassurances that, we hope, will satisfy it. We know that its members will consider the matter further, and, if it draws our attention to something fundamental that we have missed, we are prepared to reconsider the matter. At the moment, we are not aware of having missed anything that is fundamental to how we want to proceed. Andy Kerr has written to the Local Government Committee, seeking to reassure its members about those matters.

This has been a helpful debate, and we want to take forward and reflect further on a number of issues that have been raised during it. We will keep in close touch with the committee through the normal channels as we proceed to stage 2. As Andy Kerr said at the beginning of the debate, we have a responsibility to provide first-class public services for the people of Scotland and to ensure that they have the right to question any failure in the delivery of those services. The Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill will make a significant contribution to meeting that objective, bringing greater access, clarity and accountability to the system. I commend the bill to Parliament.

Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill (Financial Resolution)

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

The next item of business is consideration of motion S1M-2503, on a financial resolution in respect of the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill. The question on the motion will be put at decision time.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill, agrees to any increase in expenditure payable out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund in consequence of the Act.— [Peter Peacock.]

Presiding Officer's Ruling

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

Before we move to the next item of business, I will take the opportunity to rule on the point of order that was made by Alex Johnstone earlier this morning, on the article in the business section of The Scotsman quoting Ross Finnie as saying that there would be a

"Pre-emptive right-to-buy for farm tenants"

in the agricultural holdings bill.

I have read the article in question. Although Mr Finnie's press statement clearly went further than what he said to the Justice 2 Committee, it does not contravene previous Presiding Officers' rulings on Executive statements. This is an area that Executive press officers should keep under review.

Standing Orders (Changes)

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

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2656, in the name of Kenneth Macintosh, on two reports from the Procedures Committee.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I was heartened a few minutes ago to see an influx of my colleagues. I thought that they must all have heard that I was about to lead off in a Procedures Committee debate. Unfortunately, I have just discovered that their arrival was due to a false bleeper message. I will not take it as an insult if they take this opportunity to leave. As I mentioned to my ministerial colleagues, I have managed to clear many a hall before now.

Despite the large number of MSPs now leaving the chamber, I am delighted with the calibre of those who are left. It has been said of the Procedures Committee that we are not the most glamorous of committees, a fact that that my colleague, Frank McAveety, took great exception to. I am delighted to be surrounded by so many glamorous colleagues.

I will proceed now with what might be described as the worthy, but dull part of our business. The purpose of the debate is to present to the Parliament the Procedures Committee's fifth report of 2001 and first report of 2002. The two reports cover 11 proposed changes to the standing orders. Members will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to deal separately with each change.

It might be helpful, however, if I list the subject matter of the changes. They are: the suspension and closure of committee meetings; the joint consideration of subjects by sub-committees; the removal of committee conveners; the order of consideration of a bill's long title at stage 3; the setting up of selection panels for parliamentary appointments; the ability of committees to meet when the Parliament is suspended; the rules on who can be the member in charge of a bill and their attendance at and participation in committee proceedings on the proposed legislation; allowing any minister to move motions for financial resolutions; allowing junior ministers to lodge and move amendments to budget bills; and allowing the Presiding Officer or committee conveners to accept manuscript amendments at stage 2 and stage 3.

I will now discuss in a little detail some of the more significant changes that are recommended in the two reports. One proposed change, which conveners might have noted with alarm, is that relating to their removal. Perhaps it would be helpful if I clarified the change. The current rules do not preclude a convener from being removed. The decision to accept such a motion, however, rests with the relevant convener. That seems to be something of an anomaly. We therefore recommend that, in the interests of sound committee management, the rules be changed to ensure that such a motion is accepted and taken within a finite time, provided that it has the support of at least one other member of the committee.

The discussions between Parliament and Executive officials on selection panels for appointments identified that several forthcoming bills were likely to require the Parliament to nominate a person for appointment by the Queen. Examples of such bills include the bill to introduce the post of Scottish information commissioner—the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill—and the bill that has just been debated, the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill. The Procedures Committee agreed

"that a mechanism to set up a selection panel was required and should provide for any such panel to include the convener of the committee whose remit covers the relevant legislation, the Presiding Officer and at least 4, but no more than 7, other Members appointed by the Presiding Officer. The Committee also agreed that the Presiding Officer should be required to have regard to the balance of the political parties in the Parliament when appointing Members to the selection panel."

The committee further agreed that a discretionary power to set up such panels immediately following parliamentary approval of the bill at stage 1 could be of significant benefit. That would allow for appointment as soon as possible after the bill had received royal assent. The committee noted the apparent anomaly of commencing a recruitment process prior to royal assent, but recognised that such a bill's general principles would usually include a proposal to create a post and that the Parliament's decision on the issue at stage 1 would therefore be explicit. Of course, no appointment could be made prior to royal assent.

I will make a brief comment on committees meeting when the Parliament is suspended. The committee discussed a joint proposal from the conveners liaison group and the Parliamentary Bureau that committees should be allowed to meet

"exceptionally and at the discretion of the committee concerned, when the Parliament is suspended for a meal break."

I believe that that has happened before, but it has required the suspension of standing orders. The Procedures Committee agreed that this could be of benefit when there is an urgent requirement to finalise a report or conclude stage 2 of a bill. Under the current sitting programme, that would usually be on a Thursday.

The committee was aware that the

"existing standing orders could cause a potential difficulty in relation to the member in charge of a Bill because under the current rules a Minister who introduces an Executive Bill becomes the member in charge of that Bill and would continue to be the member in charge even if no longer a Minister."

That was revealed recently during the reshuffle. A similar anomaly could occur with a committee bill when the convener changes. It is also the case that a member in charge can designate an additional member, who does not have to be a member of the Executive or, in the case of a committee bill, a member of the committee. The Procedures Committee agreed to recommend a change that would ensure that

"the member in charge was linked, in the case of an Executive Bill, to the relevant ministerial posts or, in the case of a Committee Bill, to the convenership or membership of the relevant committee."

Under the current rules, the member in charge of a committee bill would not be entitled to participate in committee proceedings on the bill at stage 1, while the relevant minister would. A broadly similar restriction applies in the case of an Executive bill. The committee thought that the member in charge should be entitled to participate and recommends a change to give effect to that.

The Presiding Officer asked the committee to consider the matter of manuscript amendments at stage 3 of the legislative process. Under the current rules, manuscript amendments are not permitted at stage 3. The committee recognised that there could be occasions when a member fails to meet the deadline for lodging amendments. There could be genuine reasons for that. For example, complex technical or legal problems may be raised by the amendment, there may be a need to discuss the amendment with a third party who raised the point initially, or there may be a desire to secure cross-party support before lodging the amendment.

I emphasise that the committee did not think that manuscript amendments were a legitimate alternative to lodging amendments before the deadline. The committee still encourages members to meet the deadline whenever possible. We recognised that there might be clear benefits, particularly when stage 3 proceedings were underway, in allowing such amendments at stage 3 when they were justified. The committee has also recommended that appropriate guidance be drafted to support the change. I confirm that that is now being undertaken as a priority.

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

I have a point about a provision that I think the member is not going to mention—the provision for amendment of the long title of a bill at stage 3. Can the member, with his superior wisdom and knowledge of standing orders, clear up something that has puzzled me? As far as I am aware, under rule 9.10.5 of standing orders, amendments are not admissible if they are

"inconsistent with the general principles of the Bill".

What kind of amendment could be passed that was consistent with the general principles of the bill and yet required an amendment to the long title? Can the member think of an example?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I will have to ponder that question. Perhaps I can come back to Alasdair Morgan in my summing-up speech at the end of the debate. The reason for providing for the amendment of the long title at stage 3 is that currently the standing orders could be read to suggest that the long title be taken before the amendments, but the amendments may amend the long title, so that would be the wrong order.

Although each of the changes that is under consideration today is relatively small, the committee believes that they are all necessary to improve procedures and is pleased to recommend the changes to Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament (a) approves the recommendations of the Procedures Committee's 5th Report 2001, Changes to the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament (SP Paper 441) and agrees to amend the Standing Orders in accordance with Annex A to the Report; (b) approves the recommendations of the Procedures Committee's 1st Report 2002, Changes to the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament (SP Paper 495) and agrees to amend the Standing Orders in accordance with Annex A to the Report, and (c) agrees that these amendments to the Standing Orders should come into force on 4 February 2002.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I wish to indicate the Executive's support for the Procedures Committee's two reports, which cover proposals for changes to standing orders.

As members know, the standing orders are the vital framework within which the Parliament carries out effectively its daily business. Therefore, it is essential that we review the standing orders regularly, so that parliamentary business can flow smoothly.

On the Executive's behalf, I thank the members of the Procedures Committee—including Murray Tosh, the Deputy Presiding Officer, who is convener of the committee, and Ken Macintosh, the deputy convener—for the positive approach that they have brought to their work. The Executive has been consulted fully and I am pleased to note that account has been taken of the suggestions that we made to the committee.

I do not propose to comment in detail on all the proposed changes. The changes, which are relatively minor, are designed to clarify and simplify parliamentary processes and to improve handling arrangements for bills. The Executive endorses fully the changes in the committee's fifth report of 2001, which includes several detailed suggestions for assisting the effective discharge of committee business. The same attention to detail is given to relatively minor issues, such as the long title of a bill, when that is to be considered at stage 3.

