Scottish Parliament, 9 February 2006

350 contributions from 66 members. The official report.

Official Report 9 February 2006

Business Motion

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Good morning. The first item of business is consideration of business motion S2M-3934, in the name of Margaret Curran, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Budget (Scotland) (No 3) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during Stage 3 of the Budget (Scotland) (No.3) Bill, debate on amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion no later than 15 minutes after the Stage begins (excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when the meeting of the Parliament is suspended, other than a suspension following the first division in the Stage being called, or otherwise not in progress).—[Ms Margaret Curran.]

Motion agreed to.

Budget (Scotland) (No 3) Bill: Stage 3

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Budget (Scotland) (No 3) Bill. I will make the usual announcement about the procedures that we will follow. First, we will deal with amendments to the bill. Then, we will move on to the debate on the motion to pass the bill. For the first part, members should have in front of them the bill, the marshalled list of amendments and the groupings. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division. The period of voting for that and any other division will be 30 seconds.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The one group of amendments consists of consequential amendments arising from previous budget revisions and other technical amendments. Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2 to 13.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

The amendments are all minor, technical adjustments to bring the Budget (Scotland) (No 3) Bill into line with changes that we propose to make to the Budget (Scotland) Act 2005 through two budget revisions. One of those was approved by the Finance Committee on 10 January and then by the Parliament on 1 February. The other was laid in draft on 26 January and is due to be considered by the Finance Committee on 21 February.

In the past, we would not include anything in the current year's bill that appeared in the prior year's revision order, unless that order had been made. In this case, we feel that it is better for the text of the bill to reflect the most up-to-date position. As we still have an opportunity to amend the bill, we think that we should make the changes now. The alternative would be to wait until after the bill has been passed and to make the changes by way of a revision order in the autumn. By taking the opportunity to amend the Budget (Scotland) (No 3) Bill, we ensure that, when it is passed, it will give us as accurate a picture of the current position as is possible. Importantly, there are no amendments to any of the figures that are contained in the bill.

I move amendment 1.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments 2 to 7 moved—[Mr Tom McCabe]—and agreed to.

Budget (Scotland) (No 3) Bill

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3909, in the name of Tom McCabe, that the Parliament agrees that the Budget (Scotland) (No 3) Bill be passed.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

This debate marks the final stage of this year's budget process. I know that sometimes the process can be repetitive and something of an endurance test, particularly for our colleagues on the Opposition benches, as they hear the Executive produce yet another successful budget. Perhaps that is not the case for our colleagues in the Scottish National Party—they enjoy talking Scotland down, and they enjoy talking down success. However, none of that should detract from the importance of the process and of the work that we do.

In recent years, we have done our best to establish a more open and transparent process that allows us to consult as many people as possible. The success of that process is due by no means solely to the Executive; it is also due to the diligence of the Finance Committee and other committees of the Parliament. Once again, I record our genuine thanks to the Parliament's committees for their diligence and for the constructive way in which they have approached the budget process. That is genuinely appreciated. In the past, I have mentioned that I think that the process can be further improved. We will work with the Parliament's committees to do that in the interests of transparency and greater understanding on the part of the people of Scotland.

Much of the debate around the budget has already taken place and I will do my best to be as concise as possible. Members have already heard more than 30 minutes of contributions from me and the Deputy Minister for Finance, Public Service Reform and Parliamentary Business—some members may view that as a benefit; I am sure that others do not. Nevertheless, it is worth summarising what the Budget (Scotland) (No 3) Bill will achieve for Scotland.

The budget continues to tackle the years of underinvestment and neglect that left our school buildings in decline, damaged our public transport service and held back our economic competitiveness. The plans set out how we will continue to meet our four linked objectives, which contribute to our partnership goal of a better Scotland. They set out how we plan to encourage economic growth, to deliver high-quality public services, to build stronger, safer communities and to create a confident democratic Scotland.

The budget will increase our spending from £25.7 billion this year to £28.8 billion next year. That equates to an increase of 9.3 per cent after adjustment for inflation. The budget plans will help us to create the conditions for improved economic growth. As all members are aware, growing the economy is our top priority for the current spending review period. Growing the economy is about education at all levels, transport infrastructure and enterprise. It is not simply about growing business, but about providing people with the necessary up-to-date skills to take up the job opportunities that are available.

We are committing record funds—£1.56 billion—to support higher and further education. That will give the next generation the opportunity to continue to grow our economy. Next year's budget includes an increase of £172 million to upgrade and modernise our colleges and universities throughout Scotland. That will provide better facilities that are more able to meet the demands for more flexible accommodation and for efficient and effective teaching practices.

Our investment in transport will also help to grow the economy, by providing the infrastructure and transport networks that are needed for business and for the public. We will increase our spending on transport from £1.5 billion this year to almost £2.2 billion next year. That is a rise of about 47 per cent to deliver our 10-year transport plan.

The budget is for all Scotland. For children and young people, we are investing in education by increasing the number of teachers, reducing class sizes and modernising schools. For older people, we are continuing our commitment to a national concessionary travel fares scheme. For everyone, we are striving to achieve health improvements and stronger, safer communities that will lead to a better quality of life.

The budget is careful in its approach but ambitious in its aims. It will improve the quality of life of the people of Scotland. The budget takes the next steps to building a better Scotland. It is a budget for more enterprise, more opportunity and more fairness. It will ensure that no one is held back in modern Scotland. It is a budget for the long term, a brave budget and a budget for the next generation and for Scotland's future.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Budget (Scotland) (No.3) Bill be passed.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Here we are at another stage 3 debate. We have evidence of the winner's curse, because the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform must finalise his expenditure-only budget, which underpins his true role as the annual allocator of cash, largely to the same beneficiaries. He passes cash to many worthwhile projects that invest in people and in infrastructure, which we applaud. However, in many cases, he reinforces dependence, conflict and contention, as we have seen recently. He leaves Scotland with the same exacerbating problems—and don't you just know it?

The minister repeats many mistakes of the past, because the system fails the test of any effective system, which is that it should have quantifiable and worthy overarching goals that everyone accepts and cohesion and buy-in from all stakeholders. The process should be completed with statistical and accounting control. The best evidence of the system's failure is the debacle of the efficient government initiative. Savings have not been properly netted off against attributable costs and we have no baseline on outcomes, so we have no evidence that the people of Scotland will receive anything extra for the money that is supposedly being reallocated to front-line services.

In essence, the budget process shows great parallels with the Shirley McKie case. Because of that case, the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Criminal Record Office are becoming worldwide laughing stocks and have brought fingerprint evidence into disrepute. On its own, the Scottish Executive is bringing its brand of national financial management and Scotland into disrepute. It is letting Scotland down by not having the necessary powers to attain the economic growth that it tells us it wants.

Our role is to tell the world and the people of Scotland that there are people here who aspire to a better way—who aspire to what works and to a prosperous and generous nation that moves forward at a proper rate. We are the ones who talk Scotland up.

There is plenty of light at the end of the tunnel. Week by week, plenty of evidence confirms that we are right. This week, there was the Federation of Small Businesses' index of success which, although it is based on really dodgy data with which we have great difficulty, shows that Scotland is in a parlous state. Further corroboration was provided by Jeremy Peat, the former chief economist at the Royal Bank of Scotland, who called for an objective assessment of more powers. In that call he joined people such as Lord Vallance and Sir Iain Noble, who has even written to the First Minister about that proposition but has not received a reply. Plenty is happening.