We welcome the committee's agreement to provide a mechanism for setting up selection panels for appointments by Her Majesty the Queen on nomination by the Parliament. That change, which was initiated by the Executive, takes account of Executive policy. When implemented, it will standardise procedures for such appointments and will assist in the timely implementation—following royal assent—of the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill.

The Executive also endorses the changes that are proposed in the committee's first report of 2002, a number of which were initiated by the Executive. We are grateful for the committee's careful consideration of the issues. The proposal to include an amendment to simplify the definition of the member in charge of an Executive bill is designed mainly to avoid a potentially difficult situation, which could arise should the member in charge cease to be a minister. That proposal is especially welcome and helpful.

Further changes will ensure that any member in charge of a bill can attend any meeting of a committee at which the bill is being considered, and that the relevant member of the Scottish Executive can attend any committee proceedings that relate to non-Executive bills and other business.

The changes to rules on motions for financial resolutions will provide administrative convenience—any Cabinet minister or junior minister will be able to give notice of or move a financial resolution motion without having to be named specifically as a supporter. The proposed changes to the handling arrangements for budget bills will provide increased flexibility by enabling junior ministers to lodge and move amendments.

The introduction of arrangements for the submission and selection of manuscript amendments at stage 3 of a bill—broadly similar to the arrangements that are provided at stage 2—is designed to simplify parliamentary processes. We welcome the committee's acknowledgement of the Executive's good record of timely lodging of amendments to bills. We note that the Procedures Committee proposes to keep the matter under review. We will continue to do as we have done in the past.

The changes to standing orders that the Procedures Committee has outlined and recommended should simplify and improve the handling arrangements for bills and they should assist in making more effective and efficient the discharge of parliamentary and committee business. As always, the Executive looks forward to continued joint working and a productive relationship with the Procedures Committee. We support the two reports.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I pay tribute to the writers of the Procedures Committee's first report of 2002, because it is one of the most easy to read and easy to understand reports that I have ever read. To pay tribute, I intend to read from the report.

The proposal on the member in charge of a bill is about giving ownership to the person who has the relevant knowledge and can make an input into the bill in question—that person should be in the driving seat. The report also covers continuity of responsibility in the event of a change at ministerial level.

To show members how easily the reports read, I will quote directly from the committee's first report of 2002:

"14. The current rules allow only Cabinet Ministers or junior Scottish Ministers to lodge and move a motion for a financial resolution. Additionally, the rules make it clear that any motion may be moved only by the member who lodged it or by a member whose name appears as a supporter. In practice, motions for financial resolutions are always lodged in the name of the Minister for Finance but with the deputy Minister for Finance and the Cabinet Minister and junior Scottish Minister responsible for the Bill named as supporters. The objective in adding these supporters is to ensure that if the Minister who lodged the motion is unable to be present, the motion may still be moved.

15. The Committee considered that this need to add specific supporters for such motions is unnecessarily restrictive. The Committee thought that it would be more appropriate if any Minister was able to move a motion for a financial resolution whether or not that Minister had added his or her name as a supporter. The Committee so recommends and believes that this change would not materially affect the interests of other members."

As an Opposition MSP, I recognise the responsibility and the right of members to hold the Executive to account and, where necessary, to put the blockers on it. However, standing orders should be well above that. I compare the changes that are proposed by the Procedures Committee to the explanation that some railway companies offer when trains cease to run. We have heard the excuse that, when certain types of snow land on the rails, the whole shooting match closes down.

The committee's reports seek to put equipment in place so that our wagons can continue to roll and the business of the Parliament can be delivered, in particular by ministers.

When first I joined the Procedures Committee, I thought, "God, I'm going to die in here", because the issues that the committee dealt with were so dry. I have been a member of the committee for a while now, so I realise that it is even worse than that. However, to be serious, although the changes that are proposed in the reports look simple and straightforward, the reports reveal how much time and energy the Procedures Committee puts into unblocking provisions in standing orders. I commend the reports to the Parliament.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We in the Conservative group have always been in the useful position of being able, on procedural issues, to defer to a man who knows what he is talking about. However, because today that man finds himself in the Presiding Officer's chair, I have taken on the responsibility of saying a few words on the subject.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

You can handle it, Alex.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have been heavily briefed by someone who knows more about the matter than I do.

Most of the changes that are proposed in the Procedures Committee's reports are sensible. They will help to grease the wheels of the Parliament—to take up Gil Paterson's analogy—and will encourage the development of our business in a sensible and straightforward manner.

Other members who have spoken have focused on one of the changes and sought to demonstrate how it will be useful to Parliament in the future. The change that jumps out at me is that which relates to joint consideration of matters by sub-committees of more than one committee. When I was convener of the Rural Development Committee, Andy Kerr was convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee. As luck would have it, during that period we had to deal with a number of subjects, such as fish farming, that were of equal significance to both committees. We decided that the best way in which to proceed would be to set up a joint sub-committee. However, the lack of a relevant provision in standing orders meant that we had to hold informal discussions. Decisions that were made in the course of those discussions had then to be confirmed by one or other of the committees. Occasionally, that led to strange situations in which, in effect, the two committees met as a joint committee. Members of the Rural Development Committee would sit in as guests at meetings of the Transport and the Environment Committee and then switch on a television to see what members of the Transport and the Environment Committee had said after they left. Giving committees the power to delegate business to sub-committees meeting jointly will have a genuine impact in such circumstances, should they arise. They will arise when we least expect them to.

I am delighted to say that the Conservatives will support the changes that are proposed in the motion. I hope that they will have the effect that we all want them to have on the workings of the Parliament.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Like other members, I am happy to support the proposed changes to standing orders. They are sensible and have been agreed fully by the Procedures Committee.

One change that causes me concern is the provision that would allow the convener of a committee to suspend meetings for breaks such as coffee breaks. I am under strict instructions from my doctor and—far more important—from my wife to reduce my intake of coffee. As I am a weak-minded man, the introduction of more coffee breaks will cause me great problems. I will have to sort that out.

All the changes that are proposed are relatively minor. An underlying problem is that changes that are proposed in the Procedures Committee that cause serious concern to the powers that be seem to disappear into a black hole. We should examine that issue more closely. However, the changes that are proposed in the two reports are sensible and will help to make the Parliament operate better. I am very happy to support them.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

It is a surreal experience to speak to members today when the Presiding Officer is the convener of the committee that proposed the detailed changes that we are debating.

On behalf of the Procedures Committee, Ken Macintosh ably identified the key elements of the proposed amendments to standing orders. Those changes are aimed at improving the quality of the parliamentary process. They are necessary and will enable us to deal better with legislation and to improve committee engagement.

A frisson of excitement ran through the chamber when the provision that relates to the removal of conveners was referred to. Mike Rumbles shifted rather edgily in his seat at that suggestion, perhaps fearing that, if he continues in his time-honoured fashion, there might be a cross-party agreement on removing him. I reassure him that the intention is not to allow for the summary dismissal of conveners. Rather, the proposed change would allow for the measured dismissal of a convener, should the convener disagree with views held broadly by members of a committee.

The Procedures Committee is trying, after examination, to sort out an anomaly that has emerged. I am reminded of Provost Pawkie in the John Galt novel "The Provost", which is set in Ayrshire. The provost said that he loved the job of trying to preserve his leadership of the local council through what he defined as enlightened self-interest. In the novel, Provost Pawkie describes how

"the cloven foot of self-interest was now and then to be seen aneath the robe of public principle."

I hope that that will not be the case with future conveners in the Parliament.

I want to draw attention to three of the committee's recommendations that I regard as important. I welcome the commitment to setting up selection panels for appointments to public bodies. That ties in with the concerns that members have expressed in the past two and a half to three years about how candidates for such appointments are identified. The fact that Parliament will now be involved in that process is a welcome development.

Another welcome change that members have not yet highlighted is the provision for committees to meet at times when meetings of the Parliament have been suspended. The fact that a number of committees have indicated that they would have liked the opportunity to meet over lunch to carry out stage 2 scrutiny of a bill or to consider the final draft of a committee report is evidence of members' hard work and commitment, which is often under-reported. On Tuesday morning, as part of its inquiry into the implementation of the principles of the consultative steering group report, the Procedures Committee took evidence from representatives of the press. It is a pity that members of the press are not here to hear this debate on an issue that seems mundane, but that shows that folk want to get the job done and to conclude the business of the Parliament appropriately.

Another issue is the anomaly that has emerged whereby the person who introduced a committee bill or an Executive bill would remain the member in charge of that bill even after that person had ceased to be the convener of a committee or a minister. That is a strange situation, which reminds me of Norman Lamont's claim that, under John Major, the Conservatives were

"in office but not in power."

The remedy that the Procedures Committee has proposed seems sensible.

I broadly welcome other members' contributions to the debate. They acknowledged that the Procedures Committee is trying to refine our systems by developing changes to standing orders—we are in a continuing learning process. Like other members of the Procedures Committee who have spoken in the debate, I welcome the proposed changes to standing orders. I hope that the changes achieve our intended objective, which is to maximise the effectiveness of the way in which the Parliament and its committees work.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I welcome all the proposals that are made in the Procedures Committee's reports and in the motion that we are debating.