Then of course there is the oil. I say to Mr Purvis that I mention it this time because his colleague Tavish Scott raised it in the stage 3 debate on last year's Budget (Scotland) (No 2) Bill. We owe him a vote of thanks, because he triggered our freedom of information activity, which has given us absolute proof of the value, importance and ownership of oil and its long-term implications for Scotland.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the member give way?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I cannot take an intervention in the tiny amount of time that is left.

I look forward to an era in which a real finance minister stalks the land and manages our national wealth properly, with quantified overarching targets, such as a genuine number for economic growth, a genuine number for the population and a genuine number for closing the gap between our life expectancy and that elsewhere. Those targets should have buy-in from everyone and should allow us to ask our health service, our local government and our education services what they are doing to achieve economic growth and to receive proper answers.

In the meantime, we sit out of control with no baseline data on efficient government, which is yet another badge of shame—along with "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland" et al—and Scotland is repeatedly talked down. For goodness' sake, minister—we need to remove the wooden stake from the heart and have a proper budget that allows us to manage Scotland as a complete entity that is the equivalent of any member of the FSB that controls its entire profit-and-loss account—not just its expenditure, but its revenue—and the balance sheet. Scotland should be run as a cohesive entity, which would make everyone here genuinely better off. We look at the debate, shake our heads and move on.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

This is the first budget process in which I have been involved—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is all the better for that.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Thank you. I thank all those who have guided me through the process, which has sometimes been tortuous.

The minister said that the process was like an endurance test, but I am not sure that I agree. The budget is a very important matter for the Parliament and I think that all of us agree that scrutinising it is one of our most important functions.

We know that public spending in Scotland is increasing significantly, as the minister said. We are heading rapidly towards a budget of £30 billion per year. I make no comment on the absolute amount, but we are certainly experiencing a period of rapid growth in public spending, so we need detailed scrutiny.

I suspect that whatever we say in the chamber today will be reported and noticed much less than the council tax rises that are to be announced. That is the problem in a nutshell: although the budget is important, it attracts less public attention than it deserves.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Precisely how do the Conservatives propose to address that shortcoming of the budget process?

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The minister said that he and his deputy had spoken for 30 minutes on the budget process. Perhaps ministers and civil servants could spend more time being scrutinised as part of the process. I admit that we consider the budget for a significant time already, but extending that time would be all to the good. Perhaps the nationalists will agree with me.

I did not necessarily agree with Jim Mather when he talked about having a finance minister who stalked the land. I admit that his comment rather went over my head—I could not grasp what erudite point he was trying to make. However, he made a serious point about economic growth. The minister has rightly said that economic growth is the Executive's top priority and has talked about spending additional money to contribute to it, but if there is no target or benchmark against which to measure it, how on earth is anyone supposed to know whether Executive spending is contributing meaningfully to it? In recent weeks, Unison has said that public spending contributes to economic growth, but the Reform think tank has said that it does not. There is disagreement out there, so a target or baseline that enables us to measure the Executive's progress would be helpful.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Is not part of the Executive's problem its not having any levers with which to influence economic growth significantly, which is why it does not want to set precise targets? Will Mr Brownlee campaign for more levers to be given to the Scottish Parliament?

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The Executive may not have as many levers as Mr Morgan would like it to have, but that does not mean that it has no influence over economic growth or that it should be let off the hook by not having targets against which to measure its success. The debate on whether other levers might properly come to the Parliament—

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I do not think that I have enough time to do so.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You may have time if you want it.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Thank you, but I will move on and not take an intervention from Mr Swinburne.

There are ways in which the Executive can influence economic growth. It could put much greater pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the burden of business taxation, for example. According to a parliamentary answer, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning has done so, but we have not seen evidence of that. The supplementary corporate tax charge on oil companies has been doubled, which I presume the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning did not advocate.

We hear a lot in the Parliament about how good the budget scrutiny process is. Perhaps it has improved in recent years, and I am grateful for the minister's assurances that if the process can be improved further, the Executive will help to do so. However, I wonder how robust it is. In last year's budget debate, Des McNulty said that part of the explanation for why there was less interest in the budget process was that spending had expanded rapidly and so difficult spending decisions were not as prevalent as they might have been. I wonder how sustainable the current process is and whether it can survive a change of Administration in Scotland or at Westminster if we move towards a lower rate of growth in funding. To some extent, the process is predicated on a reasonably good understanding between the two tiers of Government. I invite the Executive to reflect on whether the process is as robust as we sometimes hear that it is.

As Jim Mather said, all members can agree that money is being well spent in parts of the budget, but we might take a different view on other parts of it. We cannot pick and mix in the process to the extent that other Opposition members might like to.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

Will the member enlighten us about which part of the Conservatives' flip-flop policy he is in favour of? Is he for or against fiscal autonomy being transferred to Scotland?

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am not entirely sure that the Conservative party has flip-flopped at all, or that what the member has said is relevant to the debate.

We can reflect on the process and whether it can be better and we can agree that some of the budget is worth while and some is not. If the Executive is going to keep to its stated objective and push for improvements in the process, we will support it. However, I hope that during the rest of the day and next year, when we may move into a more overtly party-political mode—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Surely not.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

That may happen, although it might disappoint the member.

I hope that we will cling to the better parts of the process.

We are content to accept parts of the budget, but we do not support all of it. The minister would be well advised to address the point that Mr Mather made about economic growth.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I say to Mr Mather that we do not need a fingerprint reader to see the SNP's alternative budget; in the context of this debate, a palm reader would be more appropriate. I agree with Mr Brownlee that, in our constituents' minds, the debate will largely be overshadowed by the setting of council tax rates. In my constituency in the Borders, the Tory-led administration has proposed a 4.4 per cent council tax increase. That is not all—it has proposed cutting 10 secondary teacher posts, cutting classroom assistants and eating into most other public service areas. It is also tapping into the handsome reserves that it has stashed away over the past 18 months. There is an underspend across the administration of nearly £5 million this year. If we want to see an example of bad administration and financial mismanagement, we need look no further than at what the Conservatives have done in the Borders.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I assume that Mr Purvis has received the same briefing from the same finance officers at Scottish Borders Council as I have received. Does he dispute the council's claim that the additional funding from the Scottish Executive is around £10 million short of the additional spending requirements that have been imposed on it? Will he clarify how much of Scottish Borders Council's reserves should be retained for any equal pay settlement?

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

It was remiss of the administration not to have planned for an equal pay settlement for my constituents in the Borders who deserve one. The administration in the Borders should pay a settlement in full and the reserves should be brought back down to a reasonable level of between 2 per cent and 3 per cent, rather than nearly 5 per cent. I have received briefings from the administration in the Borders, but not from either finance portfolio holder, both of whom are Conservative councillors. The council will penalise my constituents with a whopping council tax increase and stash away their money in almost £18 million-worth of reserves.

Why are such a council tax increase and such levels of reserves bad management for my constituents? There are high proportions of older people on low fixed incomes in Penicuik, which is under Labour local government control, and the Borders, which is under Conservative and Independent control. The tax rise will bite them much harder than it will bite me. It is regrettable that last year the Conservatives defeated a motion in the council to make a submission to the independent review of local government finance in support of a system of local taxation that is based on the ability to pay. I hope that the independent commission will conclude that a fairer system is required.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

When are we going to move on from a debate on Scottish Borders Council to a debate on the national budget?

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

The budget that we are debating is delivering real benefits for Scotland and my constituents. The Executive's investment is unprecedented and, by and large, is funded from progressive and proportionate national taxation. However, there is little breakdown of the level at which services are delivered, which I will speak about in a moment. The revenue that pays for the vast majority of services that are delivered by local government is national revenue, and so local accountability is reduced. I will return to the argument for better local democratic and fiscal accountability—Mr Mather and I frequently debate that issue.

The Executive is spending record amounts on transport investment in the Borders. There are proposals to introduce new rail services in the Borders and Midlothian and there is record investment of £1.2 million from the Executive in Borders bus services—I was at the launch of a new bus service in Galashiels on Monday. The Executive has made available funding for three new high schools in the Borders. That is only a snapshot of the restorative investment that is being made available as a result of Liberal Democrat influence on the Labour-led Executive.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

No. I want to make progress.

Certain parties have espoused untruths in the chamber in the past three weeks. First, I refer to the Scottish Socialist Party's siren calls for a national income tax to shape the budget in Scotland. I connect Mr Sheridan's speech last week, in which he said that there must be a national tax, with the speech that he gave yesterday, in which he called for more funding for Glasgow. His service tax would raise money in the affluent areas of Scotland, such as Glasgow and the cities, and keep it there, because he proposes to use a discredited population and deprivation index-based formula that skews grant-aid funding to such areas. That is an issue for the Scottish Executive budget. My area, which has lower wages than those in Glasgow, a more fragile economy and a higher proportion of pensioners, would have a considerably lower revenue yield per capita unless there is fair distribution from the cities to rural areas such as the Borders.

I would give the SSP more credit for its proposals if it were more honest and said that they would herald considerable cuts in public services in the Borders.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Does the member accept that the low-paid workers and pensioners whom he just mentioned would be the biggest beneficiaries of the Scottish service tax that the Scottish Socialist Party proposed last week? Will he explain why the Liberal Democrats are in favour of scrapping the council tax yet voted against our proposals last week?

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Mr Fox did not deny that the revenue yield for my constituents would mean that there would be less money to pay for public services. If he acknowledged that, his party's proposals would gain more credit in the rural and poorer areas of Scotland, such as the area that I represent.

The second untruth that is relevant to today's budget debate comes from the Conservatives. They repeatedly call for public spending in Scotland to be reduced as a proportion of all spending—the bloated public sector, they call it.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Yes.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Mr Johnstone says yes. Over the past two weeks, I have asked the Conservatives' two finance spokespeople, Mr Brownlee and Mr Davidson, to be a bit more precise. Mr Brownlee said to me in the chamber recently that we would have to wait until the election to hear the Conservatives' view. Mr Davidson said yesterday that the issue was semantic. It is simply wrong for them to keep saying that they want to reduce public expenditure and the scope of the budget and then get all coy when they are asked to give more detail on the consequences for public services.

Our budget is not sufficient for the SNP. Yesterday, it repeated its calls for more funding for local government—it claims that the funding gap in respect of efficiency savings is £93.2 million. The SNP says that the money should be given to local government on condition that it is spent to keep council tax bills down. How does the official Opposition seek to ensure that that happens? When I asked Mr Morgan yesterday, he said that there was only one way of distributing money to local government—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should finish now, Mr Purvis.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

It would be through the existing grant-aided expenditure mechanism. That mechanism, which uses the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities formula, has no correlation to the efficiency of local authorities or to the tax rate that the SNP proposes to set. So, there would be no ability—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

No, you must finish now, Mr Purvis.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

The SNP policy could not keep council tax down. A bit more honesty from the SNP front bench would be welcome, but that is a vain hope.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

In this debate on the Scottish Parliament's £28.9 billion budget for next year, it is important to examine how much the Scottish Executive does to combat the scourge of poverty in Scotland today.

Lest we be in any doubt about the extent of the problem, I have some facts and figures to remind members. One in three children in Scotland continues to live in poverty; according to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry down south, this week's gas price rises might endanger the ability of as many as 100,000 Scots to pay for their heating this winter; and the chronic poor health and diet of the people of Scotland continues to blight us. Those features are all poverty related, yet they are reflected far too little in the Executive's top financial and budgetary priorities. Indeed, the minister offered us once again the Executive's top four priorities of economic growth, better public services, safer communities and a confident Scotland. He made no reference to the scourge of poverty in Scotland today and the need to eradicate it What is brought into sharp relief by a debate on the budget is not the lack of resources with which poverty and inequality could be eradicated, since the budget figures that were presented by the minister amply showed that, if the will exists, there is enough money—£28.9 billion next year. There is also the money that the Scottish Executive has not spent in previous years. In the 2000 budget, the underspend was £435 million; in 2001, the figure was £718 million; in 2002, it was £643 million; in 2003, it was £441 million; and in the following year, it was £600 million. On top of that, we learn that the Treasury down south is keeping accounts for the Scottish Executive of £1.5 billion, of which £500 million is as yet unallocated.

The Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform could easily have come to the Parliament to make his budget presentation and said, "Yes, the money exists to abolish national health service prescription charges"—the cost would be £45 million—but he did not. He could have come to the Parliament and said, "Yes, the money exists to introduce free, healthy school meals for all Scotland's pupils"—at a cost of £188 million—but he did not.

The money exists to abolish fuel poverty in Scotland, which, according to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—and to our eternal shame—will result in tens of thousands of senior citizens in Scotland dying of cold-related illnesses, but the minister did not mention that either.

The minister could have said that he intends to fund equal pay settlements to allow working-class women the dignity of knowing that they are paid the same rate as men for doing jobs of equal value in our public services, but he did not do that.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

Does the member agree that it is ludicrous that councils should try to bring about equal pay now, when the relevant legislation has been on the statute book since the early 1970s? The burden of paying for the proposed change will fall on senior citizens through increases in council tax. The situation is ludicrous.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I agree that the burden of the settlement will be passed on to council tax payers. That is indeed iniquitous and the Government should have faced up to its responsibilities towards working-class women a long time ago.

The money exists to undertake all the initiatives that I mentioned, but the point for the Parliament to consider is that the Executive appears not to consider them priorities. That is not just a missed opportunity; it exposes the fact that although the Scottish Executive likes to talk a lot about poverty and social exclusion to ease its conscience, when it comes to action and resources its record is poor, its excuses are many and its future commitments are nowhere to be seen.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

We reach the final stage of the budget process, which the minister has described as a repetitive endurance process. The chamber has already heard my concerns about the substance of the efficiency savings; the local government settlement; the lack of clarity about the meaning of the cross-cutting themes, including sustainable development, that are laid out in the budget; and, in particular, about how those cross-cutting themes impact on real spending decisions.

In the stage 1 debate, I expressed my concerns about what we heard in the autumn budget revisions for this year's budget and I wondered whether the funds that had been transferred from rail to road would be switched back again next year. I also wondered whether the funding that went unclaimed from the strategic waste fund would be claimed and reintroduced into the budget next year.