I will focus on one aspect of the reports. I am sorry to disappoint Frank McAveety, but I will not be focusing on the proposal on the removal of conveners—that is not the issue that has brought me to my feet. I want to talk about the proposal to rectify an anomaly in the way in which manuscript amendments are treated. Conveners can accept manuscript amendments at stage 2, yet the Presiding Officer cannot accept them at stage 3. The proposal is to right that wrong. Members may ask why I am concerned about righting that wrong. As Ken Macintosh said, the committee's proposal provides for flexible deadlines and he identified several good, positive reasons why that proposal should be accepted.

However, I will introduce the only note of controversy—so far—in the debate: my concern is that the wrong should be righted in order to prevent from happening abuses of the system such as those that have occurred in the past. In my experience, the worst example occurred during consideration of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. Several members who were not content with the bill, including me, lodged amendments weeks in advance of stage 2. We did so because we were interested in ensuring that the legislation would be both proper and effective. Despite the urgings of the convener of the Rural Development Committee, members who supported the bill, including Mike Watson, resisted lodging their amendments until the very last moment. Mike Watson was perfectly entitled to do that, but I remember receiving pager messages and telephone calls, as did other members of the committee, about those amendments. Members who lodge amendments at the very last moment do not assist the production of good legislation, because other members are prevented from lodging amendments to those amendments. The convener, who read the rules, had the good grace to advise members that there was flexibility to ensure that there was a reasonable period of time in which members could lodge manuscript amendments, which were then accepted.

Following this debate, we will consider a motion in the name of Patricia Ferguson to hold the stage 3 bill on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill in two weeks. Back in November, I lodged an amendment on compensation for consideration at stage 3. I lodged that amendment to allow members who are opposed to my amendment or who want to tweak it to lodge subsequent amendments, and to allow the Executive to make suggestions about it. I understand that Patricia Ferguson's motion proposes an extension to the stage 3 debate. At six hours, it will be the longest stage 3 debate that the Parliament has held. I stand to be corrected but, according to today's business bulletin, the motion proposes that on 13 February, the stage 3 debate on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill will commence at 1 o'clock, with decision time at 7 o'clock. Why are we to hold a six-hour debate, which is most unusual? The answer to that question is that everyone expects that a raft of amendments will be lodged, which means that we will spend the entire afternoon and early evening going through them. I have no objection to that approach, but I hope that members who wish to lodge amendments for stage 3 will listen to the Presiding Officers and lodge them in time to allow other members to consider the amendments properly and therefore to enable us to pass good, decent legislation. I fear that that raft of amendments will be lodged at the very last moment, as happened at stage 2.

The Procedures Committee's motion will give the Presiding Officer—or Deputy Presiding Officer, if appropriate—the authority to accept manuscript amendments, in order to prevent what I call a clear abuse of the system. I hope that members who support the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill are listening to this debate or will read the Official Report of it, and that they will lodge their amendments in enough time to allow other members to see what we are to debate on the day. That will allow us to pass decent, good legislation and, for that reason, I support the motion.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I did not think that I would have anything to say at the end of the debate, but I will respond to a few of the points that have been raised.

Alasdair Morgan asked whether amendments would be admissible at stage 3 if they fell outwith the general principles of a bill—at least, I think that his question was along those lines. Would he care to elaborate?

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

Perhaps I should clarify my question, which came up during the early discussions on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill, when I was a member of the then Rural Affairs Committee. Under standing orders, members cannot move amendments that go against the general principles of a bill. The Rural Affairs Committee had a debate about what the general principles of a bill were as the term "general principles" is not defined anywhere. Some members thought that the general principles of a bill were that bill's long title. However, if one cannot lodge an amendment that goes against a bill's general principles, is an amendment that would necessitate a change to the long title of a bill admissible? I appreciate that that is a bit of an anorak question.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Alasdair Morgan's point is well made, and I thank John Patterson and the Procedures Committee's clerking team for giving me an example of such a situation. The long title of a bill is not the same as that bill's general principles. A recent example is that of an amendment to the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Bill, which amended the number of judges that were required. The amendment did not run against the bill's general principles, although it amended the long title. Therefore, it fell into the interesting category that Alasdair Morgan mentioned. Perhaps he would like the Procedures Committee to consider his point further. If so, I ask him to put his point in writing to the committee, so that we can consider it in the course of our business. I hope that he is assured that, as far as the motion that we are debating is concerned, we have addressed the issue that was troubling the committee.

I was grateful to Gil Paterson for deciding that he would not use standing orders to put the blockers on the Executive. Mike Rumbles raised a number of interesting points. Many members have raised the procedure that was followed throughout the Parliament's and the Rural Development Committee's consideration of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. Members have expressed a great deal of concern that procedures have been used either to slow down the bill's progress or to obfuscate deliberately the issues that are at the heart of the bill. Those matters are of great concern to members on both sides of the argument. To be fair to Mike Watson, there is no reason to believe that he lodged his amendments at the last minute for reasons that were different to those of any other member who lodged amendments at the last minute. There are issues that concern Mike Watson, just as there are issues that concern Mike Rumbles.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I disagree with Ken Macintosh's opinion on that point. Mike Watson was asked on a number of occasions to lodge his amendments as soon as possible, because members genuinely wanted to consider them in line with their desire to pass good legislation. The situation is being repeated at stage 3. Members who, like me, are opposed to the bill and want to change it have lodged amendments well in advance of stage 3. In my opinion, some members are abusing the system. The Procedures Committee has given us a mechanism through which we can ensure that we address such abuses, but we should prevent them from arising in the first place.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Mike Rumbles's point is well made, but Mike Watson thought that he should defend himself and there is no reason to think that he has used amendments differently to the way in which amendments have been used by members who oppose his bill. My remarks on the abuse of process could be equally—if not more so—directed at those who have tried to slow the bill's progress, despite the view of the majority of members. However, it is not for me to discuss the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. I simply share Mike Rumbles's concern that the procedures of the Parliament should not be used to create obstacles that would get in the way of the will of the Parliament.

If I may deal with the other points—I am afraid that Mike Rumbles set the fur flying—I want to comment on what Alex Johnstone said. Someone told me before the debate that Alex Johnstone was going to make a slim contribution. I am not sure whether the words "slim" and "Alex Johnstone" have been used—

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Oh, go on.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

However, I welcome Alex Johnstone's contribution. He said that the proposal to allow joint consideration by subcommittees "jumps out" at him. I was just astounded that something could jump out of a report in that manner.

Donald Gorrie commented on the long debate that we had on the use of the terms "comfort breaks" or "coffee breaks" and how those breaks should be described. I think that we just went for "breaks" in the end. I am sorry if that will cause him any discomfort. I also welcome my colleague Frank McAveety's words of reassurance for conveners, although I suspect that he might have put ideas in member's heads that will make conveners more unsettled.

On that note, I welcome all members' contributions to the debate. I believe that the Procedures Committee's report will make us more effective in the delivery of legislation. I commend the report to the Parliament.

Business Motion

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-2658, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Any members who wish to speak against the motion should press their request-to-speak button now.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees the following programme of business— Wednesday 6 February 2002

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 3 Debate on the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-2363 Stewart Stevenson: HM Prison Peterhead and Beacon Site Status Thursday 7 February 2002

9.30 am Scottish National Party Business followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Stage 1 Debate on the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-2533 Mr Donald Gorrie: Musical Instrument Instructors Wednesday 13 February 2002

1.00 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 3 Debate on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

7.00 pm Decision Time Thursday 14 February 2002

9.30 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 3 Debate on the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Continuation of Stage 3 Debate on the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill followed by Stage 3 Debate on the Budget (Scotland) (No.3) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business— [Euan Robson.]

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The business motion states that next Thursday we will debate an item of SNP business, but the motion does not give any indication as to what that debate will be on. Is not it discourteous to the chamber that the SNP has not yet informed the Parliament what it intends the Parliament to debate next week? As a matter of courtesy, should not that be included as part of the business motion that has been moved today? Perhaps the SNP has no priorities and does not know what it wants to debate until it is told by the Sunday newspaper editorials.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

That is not a point of order. I am not aware that this week's practice is different from the practice of previous weeks. I have no doubt that the persons to whom the point is directed will consider what, if any, attention they wish to pay to it.

I have notice of one member wishing to speak against the motion. I call Alex Johnstone.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is not my intention to force a vote on today's business motion, but I wish to take the opportunity to bring one matter to the attention of Parliament before we proceed to decide on the motion.

The stage 3 debate on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill has been scheduled for 13 February. I thank the Minister for Parliamentary Business for ensuring that a suitable amount of time—some six hours—is available to debate the issues involved. However, I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns, which follow directly from those that Mike Rumbles expressed in the previous debate.

It would be irresponsible to suggest that enormous change is likely to happen at stage 3—I believe that only one amendment to that bill has been lodged so far. However, the changes that we are likely to approve at today's decision time will mean that further significant last-minute changes can be expected during the debate on the amendments to that bill. Indeed, if we think about the experience of stage 2, it is obvious that the bill at stage 3 is already radically different from the bill that was debated at stage 1. For those of us who were combatants in the stage 1 and stage 2 processes, it is only reasonable to assume that attempts will yet again be made radically to change the bill at stage 3. For that reason, I am concerned that we shall move directly from the debate on the amendments to the debate on the motion that the bill be passed.

I believe that, when we participate in the debate on the motion that the bill be passed, many of us will not be clear about the nature of the bill that is being debated. I therefore believe—

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

Will the member give way?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am almost finished.