I will not reiterate those concerns. Instead, I make the point that Derek Brownlee seemed to circle around: when we have a budget that deals with taxing and spending, like a local authority has, there will be genuine interest in the budget process. That is what local authorities do and that is why so much attention will be paid to their council tax decisions. I look forward to the day when this Parliament takes decisions on taxing and spending.

I started with the point about the budget process being repetitive. Will the Minister for Parliamentary Business and the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform think about how the process can be improved? We treat budget bills very differently from all other bills. As we saw this morning, nobody but a minister can lodge an amendment to the budget bill. Rule 9.16.3 of standing orders states that the budget bill will be

"referred immediately to the Parliament for consideration of its general principles"

and that no committee report will be required. In that situation, stage 1 of the budget bill process, in which the Parliament discusses the bill's general principles, becomes a debate on whether we want Scotland and the Scottish Executive to have a budget at all. Given that we obviously want the Executive to have a budget, there is little point in having a stage 1 debate of that kind.

However, given that we also debate the Finance Committee's report on the budget, I propose that the Minister for Parliamentary Business, the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform and the Parliamentary Bureau think seriously about combining the two aspects in a full afternoon's debate on the Finance Committee's report. That would allow us to examine all the issues that the Finance Committee and the other parliamentary committees have raised about the budget process. At the end of that debate, the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform could move the motion that the Parliament agrees the general principles of the budget bill and that there should be a budget process. I doubt that anyone would argue over whether we should have a budget.

That much clearer process would give us more time to debate the Finance Committee's report properly. John Swinburne and others have expressed concern that they did not have the chance to participate in the debate. The motion to agree the budget bill's general principles should be moved formally, but we should not try to stretch out a debate about whether we want the Scottish Executive to have a budget at all. Such an approach would assist the parliamentary process and would perhaps free up a bit more time in which the Minister for Parliamentary Business could schedule debates on these and other matters.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

As this is the final stage of the budget process, I thank the clerks to and members of the Finance Committee, our adviser and the members and staff of the other subject committees that contributed to this year's budget scrutiny. I believe that we all did a thorough job. I also thank the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform and the staff in the Scottish Executive Finance Department for responding to our questions and addressing the issues that we have raised. The process is improving year by year. That said, we could consider proposals that Mark Ballard and others have made to streamline the process, because there is an overlap between our scrutiny of the budget and the budget bill process itself.

However, I want to focus not on that matter but on the substance of the budget. Tom McCabe was absolutely right to point out that the budget contains very substantial increases in expenditure in areas such as education, health and transport. Those increases are the product of manifesto commitments that were agreed at the very start of the process by the two parties in the partnership Government and which have been rolled out and implemented. No matter whether the money is being targeted at children, at transport users or at hospitals and primary care services, it will have a significant impact on everyone in Scotland. Indeed, people in every community throughout the country are benefiting from that investment.

People should stand back and remember how, in 1996 and 1997, the schools and hospitals were dilapidated and services were poor. That situation has been transformed.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am sure that Des McNulty is well aware that his friends in the Executive have traded handsomely on the hospital building programme that the terrible Conservative Government introduced.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I think that the Conservatives are still pretty terrible. I remember being told in Strathclyde Regional Council that every school building had an expected life of 400 years, such was the rate of replacement. The situation has been transformed since then by the significant investment in schools.

The programme of additional investment in hospitals is also being rolled out. For example, I am very much looking forward to the investment that will be made in Glasgow hospitals; indeed, the process has begun with new builds at Stobhill hospital and Victoria hospital. Throughout every community in Scotland, service delivery is being transformed and the services themselves are improving. We need think only of this week's announcement of improvements in social work services. The current situation is predicated on the United Kingdom Government's prudence and the way in which the Executive has been able to channel resources usefully.

Of course, we acknowledge that tensions and contradictions exist; that choices have to be made; and that, to be honest, the speed at which resources are increasing is slowing rapidly. That means that, in the future, the budget process will have to take on a new intensity. However, that will happen only if people are prepared to engage with the real choices that are before us and to make practical proposals. Jim Mather speaks in a very rarefied way about growth, benchmarking and so on. I respect his point of view but I know, as someone who has been involved in practical politics for a long time now, that in making budgetary choices one often has to choose between two different goods, each of which has a valid argument against it. The art of politics rests in having the ability to make a better choice in such circumstances. Of course, that choice will not necessarily be the optimum one, because such a choice might not exist.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The member is just finishing.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

We should all follow the minister's lead in trying to turn people's attention in that direction and forcing them to recognise that hard choices have to be made. We might disagree with what the minister says or different political parties might disagree with this or that approach, but no one in the Parliament should avoid the reality of the choices that have to be made. Tom McCabe is doing an excellent job in that respect.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

We might reasonably describe the local government settlement as tight, but the additional £1.1 billion on top of the £8.3 billion core settlement will give councils more flexibility. After all, more cash always gives more flexibility—as long as it is not hypothecated.

For the first time in many years, I do not know exactly what will happen in Glasgow city chambers in George Square today. However, Glasgow City Council knows more than most how to manage on a tight settlement. For the past seven years, the council has achieved annual efficiency savings averaging £15 million, which have in turn helped to stabilise seven successive council tax rises at the level of inflation. I hope that, today, Glasgow's council can sustain that level of efficiency and council tax stability. However, despite the council's proven efficiency, too tight a settlement might well punish Glasgow.

Despite what COSLA says, structural financial reform is needed. It cannot be right that, with 25 per cent of Scotland's special needs children, Glasgow gets 12 per cent of the grant; it cannot be right that, with 25 per cent of Scotland's drug addicts, Glasgow gets 12 per cent of the grant; and it cannot be right that a lightly trafficked rural road gets the same pound for pound in grant as Glasgow's Union Street, which is pounded daily by 14,000 cars and 3,000 buses.

The reform that Glasgow seeks has been opposed by the SNP and has been stalled by COSLA. The Burt committee must give Glasgow a level financial playing field.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I did not think that this morning's debate would generate a great deal of light. I have been blinded by the sun, but I do not think that any great new insight into the budget process or the content of the budget document has emerged in the foregoing hour.

I very much hope that Des McNulty is right to say that the budget process will take on a new intensity, and I would welcome greater engagement within and outwith the Parliament on how we can make the budget process more effective and ensure that public spending is better managed throughout Scotland.

Mark Ballard made an interesting point about the scheduling of debates. I have no doubt that that will be considered in time.

There has been a lot of talk about issues that are not covered directly in the budget document. Given what else is happening today, members' focus on local government is understandable, but we are talking about £30 billion of public spending and the scrutiny that is being applied to local government is not necessarily being applied across the piece to the rest of Government spending.

We hear the ritual calls for alternative budgets to be produced by everyone and their dog every year. If civil servants were made available every year to all the Opposition parties, we would be delighted to produce our own budget. However, I suspect that the minister might have a view about whether that would be the most effective use of public money.

We do not even have a Liberal Democrat or a Labour budget; we have an Executive budget, which is—presumably—a compromise between the two. It is interesting to note that Des McNulty was fulsome in his praise of the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform; I forget just how fulsome, but he was very fulsome indeed. Jeremy Purvis almost forgot that he was a member of an Executive party, apart from some closing remarks.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

It must be because the whips are here.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am glad to see that Margaret Smith is here.