It would be worth while to programme some space between the debates on those two issues.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The Parliamentary Bureau has provided what is expected to be adequate time. We do not as yet know how many amendments will be lodged, but the time that is available is clearly sufficient to cope with the large number of amendments that is anticipated. If only a few amendments are lodged, there might be an opportunity to revisit the situation.

Alex Johnstone made the point that, if a large number of amendments are agreed to, members might be unsure of what effect those will have on the bill at the end of stage 3. It is up to the members who lodge the amendments to be sure that they understand the consequences not only of their amendments but of the way in which the amendments impact one upon the other.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Given the fact that, since the Rural Development Committee completed stage 2, members have had two months' notice of how the bill as amended at stage 2 stands, will the minister take the opportunity—as I tried to do in the previous debate—to urge members who want to lodge amendments to do so as soon as possible? In that way, all members would have the benefit of seeing those amendments and we would know where we are going.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Clearly, it is helpful if members lodge amendments early, as other members can then consider in detail the implications of the amendments. However, that is a matter for members, not for the Bureau or the Executive. I cannot add any more.

Motion agreed to.

Question Time — Scottish Executive

David (None, Lothians)

Question 1 has been withdrawn.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether each student attending a higher education establishment will have a £700 funding shortfall, as identified by Universities Scotland, during every year of study once its bursary proposals have been implemented. (S1O-4560)

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Under the new student support arrangements, students from the lowest income families in Scotland will have more than £4,300 to live on, of which £2,000 will be in the form of a bursary. That will provide those students with 20 per cent more money for living expenses than they would have had before the Executive acted.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the minister with responsibility for student finance—among other things—recognise the problem that Universities Scotland has identified, which is that there is a significant shortfall in student funding? Does she recognise that the shortfall in students' personal finance is a direct consequence of the Labour Government's policies? If she does not recognise that, will she do something to deal with the personal and financial despair that faces many students in Scotland?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Dear me, Andrew Wilson has some difficulty in keeping up. I will clarify the figures. I understand that Universities Scotland has spoken to Andrew Wilson about outdated figures.

I do not remember the SNP arguing for £5,000 a student; instead, I remember it arguing for the Cubie proposals, which were that students in Scotland should have £4,100 towards living expenses. The Executive is giving the poorest students a sum that is in excess of that—£4,300.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Is the minister aware of the Scottish students' rights charter, which was launched by the National Union of Students Scotland and which highlights concerns about barriers to study and citizens' rights? Does the minister plan to meet representatives of NUS Scotland? Will she consider monitoring levels of student debt to ensure that it is not a barrier to the economy or to higher education?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The member makes two important points. I am well aware of the campaign on student debt, which is in many ways legitimate. That is why the Executive has changed the system. When students graduate from a four-year course, they will have £4,000 less debt than they would have had before we acted. The student debt problem is real, but under the proposals for which we have legislated, students will have £4,000 less debt.

The member also mentioned the complexity of the system and the importance of talking to students. I meet representatives of NUS Scotland regularly. In addition to that, we must find a way in which students can come closer to the work of the Student Awards Agency for Scotland, so that we do not get into the complexities that there have sometimes been in the past.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its funding arrangements were for tackling alcohol misuse before the publication of its "Plan for Action on alcohol problems" and what new money is being made available. (S1O-4583)

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The Executive has made £1.84 million available through central budgets in this financial year to support local and national action to tackle alcohol problems. In addition, the Health Education Board for Scotland's alcohol-specific budget for this year is £490,000. Services that address alcohol problems are funded from resources that are allocated to national health service boards and local authorities. The Executive has made an additional £1.5 million available following the publication of the "Plan for Action on alcohol problems" for a national alcohol problems communication strategy.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

The minister's reply is welcome, because it shows that increased support is being given to tackling alcohol problems. It is notorious that alcohol issues are given less financial support than drug issues. Will the minister assure me that, because alcohol problems impact on many areas of life, money to help tackle them will come from a wide range of budgets?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I am more than happy to reassure Mr Gorrie that the Executive is totally committed to financing programmes to address problems with alcohol misuse. I accept that we are not spending as much on alcohol issues as we are on drug issues, however we are at an earlier stage. I intend to use the alcohol plan to develop programmes locally and nationally to deal with those problems specifically.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I refer the minister to the latest round of funding cuts, which now run to £6 million, by Scottish Borders Council. I draw the minister's attention to the Dry Dock in Eyemouth, a project that is aimed at reducing the problems that arise from alcohol misuse; for example, the project provides an alcohol-free bar for young people to socialise in. What will the minister do to prevent the closure of that project?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

As the member knows, that is a matter for the local authority. However, the action plan on alcohol takes into consideration several submissions from local authorities and health boards; we will seek to address local problems through those.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister tell us what effect the police's right to confiscate alcohol from young abusers has, and whether that is an area on which we should spend more money?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

One of the targets announced in the action plan addresses underage drinking. The police have powers to remove alcohol from those who are under the age of 18; it is important that the police use the powers that they have.

Teachers' Pay

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made on negotiations to implement the McCrone agreement for teachers' pay in relation to education professions, including advisers and educational psychologists. (S1O-4555)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The pay and conditions of service for educational advisers and psychologists are currently under review by the Scottish negotiating committee for teachers. The SNCT has a psychologists and advisers working group, which is investigating the detail of the issue. The group expects to make recommendations to the full SNCT meeting at the end of February.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Does the minister recognise that his answer will be a disappointment for educational psychologists—such as constituents of mine who have contacted me on the issue—who are concerned that the matter is being delayed even further, almost a year after the McCrone settlement was reached? Those people do not know on what scales they will be paid, or when they will receive the pay increase that they are still due for 2001.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

It is important that we reach conclusion on those issues as soon as possible. However, it is also important to point out that those groups were not part of the original McCrone agreement, and that the McCrone agreement was not final in relation to all issues—indeed, in many ways it was a starting point.

Ministers will receive the review of the educational psychology service—the Curry review—over the next few days. It is important that the terms of that review are considered before an agreement is reached in the SNCT. The end of February is the earliest date on which we can take into consideration the findings of that review.

The issues are complex, particularly in relation to educational advisers. However, I believe that we will reach a satisfactory outcome soon.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I declare an interest as an associate member of the Library Association. That will no doubt alert the minister to the fact that I want to ask when the Executive will make recommendations about pay and conditions for school librarians. After all, school librarians are education professionals at the heart of learning and teaching in our schools and are intrinsic to the delivery of the information and communication technology skills that are so necessary—

David (None, Lothians)

Order. I am sorry, but we cannot have speeches in support of questions.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The McCrone agreement and the pay award for teachers affect several groups. It is important to emphasise that such issues are coming to the fore because the new pay award for teachers and the terms and conditions that became available through the McCrone agreement are exceptionally good. Several other groups are anxious to get similar treatment. However, the issues are complex and relate not only to pay. The teachers made some important concessions and significant progress was made in relation to their conditions. It may not be as straightforward for other groups to make similar proposals.

I see Fiona McLeod shaking her head, but that is the case. Groups such as music instructors are balloting on the proposals. The focus of Iain Smith's question was the educational psychologists and advisers. No doubt other groups, including librarians, are interested in the progress that is being made. I am anxious that, through the SNCT, we reach a conclusion as quickly as possible.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister will be aware that mature entrants to the teaching profession stand to lose up to £10,000 because of the McCrone deal. Will the minister assure those students that they will receive the benefit of the pay deal that they thought they had signed up to when they decided to enter the teaching profession?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

One of the main reasons for postponing the meeting of the SNCT, from today to the end of January—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

The end of February.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I am sorry—the SNCT meeting has been put back to the end of February and not the end of January, which is today. We want to draw together the strands that relate to educational psychologists, advisers, mature students and others. We are aware of complaints, which have been discussed in the chamber on several occasions, about the concerns of the mature students. Despite the uncertainty that the delay creates, it is important to take a little more time to get the right solution that looks after the interests of our mature students.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

To ask the Scottish Executive what guidelines are issued to NHS boards and trusts concerning the treatment of violent, abusive or drunken patients by doctors and nurses. (S1O-4526)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Guidance on tackling violence against general practitioners and their staff was issued on 17 December to NHS boards and primary care trusts. The guidance sets out a model local development scheme, which ensures that medical services continue to be available to patients who have been violent. Health at work guidance is currently in preparation and will include a model policy for NHS Scotland concerning refusal of treatment in certain circumstances to patients who are violent towards staff.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I hope that the minister's answer will reassure doctors, nurses and ancillary staff in accident and emergency departments. One nurse in my constituency, after serving for five years in an accident and emergency department, is about to leave the NHS because she is not prepared to return for another weekend. We all accept the need for zero tolerance in the context of domestic abuse, but the same should apply in the case of violent abuse of accident and emergency staff.

David (None, Lothians)

Question.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I am about to ask the question. Will the minister consider using the system that is used down south, in which a yellow or red card is placed in the patient's case notes? If the patient returns for further treatment, police are called after the patient has been treated.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

We would consider anything that helps to give greater protection to staff. In addition to the guidance to GPs, regulations that were issued in July 2000 set out practice governing patients where there is a removal because of violence against staff. Anything that can help to protect the security and safety of staff will be given due consideration.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The minister says that he is prepared to listen. I am glad of that. Is he aware of the situation that has been going on for two years regarding staff safety at the Glasgow royal infirmary? A petition has been lodged on the subject with the Parliament's Public Petitions Committee. Staff had discussions with management—[MEMBERS: "Speech."] It is not a speech—I began by asking whether the minister was aware of the situation.