It was interesting to hear that everything good in the Borders comes from the Executive and that everything bad comes from the council. What a change that is from two or three years ago, when the situation might have been rather different.

The debate could have been more constructive and useful. I suspect that the timing of the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election has not helped us to add much clarity to the process. I hope that the next budget that we embark on will involve greater scrutiny and I hope that the minister will stick firmly to his commitment to make process improvements where possible. Despite remarks that have been made this morning, we should be in no doubt that setting the budget is probably the most fundamental task that the Parliament undertakes. We should not undertake it lightly.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

The debate has been interesting, even if we have not got down to the nitty-gritty and detail. My colleague Mr Mather painted a picture of a finance minister stalking the land. I could not help but picture the normally extremely elegantly dressed Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform in his deerstalker and plus fours, seeking efficiency savings here, there and everywhere. In the light of his recent comments on the local government settlement, perhaps the minister might also be harking back to the days in South Lanarkshire when he was a little more publicly accountable for what he did, because he also set the tax rate. Perhaps the comments of both the First Minister and the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform hark back to their days in local government, when they were responsible for both sides of the budget.

That lack of public accountability is an important weakness in our budget process. It is time for us to move on: the Parliament has been in existence for close on seven years. It is time for us to look seriously at where we want to go with the budget process so that we can use more than the minor levers that are available to us. When Mr Kerr sat where Mr McCabe is sitting now, he pointed out, rightly, that the Scottish Parliament does not have the major levers; perhaps, in his view, those levers are better trusted to Gordon Brown. However, even he has been frustrated by the changes; he has made statements in the past few days about what should happen here, but he does not have the power to make those things happen.

I am delighted that the Conservatives are thinking about making changes to their position on the budget process. However, despite being invited by Mr Morgan, Mr Swinburne—I see that he is no longer with us—and I to clarify their position on additional financial powers, the Tories have not done so. I see that Mr Swinburne has returned.

This year, there has been considerable focus—rightly so—on the local government settlement. However, when it comes to extracting savings, I am not sure that the same scrutiny has been applied to Government quangos and departments, whose budgets have not been put under the same pressure. We will always have a dichotomy of local government having its own franchise—rightly, it defends its independence. However, it would be helpful for us to make progress on how settlements are arrived at. The mysterious processes of negotiation with COSLA do not shed much light on the subject.

Mr Purvis made the usual special pleading on behalf of Scottish Borders Council, while attacking his political opponents; Mr Gordon did the same on behalf of Glasgow City Council, while also attacking his political opponents. Those gentlemen are entitled to stand up for the areas that they represent. We all are. Mr Ballard made a good point about the mechanics of the budget process that will have the SNP's support. I am delighted that Mr McNulty is at least willing to consider our looking at the mechanics of the budget in order to have a better debate. I point out to Mr Purvis and Mr Gordon that there are various pots of money, although sometimes it is not clear from how the money in them is applied what the outcomes will be.

We do not just want to get money to spend: we want to change people's lives. I am not convinced that the budget contains the clarity to tell us what the outcomes will be. There is a series of special funds to which the minister referred at various stages of the budget process, but we are not clear what the outcomes of spending the money in those funds will be. That is particularly true of Glasgow, which is a significant beneficiary of many of those funds. The statistics that Mr Gordon focused on today may be perfectly valid, but we have to look at the situation nationally. Life expectancy in Glasgow is much lower than it is elsewhere, but we need to ensure that when health funds and others are being spent, we are making a difference rather than just spending money. I do not know that our processes are sufficiently robust to deliver the information that will allow us to make the real decisions and choices to which Des McNulty referred. We need further sophistication in our budget process to enable us to reach that position.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Members have used the debate to raise issues that concern them; that is understandable. I will try to deal with some of the more substantive points and will conclude by reminding people once again of what exactly the budget is designed to deliver.

We should prepare better for Mr Mather's speeches, as we risk an outbreak of mass depression every time we listen to them. If only we could broadcast Mr Mather's speeches at the border, we could turn back the flu. They are so off-putting. I am sure, however, that the people of Scotland who experience the uplift in their services and see this country starting to blossom will pay no attention to Mr Mather's outpourings.

Colin Fox talked about poverty, but he demonstrated his poverty of ideas and his absolute inability to see the link between economic growth and its effect on poverty. Economic growth lifts out of exclusion people who for too long have been deprived of the benefits of a prosperous Scottish society. He completely ignored the £51 million for closing the opportunity gap that is contained in the communities section of the budget. He completely ignored initiatives such as the central heating scheme, which is bringing relief to thousands of pensioners throughout Scotland. He completely ignored the Scottish deprivation index, which is designed to ensure that resources are targeted at those who need them most. Economic growth—not the poverty of ideas that we hear all too often from the Scottish Socialist Party—will pull people in Scotland out of poverty.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

rose—

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

rose—

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

rose—

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I will not take interventions; I need to make progress.

Mark Ballard commented on the procedures that are employed in the budget process; he is entitled to express his view on that matter. In essence, that is a matter for the Parliament, but the Executive is more than happy to discuss its arrangements with the Finance Committee. If they so wish, members are perfectly entitled to raise concerns with the Procedures Committee about how the Executive deals with budget matters.

Des McNulty made a speech that was truly excellent in many respects, not least because it managed to prick Alex Johnstone's conscience. Through his intervention on Des McNulty, Alex Johnstone revealed that he was still concerned about the terrible things that the Conservatives wreaked on Scotland over a long period. I congratulate Des McNulty on once again showing us that the Conservatives know in their heart of hearts that they did terrible damage and that no one in Scotland has forgotten that.

It is worth re-emphasising that the budget is important because of the impact that it will have on people's lives. It will allow us to deliver our ambitious plans for 2006-07, to grow our economy, to invest in our transport system and to support the development of entrepreneurial skills. We will strive to deliver excellent public services by ensuring that the budget meets the service needs of individual people. Through the budget, we will ensure that, when necessary, our investment is matched by reform so that the necessary returns are delivered.

The budget will support strong communities; that is important in Scotland. It will tackle poverty and disadvantage and will empower people who have been excluded from opportunity for too long. As well as being ambitious, our financial plans for 2006-07 are responsible in that, through them, we will do our best to pull people away from disadvantage and to take them out of poverty.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

Despite the minister's excellent budget and all his excellent projections, members of my generation and others who live on fixed incomes are frustrated that ScottishPower and Scottish Gas are imposing poverty on them by increasing the price of their products. That is outwith the minister's control. Those companies were once controlled because they were nationalised, but that is no longer the case. Does the minister share my frustration at the situation?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

It is clear that the elderly people in this country, who have served us well, face a number of challenges. The Executive is resolute in its determination to ensure that we do all that we can to acknowledge the contribution that those people have made to our society over a number of years.

In increasing our expenditure by £3 billion to £28.8 billion, the financial plans that we lay before Parliament today will help us to deliver an ambitious programme. Those enormous sums will bring real benefit to people in Scotland. Although the debate marks the final stage of the budget process, it is simply the beginning of another stage in our determination to provide public services of the highest order. We will continue to monitor those services and to ensure that they are effective and efficient, and we will work tirelessly with our colleagues across the public sector to maximise the benefits of the budget.