Is the minister aware that staff had discussions with management two years ago, and that staff have requested a police presence at GRI? Will the minister give a commitment to meet staff and management at GRI to alleviate the situation?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Specific incidents are the responsibility of local management and of the trust and should be dealt with appropriately at that level. Our responsibility is to set out a framework within which the trusts can operate. That is what we are attempting to do.

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It has been reported that, south of the border, Alan Milburn favours a zero-tolerance approach to those who assault or abuse NHS staff or ambulance staff. If that is the case, are members of the Scottish Parliament willing—is the minister willing—to adopt a similar zero-tolerance approach?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

That question was answered in my reply to Trish Godman. Other factors need to be considered. The General Medical Council guidance tells doctors:

"In an emergency, you must offer anyone at risk the treatment you could reasonably be expected to provide"

in the circumstances.

We must weigh those things together. John Scott is right that we should not tolerate violence against staff. We must ensure that the atmosphere and environment in which staff operate gives security and protection and says no to abusive and violent patients.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what recent communication it has had with the trustees of the Scottish Transport Group pension schemes about the wind-up of the pension schemes. (S1O-4554)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

My officials are in regular contact with the directors of the Scottish Transport Group, including contact on progress with the wind-up of the pension schemes. The most recent such meeting was yesterday.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

In view of the concern that the offer to the pensioners amounts to only about 40 per cent of the gross surplus and the fact that, about a decade after privatisation, not a single penny has yet been paid out, why are ministers obstinately refusing to meet MSPs and representatives of the pensioners? Why are the trustees following suit? Who do those people think they are? Are they not accountable to the Scottish Parliament? Will the Executive tell those bandits to hand over the money, even if it takes another threatening telephone call from the dreaded Wendy?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I am disappointed, given Mr Canavan's long engagement with the campaign, that he appears not to be aware of one or two key points.

One of those points is that the trustees of the pension schemes are not directly accountable to ministers. If they were, we would have instructed them to act before now. We have done everything we can to speed up the process and we will continue to do so. Mr Canavan asked about meetings. He will be aware that we met the trade unions, with which we have worked throughout the process, and we have met the pensioners action group and MSPs within the past five weeks and discussed questions that they raised. We have taken those questions seriously and will supply answers to them. In the meantime, we will continue to press the trustees to carry out their responsibility and wind up the schemes as quickly as possible.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Having been a supporter from the beginning of the campaign group representing the ex-employees of the Scottish Transport Group, I must say that the on-going delays beggar belief. When will the minister answer the many questions that were raised at the New St Andrews House meeting that he mentioned, including the request for a meeting between the minister and the campaign group? Will the minister pressurise the trustees to talk to the campaign group and to finalise their deliberations?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The Executive shares the impatience of members and those who have been involved in the campaign, including Sylvia Jackson, that matters should be drawn to a conclusion as quickly as possible. We will respond to the questions that were raised at that meeting as soon as we can and invite any further representations the member wishes to make in the light of the answers to those questions.

I intend to impress upon the trustees of the pension scheme our eagerness for progress and to meet the chair of the Scottish Transport Group board of directors shortly. That will provide an opportunity to explain the view of the Parliament and the Executive that the matter should be concluded as quickly as possible.

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

Further to the minister's answer to Mr Canavan, will he confirm that it was not the trustees but the First Minister, Mr McConnell, when he was Minister for Finance, who struck the deal whereby 60 per cent of the gross surplus of the pension funds is being paid not to the workers but to the Government—£100 million to the Inland Revenue and £46 million to the Treasury? How does Lewis Macdonald, as a Labour minister, justify a Labour Government taking £150 million from a workers' pension fund? When John Prescott described that as pillage, was he wrong?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Given that Fergus Ewing was in the chamber when we debated the subject in late November, it is very disappointing that he appears to have missed entirely the point that legal ownership of the fund lies entirely with HM Government. What the Scottish Executive achieved in negotiation was a substantial handover of funds, which belong in law to HM Treasury, to the Executive for dispersal to members of the pension schemes. If the member had listened on 28 November, he would have heard the Executive say that a further £18 million had been obtained and will also be dispersed to members of the pension schemes.

I take the opportunity to correct a point that has been made by Mr Ewing and Mr Canavan, who overlooked the £33 million pension pay-out of about a decade ago, which was surplus in addition to the regular pension pay-outs made to members of the schemes. That means that, assuming that we are able to proceed in the next few weeks, the aggregate pay-out will be in excess of 60 per cent of the overall surplus in the scheme, and will be directly comparable with the pay-out in England and Wales.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I restate the urgency of the matter. Many pensioners who have waited years for the settlement are unlikely to live for long enough to receive the benefits of that settlement if we do not get a solution on the table. Will the minister give us an assurance about that? We need to know when the distribution of the money will take place and on what basis the money will be distributed. Those are the two key questions that my constituents want answers to.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The criteria for distribution have been discussed and agreed with the Transport and General Workers Union, which represented the vast majority of the pensioners when they were in employment. The criteria were also explained at the meeting on 17 December at New St Andrews House.

The intention is to complete the process as quickly as possible. The moment that the trustees carry out their duty and wind up the schemes, we will take the necessary steps in Parliament to wind up the Scottish Transport Group. Once that is done and we have access to the records, to which we are not legally entitled to have access until the pension schemes have been wound up, we will proceed to distribute the money on the basis of the criteria that have been explained. We shall do that as quickly as possible.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it expects to receive the Scottish audit of gastric and oesophageal cancer and when it will be published. (S1O-4542)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

We expect to receive the final report by March 2002. Plans are in preparation for its dissemination to NHS Scotland immediately thereafter.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Following his meeting last summer with doctors and patients, the minister will be aware of the serious concern that exists about the lack of a coherent strategy for providing upper gastrointestinal services in Glasgow. Given that there have been few signs of progress since then, will the minister assure us that, in his consideration of proposals for the future of acute services in Glasgow, he will consider carefully the provision of upper gastrointestinal services on a single site? Will he also assure us that, in the development of the cancer strategy, upper gastrointestinal services will be regarded as an urgent priority?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The cancer strategy that was published by the Executive last year indicated that there would be a review of upper gastrointestinal surgery following the audit. As I indicated, the audit will be published in March. It will then be up to the NHS boards in the west of Scotland and the regional cancer advisory group to reorganise services for that important area of surgery.

As Des McNulty said, I have a close interest in the subject, and I met the surgeons in question last year. In the first instance, however, it is a matter for local bodies. I am pleased to be told that Greater Glasgow NHS Board has arranged a meeting with those surgeons in the near future.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The minister will no doubt be aware that, although there are more deaths from upper gastrointestinal cancer than from breast cancer, it is an illness that gets very little publicity. What plans does the Scottish Executive have to develop an education campaign so that people become more aware of the problem and seek earlier intervention, which can save lives?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

There are many developments that will be helpful, including developments in endoscopy, which is important in diagnosing upper gastrointestinal cancer. There is a lot of interest in that area and research is being done. There are also new developments in adenocarcinoma, which is becoming more common. Many people have a keen interest in those developments; I, and other members of the Executive, certainly have. It is very important that networks are developed as soon as possible after the publication of the audit so that those serious illnesses can be dealt with in the best and most appropriate way.

David (None, Lothians)

Before I call question 8, I warn members not to stray on to reserved matters.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives from Consignia to discuss the impact of possible post office closures. (S1O-4549)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Consignia post offices and postal services are reserved matters. The Scottish Executive recognises the importance of the availability of postal services across Scotland and is regular contact with Consignia on a range of issues.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give a commitment here and now to participate fully in the roll-out of the Government gateway project, otherwise known as "Your Guide", if and when the project is given the go-ahead by the Department of Trade and Industry? As the minister will be aware, such initiatives will provide vital new income streams to replace revenue that is lost from across-the-counter benefits transactions.

Will the minister confirm whether the Executive has received a funding consequential from the Treasury to support post offices in deprived urban areas?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The Scottish Executive and the UK Government are committed to high-quality, universal postal services and a dynamic post office that can thrive in a world of technological change and increased competitive pressures. At the end of next month, the pilot will come to a conclusion and there will be discussions between officials in Andy Kerr's department, the DTI and Consignia on rolling out the project throughout Scotland.

I agree that the the local post office should become an invaluable resource for access to government information—that was reflected in consequentials to the Executive from the UK Government in last year's settlement.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Does the minister agree with the general point that competition is often not the best way to ensure that equitable and effective or efficient public services are delivered throughout the country? We should recognise and respect that legislative and regulatory powers for the matters under discussion lie with Westminster, but will the minister give an assurance that he will liaise closely with the Secretary of State for Scotland and his UK counterparts to ensure that services, particularly in rural and poorer communities—which are of particular concern to Scotland—are protected in the light of today's announcement by the regulator?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The announcement to which the member refers was the publication of a Postcomm document at a minute past midnight. I can give the assurance that the Executive and the UK Government are determined to deliver the best possible services to post office customers and that we will work towards that with the UK Government. The Scottish Executive recognises the importance of the post office network to rural communities in particular. The matter is reserved, but the Scottish Executive will ensure that the Postcomm consultation takes full account of rural communities' needs.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Unemployment will not be a reserved matter when it hits and postal workers are looking for answers. I ask the minister to treat the matter as the worst crisis in the post office in modern times. Does the minister accept that the Royal Mail has been in difficulties only since it was privatised and that more privatisation is not the answer in Scotland? Will the minister give an assurance that he will investigate the moving of international mail from Glasgow to Berkshire and of the Glasgow parcels office in Springburn to Coventry? The Scots wages office and orders for uniforms and cleaning materials have already been hijacked by Swindon, Sheffield and Leeds.