The budget will deliver value for money for Scotland and will ensure that people's money is allocated to meet their priorities. The partnership Government is investing in the long term: by investing in business growth, it is investing in the future of Scotland. I warmly commend the budget to Parliament.

Volunteering

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on volunteering.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Over the past year, I have met many volunteers. Most recently, on Monday I met young people in Aberdeen and Peterhead. I start by paying tribute to everything that volunteers—the young and the not so young—do day in, day out throughout Scotland.

Volunteering is strong in Scotland, and the position that we enjoy on the domestic, European and world stages is positive. In the United Kingdom, Scotland has had three firsts: it was the first country to produce a strategy for volunteering, the first country to fund a national network of volunteer centres and the first to establish a national programme of full-time and part-time volunteering for our young people through ProjectScotland and the millennium volunteers programme.

Scotland is leading the way and has much to be proud of in relation to implementation of the Russell commission recommendation to develop a national framework for youth action and engagement, but we are far from complacent. We will continue to build on that strong position by developing and sharing best practice, by supporting young volunteers through schools and further and higher education institutions, by encouraging and supporting volunteering in the public sector, by making volunteering an important element of our strategy for an aging population, and through our continuing support for the millennium volunteer youth development workers, ProjectScotland, Volunteer Development Scotland and the network of volunteer centres.

Just before Christmas, we published our vision for the next phase of development of our relationship with the voluntary sector. Our aim is to unlock the potential of voluntary and community action so that the sector is regarded as an equal partner with the public and private sectors and its broad contribution to communities and to Scotland is fully recognised. The sector's strength lies in its independence, its values, its diversity, its connection to communities and—crucially—in its volunteer base.

Volunteers have a particular contribution to make to building strong communities and in acting as agents of change in society. As well as being instrumental in transforming how things are done for the better, they have a role to play in building confidence in people's abilities and outlook, and they can change how society thinks about and responds to issues. Our volunteering strategy is one way in which we will work to achieve that vision. The strategy acknowledges the need to offer high-quality volunteering opportunities and to make the volunteer welcomed and valued. Volunteers should be gainers as well as givers—they should receive guidance, training and support.

A focus of the strategy is our determination to create more opportunities for people who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, such as unemployed people, the long-term sick, the poor and those in society who lack formal qualifications. Members might have seen, or heard on the radio, the recent "You won't believe what you can do!" volunteering adverts, which are part of our campaign to raise awareness of volunteering and of how to get involved, which builds on the activities that were undertaken during the year of the volunteer in 2005 and directly supports implementation of our volunteering strategy. The campaign has directly resulted in a 100 per cent increase in the number of visits that have been made to the world-class Volunteer Scotland website, which holds information on volunteering opportunities throughout Scotland.

A significant element of the campaign has been work with Jobcentre Plus to ensure that everyone who wants to volunteer has the opportunity to do so. Research has shown clearly that individuals who come from lower socioeconomic groups are less likely to volunteer, even though they are not less willing to do so. That situation must change and I am pleased that volunteer centres are entering formal partnership agreements with Jobcentre Plus and are considering doing the same with Careers Scotland. The key to realising the vision and achieving the aims of the volunteering strategy is to ensure that volunteering becomes an integral part of Scotland's culture.

Central to that are recent initiatives such as ProjectScotland. I met people who work on ProjectScotland a month or so ago and am pleased about the progress that has been made in harnessing the energy, talents and enthusiasm of our 16 to 25-year-olds and in giving them the opportunity to develop their full potential. More and more young people are benefiting from a sustained period of volunteering, but we know that many young people still find it hard to volunteer. ProjectScotland targets that group in an effort to give them the chance to learn new skills and to enjoy new experiences. Through volunteering, young Scots can make the most of their lives while giving something back to their communities and their country.

ProjectScotland is already working. To date, young people from all walks of life have made more than 6,500 enquiries to ProjectScotland, which have led to more than 1,100 applications being made and more than 320 volunteers being given placements. ProjectScotland is making a difference for our young people by letting them experience success and by building their confidence. It is also working for our communities, which benefit from the enormous contribution that the new generation of volunteers is making.

Let us look at examples: there is the volunteer who is placed with the National Trust for Scotland, who lives in a bothy and provides educational activities for young people; the person who is involved in organising activities for the Edinburgh festival fringe; and the man who developed confidence and a sense of purpose by volunteering straight from prison, which helped him to decide on a career in youth work.

ProjectScotland is helping more and more young people to feel connected to their communities, to use their skills, interests and talents to help others and to gain self-confidence, self-reliance and new skills. Those people will be better equipped to move on in life, whether that means going into employment or training, starting their own businesses, or going on to more volunteering. We are right to be proud of ProjectScotland and of how it is taking volunteering into the 21st century.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I am in my last minute, so I cannot take any interventions.

I want to pay tribute to the tremendous contribution that older people make. We have only to consider the 15 per cent of people aged over 75 who actively volunteer. Older people are a fundamental element of the Scottish voluntary sector, from being active on boards and community councils, to helping out at the local primary school or hospital. I applaud Liz Burns and the people on the retired and senior volunteers programme for their work on the strategy for older volunteering in Scotland—the hidden resource. Their work has involved consultation with older people, and the strategy sets out the benefits and impacts of older volunteering.

Older people tell of the satisfaction of being able to give something back. I have no time to go through the examples on my list, but I will mention one of my recent engagements. A week or so ago, I met people from the paths to health project. The project has trained more than 1,400 volunteer walk leaders across Scotland, the vast majority of whom are in the 50-plus age bracket. Through helping others, they themselves benefit as well.

The contribution of older people to society—whether that contribution is voluntary or paid, personal or professional—is immense. We are developing the strategy for an aging population and at its heart will be valuing, supporting, recognising and encouraging the contribution that older people make. Of course, we will also ensure that they receive the services that they need, when they need them.

With initiatives such as ProjectScotland, I firmly believe that Scotland is at the forefront of volunteering. The potential is almost limitless. Over the next 15 years, thousands of volunteers will help people throughout across the country. Thousands of lives will be touched and thousands of lives will change. This is only the beginning—the real prize is to move from a culture of disengagement to a culture of participation. Volunteering can, and will, help us to achieve that prize.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I have three preliminary points. Members on this side of the chamber also commend all the people who work in the voluntary sector—especially the unpaid, the young and the old—from the person who serves in the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals shop in their local high street, to the people who work in the big beasts of the voluntary sector such as Age Concern, Help the Aged and Citizens Advice Scotland, which provide us with so much data in briefings that are essential to our work as MSPs. There are also the people who care for neighbours and friends and who might not realise that they are seen as being part of the voluntary sector, although they are. The quality of life of those neighbours and friends would be much lower without their volunteer carers.

My second preliminary point is that I am not a fan of this kind of debate. It has no focus, so one wonders what its point is. The last thing we need is another volunteering debate that is all motherhood and apple pie. In May last year, the Deputy Minister for Communities said:

"The challenge of the debate on the voluntary sector is that it poses a question for us all: How do we debate the voluntary sector without being cosy, precious or patronising ... ?"—[Official Report, 19 May 2005; c 17075.]

Well, I was waiting for some meat from the minister—an announcement of some kind—but it did not come. Last night, I read the Official Report of the debate from May last year; parts of the minister's speech this morning were a rehash that could have been cut and pasted from that debate.