David (None, Lothians)

Order. I said that the question was limited to the impact of possible post office closures in Scotland—that is the narrow scope of the question.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I have seen press reports that have quoted 8,000 post office closures in the UK, but the UK Government and the Scottish Executive do not recognise those figures. I assure the Parliament that there will be no repeat of the Tory years in which 3,500 post offices were closed throughout the country.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will next meet sportscotland and what issues will be discussed. (S1O-4569)

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I met the board of sportscotland informally on Monday 29 January and we discussed a number of sporting matters that are of interest to the Executive and sportscotland. My colleague Mike Watson will meet the chairman and the chief executive on Monday 4 February. They will discuss sport 21, the national sport strategy for Scotland.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for her answer. I hope that, in discussing that strategy, Mike Watson will raise the issue of playing fields. Recently, I attended an under-13 Scottish cup tie at Barrhead and was disappointed to discover that ballots were still being held for teams to gain access to play on grass football pitches. Will the minister give an assurance that initiatives will be discussed to ensure that Scottish children have access to grass football pitches throughout Scotland?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I reassure the member that the planning provision is against the presumption of development on school playing fields. A case would need to be made that suitable alternative sites were available for football pitches if playing fields were to be developed.

The wider issue of physical activity in schools is a major concern of the Scottish Executive. A number of programmes are under way at the moment, including the school sports co-ordinator programme and the active primary school programme. We are awaiting the physical activity task force's careful consideration of any recommendations in respect of increasing levels of physical activity in the population, for people of all ages, but particularly young people.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wonder whether Mr Monteith will clarify whether he said Barrhead and whether he was referring to the brand new grass pitches that were put in and paid for by the council and the Scottish Sports Council.

David (None, Lothians)

That is definitely not a point of order.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister assure us that when she, or Mike Watson, next meets sportscotland, she will ensure that the issue of low participation of young woman in sport will be addressed in the next review of sport 21?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I assure the member that I will continue to take a strong interest in the participation of young women in physical activity. That participation might be in sport, or it might be in activities such as dance. I was interested to see recently that 88 per cent of equestrians in Scotland are women. Like Rhona Brankin, I am anxious to promote physical activity among girls and young women.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

When the ministers next meet sportscotland, will they be prepared to raise the issue of establishing football supporters' trusts in Scotland? The minister will be aware of the increasing development of such trusts in England and Wales, which the Government has provided with financial support. Here in Scotland, no financial support has been provided for the establishment of such trusts.

Given that Lord Watson was a keen supporter of football supporters' trusts when he was a back bencher, do the ministers still support the establishment of such trusts? Are they willing to provide financial support for their establishment?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I am happy to reassure the member that both Mike Watson and I are keen supporters of football supporters' trusts. We have had a number of discussions about how those trusts might be progressed and I advise the member that an announcement on the matter will be made very soon.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it is taking to stop the illegal poisoning of rare birds. (S1O-4540)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The Scottish Executive is committed through its operation of the wildlife incident investigation scheme to investigating the misuse and abuse of pesticides. Where poisoning has been confirmed, my department's agricultural staff conduct field investigations in close co-operation with the police.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Is the minister aware that recent research by RSPB Scotland showed an alarming rise in the poisoning of red kites in 2001, some of which happened in my area? Does he agree that the introduction of tougher wildlife laws would act as a deterrent and help to stop such incidents in the future? Will he commit himself to publishing a draft bill on the subject as soon as possible?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The Scottish Agricultural Science Agency has reported that since 1989, of the 51 red kites submitted for analysis under the incident investigation scheme that I referred to, 24 were confirmed to have been poisoned. It is worrying that 10 of those were poisoned in 2001.

I agree with Sylvia Jackson. We aim to introduce new measures to assist the police to detect wildlife crime and the courts to impose tougher penalties, including custodial sentences for those who are convicted of the most serious crimes.

I am happy to repeat the assurance that was given by my predecessor in office that we aim to introduce a draft bill on those matters as soon as possible.

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

I think that the minister is aware that the project to reintroduce the red kite to Galloway has been hit severely by the poisoning of many of those magnificent birds.

Under those circumstances, does the minister agree that it is important that the law has real teeth? Will he give us a definition of "as soon as possible"? Does it mean this year?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

As soon as possible means as soon as possible. It is fairly self-evident.

The timing obviously depends on competing priorities in the Executive's legislative programme. I understand the urgency of what is being proposed and I will impress on my colleagues the importance of introducing a draft bill as soon as possible.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it plans to remedy the nutritional deficiency recorded by National Children's Homes Scotland in one child in six examined at the royal hospital for sick children in Edinburgh. (S1O-4568)

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The Scottish Executive is committed to improving the diet of all children as part of giving every child the best possible start in life. Implementation of the Scottish diet action plan is being given added momentum at national and local level to improve the diet of Scottish children throughout their childhood years.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Does the minister agree that a great deal of money has been spent on health education programmes to persuade people of the merits of eating fresh fruit and vegetables, for example, but that, according to the National Children's Homes Scotland survey, those programmes do not appear to have had much impact? Does she think that it might be a good idea to ensure that every child has a free school meal every day and that, if the Scottish Executive cannot find the £174 million that that would require, we should consider raising the money through the limited tax-raising powers of the Parliament?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The member is concentrating on only one way of dealing with nutritional deficiency in our children. Several projects are going on at the moment, including breakfast clubs, the provision of fruit and vegetables in schools and the health improvement fund that provides fruit and salad bars in schools. A number of things are being done to improve young children's nutrition.

The member will be aware that, just this week, the expert panel on school meals and breakfast club services met to discuss how to implement plans to improve the nutritional value of school meals and, more important, to increase their attractiveness to children. Simply improving their nutritional value will not ensure that children want to eat them, and increasing the attractiveness of school meals is an important part of ensuring that children get the nutrition that they need.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Does the minister agree that, if children are encouraged to have a healthy diet, their quality of life, health and length of life are likely to be enormously enhanced, especially if that good practice is continued? Will she give the maximum support to the Health Education Board for Scotland in that context?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I agree that food is very important in determining the health that people will enjoy in later life. It is therefore important that young people pick up good eating habits at an early age.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made in the use of specialist nurses in accident and emergency departments. (S1O-4575)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

We are making progress on several fronts. In July 2000, we announced £6 million of ring-fenced funding for training an additional 210 specialist nurses. Of those 210 nurses, 40 were specialist nurses in accident and emergency departments. There are now four programmes in Scotland that prepare nurses for the emergency nurse practitioner role.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

Does the minister agree that Aberdeen royal infirmary has been proactive in modernising and redesigning the way in which NHS services are delivered? That has been shown in the recent introduction of dedicated emergency nurse practitioners, a role that is proving extremely popular and successful and is enabling significant reductions in waiting times. Does he agree that further development of specialist nurses is urgently required and is an essential part of the modernisation that is required in the NHS?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I agree with Elaine Thomson that redesigning services is crucial and empowers front-line staff to organise and deliver those services. That is a vital part of our decentralising agenda for health, although we are quite happy to be centralisers when it comes to ensuring that there are national standards and that money is available. The initiative to which Elaine Thomson referred is important. I am determined to value and empower nurses further in the coming year as a way of improving care for patients.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Does the minister agree that the decision of Greater Glasgow Primary Care NHS Trust to cut the number of accident and emergency departments in the city from five to two is seriously misguided? Will he subject that decision to the closest possible scrutiny when the proposals reach him for approval?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Nicola Sturgeon will know that, at the moment, that is a matter for the Greater Glasgow Health Board. She ought also to know that the board is still considering the relative merits of having two or three accident and emergency departments. The proposals will, of course, eventually come to me and I can assure her that I will consider them from the point of view of best care for patients. I think that everybody accepts that change was necessary, but, ultimately, what matters is that the best possible services are available to the people of Glasgow.

First Minister's Question Time — Scottish Executive

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S1F-1610)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Among other priorities, the Cabinet will discuss a report from Wendy Alexander on the excellent work that she is doing with her transport responsibilities as part of the modernisation and preparation of Scotland for a competitive economy in the 21 st century.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am glad to hear the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning getting such attention from the First Minister. At least they are speaking this week.

Is it the normal practice of the Scottish Executive to shred documents on the handing out of public money within two years of that public money being spent?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I would not expect so, although I could not be absolutely certain without checking the detailed rules that we employ.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am sure that the First Minister is right to give that cautious answer. I want to raise with him the question of Fife Council's spending of public money, the overwhelming majority of which comes from this Parliament. There are some facts that the Parliament should hear. In April 1998, a grant of £20,000 was given to the Third Age charity, which was followed 12 months later by another grant of £20,000, even though the Third Age charity ceased to exist in February 1998. We now hear that documents relating to those grants have been shredded.

I am reliably informed that local authorities do not destroy documents until five years after the public money has been spent. Does the First Minister agree that the seriousness of the issues that have been raised in the media on this subject merit an investigation by Audit Scotland? Would the First Minister support such an investigation?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

If the leader of the Scottish National Party did his homework properly, he would know that, because a complaint has already been made to the Accounts Commission, an investigation will already be under way.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

It would be good to hear whether the First Minister thinks that the issue merits serious investigation. The situation involves a Labour council giving money to an organisation that is run by Labour activists and that rents office space from a Labour MP. The connection is Labour, Labour, Labour and it stinks. In a week in which the First Minister has appointed six Labour party members to a panel of 12 to scrutinise public appointments, is it not time that we started to clean up Scottish politics, starting with Fife Council?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As I have already said, the chief executive and the audit committee of Fife Council are awaiting a further report on these matters. I understand that the Accounts Commission has received a complaint about the matter and will properly and thoroughly investigate it. The commission is responsible for the external auditing of the work of local authorities in Scotland. It would be entirely wrong of me to prejudge any investigation that it held or to tell it how to undertake the investigation properly.

On the other matter that the leader of the Scottish National Party raised, I hope that he will recall that, as I have promised since becoming First Minister, we intend to ensure that the public appointments process is significantly more open and transparent. When we have ensured that the Scottish Parliament can properly scrutinise the appointments that are made by ministers and that each and every assessor who is appointed to scrutinise public appointments in Scotland and to sit on the interview panels is appointed by an independent commissioner who will be appointed with the authority of the Scottish Parliament, that will be a significant achievement. If Mr Swinney had any decency in him, he would recognise and welcome that.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister whether he has any plans to reshuffle the Cabinet. (S1F-1607)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Sorry, Wendy. I did my best.

A matter that the First Minister should consider is health. Last week, he told me at question time that the number of nurses in Scotland fell under the Conservatives. This week, official figures show that, during our time in office, the number of nurses increased by almost 6,000 to 51,472 in 1997. Since then, under Labour and the Liberal Democrats, and irrespective of whether the starting point is 1997 or 1999, the number of nurses has fallen. Will the First Minister accept that what he said last week was untrue and that his Minister for Health and Community Care's claim of a short-term increase in a limited category of nurses was deliberately misleading? When will we have some honesty from the Government on health?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will not allow the member to distort the figures. It is clear not only that the number of qualified nurses in Scotland and the activity that they undertake have increased since 1997, but that more and more activity is taking place in the community. That activity is not always conducted by qualified nurses, but it is making a difference to health care in our local communities.

That does not even take into account the substantial investment over the past 18 months. The figures that were announced this week relate to September 2000. I do not think that anyone in the chamber does not believe that those figures will be shown to have significantly improved further since then. On top of that, we expect 10,000 more nurses to qualify in the next five years. Those are significant improvements that are making a difference. It is time that some people in the chamber recognised that.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

It is time that some people learned something about basic statistics. I have the figures. In 1980, there were 45,551 nurses in Scotland. In 1997, there were 51,472. In 2000, there were 51,228. The number of nurses increased under the Conservatives and decreased under Labour. The only thing in health that is increasing under Labour is the number of incompetent ministers who are charged with responsibility for it.

The First Minister has been guilty of spin and deceit that is undermining public confidence in our health service. In the past week, the chair of the British Medical Association in Scotland, a senior lecturer in health economics at the University of Glasgow and the highly respected and independent King's Fund have all made important contributions to the debate. They have made many of the same criticisms as we have made week in, week out in the Parliament about political interference and centralisation in our health service, yet the only response from the First Minister and his health minister is to spread misinformation and misleading and inaccurate figures as a smokescreen for failure. Will the First Minister accept my invitation to engage seriously in a mature and sensible debate about the future of our health service, which we have called for for months and which he and others have consistently rejected?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I would be delighted to participate in a mature and sensible debate on the national health service, if it were possible to have one in the chamber. However, every time that the subject comes up, the figures are distorted, the positions that some members take are misinterpreted and the description of what is happening in the health service is unfair to those who work in it. The public's confidence in our national health service is not helped by the fact that Mr McLetchie comes to the chamber week after week, Thursday afternoon after Thursday afternoon, to demand that we use more private sector space and reduce the use of the public sector in our national health service.

I make it clear that we have absolute confidence in the public national health service in Scotland and will remain committed to it. When we act on that commitment—for example, by taking action on waiting times and using not only the public sector but spare capacity in the private sector—and we centralise decisions and establish a unit, the Conservatives say that we are not doing enough. Two weeks later, the Conservatives criticise us for centralising too much. The Conservatives cannot have it both ways. Either we are taking action on the health service or we are not taking enough action.

We are taking action constantly in the interests of patients. When local decisions are required, they will be left to local decision making, but when national decisions are required, we will take them, act and ensure that more patients are treated as a result.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the First Minister when negotiations between the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the independent care homes will be finalised. (S1F-1623)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Finding a long-term solution to the problem of funding care home places is very important and we hope that COSLA and the Scottish care homes reach an agreement soon. Although the duty of care lies with local authorities, ministers are committed to contributing to a lasting settlement that provides long-term stability for those elderly people who need it most.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Given the Executive's recent announcement of £20 million to address bedblocking and the fact that the dispute has been running since last October—despite the agreement reached then between the Scottish Executive, COSLA and Scottish Care—will the First Minister tell me, first, why COSLA is not honouring that agreement and, secondly, whether he thinks that it is acceptable for councils to allocate £400 per person for those staying in their own homes but only £245 for people in independent homes?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

This is a serious topic and negotiations are under way. I do not want to undermine those negotiations or to conflict with them. As we have laid money on the table, we share a responsibility with local authorities in the matter and it is important that we reach a proper negotiated settlement. We intend to do that in the best interests of patients. It would be nice if we could have done that last week, the week before or even this week. However, even if it takes time, it is best to do it right in the interests of patients, rather than to take a leap in the dark.

I do not think that those negotiations are helped by those who constantly put forward the case of the private care home owners, rather than that of the patients. I think that the patients should come first, that there should be a proper negotiated settlement and that that should be acted on as quickly as possible. If we can achieve that, we will.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Will the First Minister confirm that any agreement reached will be based on partnership? Will he confirm that both the Scottish Executive and local authorities will make a contribution based on partnership and does he agree that partnership is the only way forward to deliver services for our older people?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I indeed think that that is the way forward. However, I would not want to cut across the negotiations, other than to say that whatever conclusion we come to should be based on an understanding and recognition of our shared responsibility to provide the elderly people who need care home places with the quality of care that they deserve. That is our objective. The local authorities have that duty and we accept our part of that shared responsibility; I am sure that local authorities accept theirs, too. I hope that a financial solution is reached as quickly as possible.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the First Minister agree that actions speak louder than words and that we need some real action by the Executive to resolve the care home dispute before the fast-approaching 11 February deadline? Will he accept that such action would be a far more effective way of promoting the interests of Scotland's older people than launching yet another glossy report such as the one issued today on health and the older citizen, which, although very worthy, tells us nothing new and is not what the older people of this country actually require from the Executive?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Shona Robison raised a number of interesting issues in that question. First, it is important that the chief medical officer presents a proper report on the future health care needs of Scotland's elderly population that can be considered in the Parliament and elsewhere. Everyone in the Parliament should welcome the availability of such evidence and analysis for our policy making because looking at such evidence before establishing our positions is exactly what we should be doing. Shona Robison may not consider that important, but I am afraid that we do.

I hope that others will share that view.

Secondly, I agree that action is more important than words. If we had just taken the decision that I was urged to take by the leader of Shona Robison's party two weeks ago and had handed over as much money as we could as quickly as possible to the care home organisations, we might have had a resolution to the current dispute, but that would not have been in the interests either of Scottish taxpayers or of the elderly people concerned, who deserve to receive the highest quality of care in the care homes.

Action is important and negotiations are important. We will find a solution to this matter, but we will do it properly. We will not respond to deadlines set by other organisations. If this time last year—perhaps 13 months ago—I had established the deal that we reached with Scotland's teacher organisations and local authorities on the basis of a deadline that had been set six months previously by my predecessor, we would not have had a new system for disciplining teachers for poor performance in our schools; we would have handed over a pay rise without winning that concession. It was important to take an extra week then and, if we need to take extra days on this occasion, we will do so to get the right solution for Scotland.

Young Offenders

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the First Minister what steps are being taken to address the issue of repeat young offenders who are responsible for a disproportionately high level of crime. (S1F-1621)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The next steps will be: first, tough programmes for young offenders to make young people face up to the consequences of their actions and to prevent them from reoffending; secondly, involving the victims of crime in the youth justice system; thirdly, better joined-up working between police, education and social services; and, finally, proper facilities and activities within the community to help to provide fulfilling alternatives to crime for young people.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I thank the First Minister for his answer. He will be aware that a major study that was carried out in the mid-1990s found that 3 per cent of young people were responsible for 26 per cent of all youth crime. He talked about better joined-up working. If gaps exist in such essential provision by the Executive or the local government and voluntary sectors, how does the Executive intend to fill the gaps? Could he elucidate?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

There are those in the gallery who think that my elucidation is not necessarily the best in the chamber. I will do my best.

First, it is critical that we ensure that the police services in Scotland are involved in the multidisciplinary approach that I have described. When the Deputy First Minister and I met police officers in Torphichen Street in Edinburgh last Thursday morning, one of the issues that came up was that the police feel that multidisciplinary work sometimes does not involve them and that it involves only education and social work services, for example. However, community policemen are now in the community almost as much as the staff of local authority departments are, so they can play a role in finding solutions for young people. This week we have ensured that the department will take up that suggestion and fully involve police officers in our integrated services activities.