My third preliminary point is about parliamentary time. In the Shirley McKie case there has been a £750,000 settlement, but the Minister for Justice cannot come to the chamber to make a statement. There was a slot available this morning. Worthy though the voluntary sector is, we could have debated it at another time.

I now want to move to the real meat of the debate, as raised by the minister last year. The main issue then was funding. Donald Gorrie, I and others pointed out the problems that were arising when projects did not receive continuous funding. The minister acknowledged our points and said:

"We want to make it easier for voluntary organisations to do what they do best by focusing on service delivery. The Executive is committed to providing a rolling programme of three-year funding."—[Official Report, 19 May 2005; c 17115.]

We therefore look to the strategic funding review. Where is it? It was announced in November 2000 but it has still not delivered. Five years on, charitable organisations, which are delivering more and more front-line services, still do not have secure funding.

The Borders young carers service in my constituency supports 180 young people and has another 300 on its waiting list. Despite that, the service has had to scramble around for funding to keep its essential work going. More and more often, because of cuts in local government funding, the need to provide front-line services for vulnerable people is landing in the laps of voluntary organisations, but the funding streams of those organisations are insecure—not only the stream that comes directly from the coalition Government but the stream that comes from local authorities. No wonder, therefore, that I am aggrieved and cross about the way we are talking about the voluntary sector.

Everything the minister said was true. The voluntary sector, as well as providing something altruistic for people to do, is a gateway that can help young people to improve their employment prospects. The voluntary sector also allows elderly people to contribute and to be valued, but we all know that. Let us talk about the nitty-gritty. The supporting people fund is at a standstill and in some areas it has been cut, which affects vulnerable people who may now have to rely on the voluntary sector—but the minister did not talk about that.

Some things have improved. Following the Bichard report, the Minister for Education and Young People announced changes in respect of disclosure, which has been a huge burden on the voluntary sector; at last it has been acknowledged that the forms are too complicated. Many forms were being returned because people had put the wrong thing in a box, or had done it in the wrong colour of ink, or because there were multiple applications. What nonsense. Fathers who wanted to volunteer to help the local school with rugby training had to get disclosure forms. At last, it has been acknowledged that the disclosure form is valid only on the day on which it is issued. Those are crucial issues that should be debated in Parliament. The minister is a good man at heart, but let us have a debate on the voluntary sector that touches on funding, Disclosure Scotland, and how the voluntary sector is being relied on more and more to deliver front-line services that social workers and allied professionals in the health service used to deliver. Let us debate those issues for a change.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I had thought that today would offer an opportunity for us to hear an update on the volunteering strategy and the national youth volunteering programme, which would have helped us to make progress in the debate. I welcome, nonetheless, any debate on volunteering and any opportunity to thank all the people who give so much of their time to their communities in order to help and benefit others. I am pleased to hear the minister say that he is not complacent, because we cannot be complacent about volunteering.

More than 90 per cent of the people who are involved in citizens advice bureaux are volunteers. They help people in a wide range of areas; for example, by managing their debts or by offering them advice on welfare benefits. A person's debt cannot be managed through one visit to the CAB. I have been a volunteer so I know that it often takes months or even years before we are able to help people back to financial stability. It is disappointing that Citizens Advice Scotland has constantly to penny-pinch. In the Highlands, it has faced cuts year on year, despite the excellent service that it provides.

When we think of volunteers, we probably do not think of mountain rescue teams. On Saturday, I met the Cairngorm mountain rescue team, which is led by John Allan and is highly trained and professional. They take to the Cairngorm mountains in all weathers, at all times of the day or night and in all months of the year to rescue walkers and climbers. All the mountain rescue teams in Scotland are highly trained, dedicated and undoubtedly fit for their purpose in every sense. So why—I ask the minister—is it that they must worry where next year's funding is coming from? The previous three-year settlement is almost at an end and uncertainty is creeping in. I ask the deputy minister to commit, when she sums up, to looking into that.

A total of £400 million is directed at the voluntary sector, and millions more is directed to the national health service and local councils. However, I find it difficult to advise people when they come to my surgery and say, "My daughter has a heroin problem and my sister is killing herself with alcohol. Where do I go?". I have to stop and think. People are passed from pillar to post. They go round in circles.

It is incredible that so much money is provided for drug and alcohol rehabilitation in the voluntary sector, but that no one-stop shop—a gateway—is provided to advise families and addicts on the best sources of help. Although I am not criticising the minister about the money that is provided for such projects, as an MSP I have found it difficult to help families that are in such circumstances. It is not just down to patient confidentiality. It is an area where the Executive's departments must work together to address the problem.

It is also incredible that this year the Highland Council will give no uplift in funding to the voluntary sector. That is equivalent to another cutback that will severely affect smaller voluntary organisations.

I am pleased that David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative party, has placed volunteering high on his political agenda. I am also pleased that his initiative was endorsed by the chief executive of ProjectScotland, who said that she is pleased that the power and impact of the voluntary sector is acknowledged across the UK. Although the details of the Conservative party's policy have yet to be defined, we welcome the consultation.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

No. I have only a few seconds left.

Possible solutions that are being considered in Mr Cameron's policy review at Westminster include offering longer-term contracts for provision of services, such as those I have mentioned, which will allow the voluntary sector to grow. A relaxing of the rules in the tax and benefits system to reward voluntary work is also being considered. It will be for the Scottish Conservatives to decide on our policy for Scotland, but we welcome the priority and focus that has been given by Mr Cameron.

The two main problems that are faced by the voluntary sector are the lack of financial stability and the growing lack of volunteers. I listened carefully to the minister on inclusion in volunteering as an integral part of Scotland's culture. I want to highlight several points that are made in the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing notes.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You are now quite over your time.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In that case, I will conclude.

Volunteering is a route into employment for many people, including people who have mental health problems and people who are recovering drug and alcohol addicts. It can help to build confidence, particularly in older volunteers.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We do have some time in hand.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Well—thanks for that.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mrs Scanlon, you have had the extra time. The notified time for speeches in the debate is four minutes. However, if members speak to five minutes we should be relatively comfortable.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

The minister made a good speech; his heart is genuinely in this work. However, I have some suggestions as to how he can deliver better.

Christine Grahame also made a particularly good speech. Although it does not always help to have her on one's side of an argument, I hope that the minister will attend to the points that she made.

The Liberal Democrats strongly support volunteering. Today, many of my colleagues have volunteered to improve Dunfermline's social and community life rather than attend the debate. Their hearts are with us while their legs wander Dunfermline.

Although the Executive has developed some good schemes for encouraging volunteering, the structures are still not satisfactory. One needs organisations with which one can volunteer. If I decide to give up this Parliament rubbish to become a youth-club leader, but no clubs exist in my area, I cannot volunteer. Support for existing organisations is vital. A leading light in the youth-work voluntary sector informed me that she was concerned that shiny and new is considered good, while tried and tested is considered bad. The Executive puts money into projects such as ProjectScotland which, the minister assures us, does good work. However, if a small amount of its funding were put into securing the position of national youth organisations, more good would be done.