Secondly, some extremely successful projects operate around Scotland. We want to spread that best practice. On Monday morning, I visited the breaking the cycle project in East Lothian—in Musselburgh—with Susan Deacon. Some members may not find that information interesting, but even the SNP will find it interesting that 89 per cent of young people who go through that project do not reoffend. In a country where more than 50 per cent of our prisoners are back in prison within two years and too many of our young people offend time and again, an 89 per cent reduction in the number of young people who reoffend is a significant success. We should spread that word.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Does the First Minister agree that his announced intention of diverting more 16 and 17-year-old offenders to the children's hearing system, with its present limited powers, is unlikely to have a deterrent effect on offenders—young, repeat or otherwise?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Mr Aitken offers a simplistic distortion of the truth, but perhaps that is not surprising. As he is well aware, the proposal is for pilot projects to see whether, in certain circumstances, reoffending can be more effectively prevented by dealing with young people—16 and 17-year-olds—in the children's and young people's hearing system rather than in the courts. Only when that option might be more appropriate would it be tested and tried—it is worth a try in a country where we fail so significantly to tackle reoffending. It should not be an option in cases that are so serious that the courts should automatically be involved. We may be more successful—because of the young person's level of maturity, the nature of the offence or other circumstances—in preventing some offenders aged 16 and 17 from turning into adult criminals if we treat them in the way that has been proposed. If we can do that, it is worth a try.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has any plans to review landfill sites and their impact on the surrounding environment. (S1F-1605)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Yes. Most of all, we want to reduce the amount of waste by recycling and reusing household and industrial materials. We aim to move radically away from our reliance on landfill. When we use landfill, we will treat the waste before releasing it into the environment. Importantly, we will separate hazardous waste from non-hazardous waste. Decisions on the siting of any new landfill sites will take account of their potential impact on the surrounding environment.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Is the minister aware of the damaging report published this month in The Lancet , which has uncovered the possible danger of women giving birth to children with chromosomal disorders if they live within a 3km radius of a landfill site? Will the First Minister follow the precautionary principle in the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's national waste strategy and cease all dumping until a full scientific inquiry has been carried out?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As always in such circumstances, it is not always straightforward to respond in the way in which the member suggests. The report in The Lancet is only one report and contradictory evidence has been published on the matter. However, I am pleased that at least one SNP member believes that medical evidence and analysis is important when we plan decisions.

It is important that we examine the medical evidence that exists and take action on the general issue of landfill and waste. We fully intend to do that, both through new planning guidance and by taking the action that is required under European directives to separate waste properly and ensure that it is properly contained.

David (None, Lothians)

Time is up.

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During question time, Mr Macintosh used a bogus point of order to rebut a point made by a previous questioner. If we were all to use that tactic, question time would become a shambles. Do you agree that it is particularly unfortunate that a member of the Procedures Committee used such a tactic? Do you undertake to consider how the practice can be prevented?

David (None, Lothians)

This is the first time that I have had to deal with a point of order on a bogus point of order—which is, therefore, itself almost a bogus point of order. I cut Mr Macintosh short because he was making a bogus point of order, so Alasdair Morgan makes a fair point.

Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2002

David (None, Lothians)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2654, on local government finance. I would rather not take any more points of order, as many members have indicated that they would like to speak in this debate and we are tight for time. I ask those who are not staying to leave as quickly as possible.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The order that we are asking Parliament to approve this afternoon is of real significance to all Scottish councils and their council tax payers. The Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2002 provides the grant support for Scottish councils' revenue expenditure in 2002-03.

Revenue funding for local government accounts for more than a third of the total assigned budget. The order distributes more than £6.5 billion of resources to local government. That is £500 million more grant than in 2001-02. Today's debate gives members an opportunity to comment on this vital element of the Parliament's responsibilities—an opportunity that I am sure they will embrace. We are distributing historic levels of resources to local government. That is further living proof of our partnership with local authorities.

I cannot emphasise enough the importance of local government as a key partner in the delivery of better public services. We are working closely with Scotland's councils to encourage and support their efforts and to remove barriers to service improvement.

We have already put in place many such reforms. The Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2002 represents an important step forward in strengthening local democracy. The move to four-year terms for councils will allow them to take longer-term strategic decisions. Concurrent elections will strengthen the legitimacy of councils, ensuring that the turnout at local council elections is increased, and will provide equal legitimacy in electoral terms for the Parliament and local government. The introduction of electoral pilot schemes offers councils a welcome opportunity to test new electoral procedures.

We will publish a white paper on the future of local government—our plan is to do so before the Easter recess—which will be followed by an extensive consultation process. The Executive will set out the future steps for legislation shortly after Parliament reconvenes in September. The debate will be set in the context of renewing and supporting local government as a vital part of the democratic system and will take into consideration the crucial role of elected councillors.

That is all part of the broader agenda to modernise local government, not only through the local government bill but through the leadership advisory panel, which reported last year. The panel worked with councils to support reviews of their decision-making processes, political management arrangements and other aspects of how they run their business. Councils responded well to that challenge and we are keen to maintain impetus.

Councils have already introduced the best value approach on a voluntary basis. That means that councils are reviewing the effectiveness of their services, asking their citizens what kind of services they want and thinking about quality as well as cost. To encourage and support further improvement, we will shortly introduce a bill to remove the barriers that prevent councils from providing new services and from working with others in their local areas to improve services. The bill will also give councils a statutory duty to pursue continuous improvement and will extend their obligations to report publicly on their performance. We will also amend the duties of the Accounts Commission and council auditors so that they embrace quality of service as well as cost. The aim of all that work is to support the delivery of better public services. The acid test will be whether we deliver real change to the local authority services that are provided to our communities.

It is clear that that work is vital, but local government also needs the resources to do the job. To underpin the reforms that we are introducing to strengthen local government, we are working to develop a finance system that supports, rather than impedes, our partnership with local government. We have already introduced three-year revenue and capital allocations, secured councils' agreement to publish three-year council tax figures and abolished expenditure guidelines. We have also begun to put in place local outcome agreements, but we have more work to do.

Last year we announced firm three-year capital allocations.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Yes.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the minister agree that part of the work that still needs to be done is arriving at an agreement so that we no longer have the annual debate on whether the settlement fully funds changes? Each year, the Executive produces a financial statement that says that local government has received a lot more money and each year, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—and most individual local authorities—says, "No, that is not the case". Does the minister agree that we need a mechanism through which agreement can be reached on how the finances are to be presented and dealt with?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I agree with Brian Adam. Over the next few months, I will meet COSLA for extensive discussions to establish the ground rules for debates on issues such as the allocation of resources, which he raised, as well as ring fencing and hypothecation. I want to make significant progress on an issue about which local authorities approached the Executive, and on which we are happy to deliver through discussions with local authorities.

We want to move on to the next step of reforming the capital control system, for which local authorities have argued for many years. On Tuesday, I had a wide-ranging discussion with the Local Government Committee on that subject and indicated my willingness to take the matter forward. We have considered the arguments and now we will move forward with our local authority partners to reform the capital system. We will seek to deliver an improvement to the way in which we work together.

We want to establish a system that enables rather than constrains; that allows councils to meet the challenges of the 21st century, investing in assets that are fit for purpose; that improves the quality and accessibility of council services by investing in the latest technology; and that allows councils to work with other agencies and to pool resources without artificial restrictions. In partnership with COSLA, we will examine closely the capital control system and we will work with local government to develop a system that delivers those improvements.

All the measures that I have mentioned will allow further progress to be made down the road of shared responsibility, in order to achieve tangible benefits for all the people of Scotland.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is the minister aware of the growing concern among directors of finance about the settlement process? They are concerned not about the announcement, but about the drip-drip process through which they get details from the Executive of the settlements for individual local authorities. Some directors of finance have asked me to ask the Executive to hold a briefing seminar within a few days of the announcement of the settlement, so that they gain that detailed information much earlier than is the case at present.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I, too, am looking to improve that system. I am happy to take on board Keith Raffan's good idea, investigate it further and, I hope, deliver on it. He makes a sensible proposition that I am open to. I will discuss the matter with local government directors of finance in due course.

Last year, Angus MacKay announced firm three-year grant figures. That guarantee is still not available to councils elsewhere in the UK outside of Scotland. I am happy to reinforce that commitment.

As I said earlier, the finance order distributes more than £6.5 billion of resources to local government. That is £0.5 billion more than in 2001-02. For local authorities, that means that they have increases that range between 6 and 11 per cent.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The Labour administration on Dundee City Council has publicly announced that its council tax may rise by 25 per cent over two years. The Labour Minister for Finance and Public Services has said to the press that the council should not need to do that as it has been given more than enough money. The Dundee public are entitled to know who is telling the truth. Is it the Labour minister or the Labour administration in Dundee?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

What has been said is grossly inaccurate. I have met the council leader, the director of finance and the convener of finance of Dundee City Council. I am happy to meet them again and talk. I am always happy to talk with local authorities.

Let us get the facts on the table. I acknowledge that Dundee City Council has come to me with legitimate concerns about settlement issues, but the amount of money that Dundee will receive is an above-inflation increase of 8.4 per cent, which is an increase of £16.1 million. In the following year, 2003-04, the increase is 5 per cent. I am more than happy to discuss the allocation of resources with local authorities, but let us not forget—