Support for national and local organisations is needed from government and councils. Far too much project funding is not sustained. Projects die off after three years because no funding is given to old projects. The idea is that a shiny new project can receive funding for three years, but must somehow at the end of that period magically secure funding from elsewhere. The Executive, charitable trusts and the national lottery will not provide funding for existing projects—they need something new. The desire for newness is a curse on and disaster for the voluntary sector. I do not care whether it is called core funding or investment: existing organisations must receive continuing funding to keep good projects going, rather than there being constant invention of new projects.

Funding must be made available for volunteers. Yesterday, we debated council budgets. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, as Mary Scanlon said, this year all councils will cut their budgets to the voluntary sector. The Executive must keep an eye on that because many good local organisations could go down the tubes. Yesterday, a good announcement was made about disclosure. For years, many of us have highlighted how bad the system has been. At last that has been recognised and a good system seems to have been put in place.

Community enterprises—another part of the voluntary sector—use many volunteers and are commercial and flourish in the market place. They do good work in their communities; they offer opportunities for people to enter various careers and to become small entrepreneurs. Many of them use volunteers to help paid people in recycling and reducing waste. In many cases, however, those enterprises are disadvantaged by purchasing policy. The ministers must support them as well as they can. I hope that ministers will put their good intentions to practical effect and crack this business of inadequate and inconsistent funding of voluntary organisations.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We go now to the open debate and, as I said, speeches of five minutes.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on volunteering and the important contribution volunteers make to Scottish society. It is right that Parliament is considering the issue because, without our army of volunteers, we would not be able to function as a civilised society. Without the hundreds of thousands of carers, who give up their time and effort to care for friends and family, the NHS would grind to a halt. Without the tens of thousands of uniformed youth leaders, Scotland would be a less attractive place for our young people to live in. Without the vast fundraising that is done by volunteers daily, our charities would simply not function. Volunteering is the lifeblood of our society, which is why it is vital that we do everything we can to support people who give freely of their time to help others.

The extent of volunteering within all communities means that there are always new stories to tell about how it makes a positive difference. It is not about being shiny and new—it is about communities being innovative and meeting the new challenges that they face. For example, many of the communities that I represent benefit from the services that are provided by their local credit union. Credit unions, such as Newmains Credit Union Ltd, provide their members with local access to low-cost savings and loans facilities. They help to build the habits of regular saving and responsible borrowing. In addition, they provide a high level of training for their volunteers by developing their skills in money handling, accountancy and project management, to name but a few areas. That wide range of skills helps to make credit union volunteers highly employable.

I also highlight the excellent work that the volunteer centre in North Lanarkshire does. One exciting project that it has just launched is the help into trade—HIT—squad. The project has been part-funded by money from the European social fund and aims to help young people gain an insight into working in the traditional trades. It is particularly for young people who would not normally volunteer. On Monday, 11 young people aged between 16 and 25 started at the project. They will have the opportunity to attend local colleges for taster training sessions on trades such as painting and decorating, joinery and gardening. After that, the volunteer centre will place them in work with local voluntary groups, which might include gardening for a local care home or painting and decorating for a local voluntary project. It is an excellent example of how volunteering can be a win-win activity: local voluntary groups gain much-needed assistance and the young people gain experience that may help them to decide to pursue a career in the trades or, at least, make them more employable in the future.

In fact, from talking to staff at a volunteer centre, it is clear to me that the benefits of volunteering to the individual volunteer are becoming increasingly relevant. Volunteering can be a good way back into work for those who have been unemployed for some time or who are recovering from an illness. In addition, volunteering is good for communities and for society at large. Community involvement and participation helps to strengthen the social bonds between people and build stronger communities, which has a positive knock-on effect on other important areas such as health and crime.

I am sure that, over the past few months, many members have been invited to a large number of pensioners events, whether Christmas dinners or Burns suppers. All those groups are run by volunteers—the committee members, fund raisers and organisers—whose efforts help to ensure that our senior citizens, many of whom have lost their partners or family and now live alone, do not become isolated in their communities. Pensioners groups help to build strong social connections at precisely the time when such connections are most needed and the pensioners are most vulnerable. They also demonstrate clearly that people neither need nor want always to rely on the state for the provision of services, but want the state, whether through local or national government, to support their activities rather than hinder them.

It is important that we celebrate the work of volunteers throughout Scotland. It is also important that we take positive steps to encourage and support people—in particular, young people—to volunteer in their communities. I welcome the steps that the Executive has already taken towards that goal and I urge the minister to continue the drive to make Scotland one of the volunteering centres of Europe.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Like Christine Grahame, I was a bit worried about having another subject debate on volunteering. I had hoped that I would hear some announcements about the strategic funding review or full cost recovery or that futurebuilders Scotland was more successful than when we last debated it, when it was running behind schedule, but I heard nothing of the sort. We are in danger of becoming a bit patronising by patting people in the voluntary sector on the back every now and then. It is a wonderful sector in which people do wonderful things, but how long can the Executive come up with task forces and strategies without coming up with the goods that make the sector work better?

The latest strategy is "A Vision for the Voluntary Sector: The Next Phase of Our Relationship", which Malcolm Chisholm launched in December 2005 and which I read through again last night. It does not say anything with which I disagree, but it certainly says some things that I do not quite understand—we must have such documents in language that is easier to understand; the Plain English Campaign comes to mind.

The vision outlines some of the elements of Executive policy so far, some of which have been good, but I am concerned that it does not say what our voluntary sector as a whole is about and acknowledge the sector's diversity. I am worried that we are starting to talk about the voluntary sector as if it is all one, without realising that, just because people are in voluntary organisations, that does not mean they are all the same. It is the same with the business sector: we talk about it as if it is all one, but everybody realises that IBM is not quite the same as the wee grocer shop on the corner.

I make a plea on behalf of small organisations that have been working away in their communities for many years—decades, in some cases—but feel that they are losing out because the umbrella organisations are involved in a big voluntary sector push. That push is a good thing, but not all voluntary organisations are members of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, have staff or feel confident to approach the Executive.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

To add to that, does Linda Fabiani agree that not all volunteers work in the voluntary sector? Many volunteers work in the statutory sector.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Yes, and that is what Christine Grahame said earlier. There are an awful lot more volunteers in Scotland than we count, because people volunteer to do things all the time and do not even realise that they are volunteers. However, there are organisations that provide vital public services and need the funding, partnership agreements and compacts that allow them to operate. The Parliament has been in existence for six years and we have talked away about core funding, three-year programmes and the fact that voluntary organisations need the guarantee of continuing funding, but none of that is happening. In May last year, the minister said that core funding was no longer an issue because we were moving on to full cost recovery. When on earth will that happen?

I am also interested in ProjectScotland, which I mentioned in last year's debate. It is marvellous. The minister said today that ProjectScotland is being focused on less well-off young people. I ask him to tell me how that is happening. Do we have in place something that allows them to go overseas and volunteer for a year even though they do not have the support network to fall back on in a family, a home or some kind of funding? Are we examining the benefit system and finding ways to allow them to achieve such things? I have spoken to young people in Motherwell who would love to go overseas and do international development work but, if they are homeless, on benefit and do not have the support network that much more fortunate young people have, it is just a pipe dream.

The minister says that, through Jobcentre Plus, we are building up support networks for those who are less well-off to enable them to volunteer. How is that being done and what type of people are benefiting from the initiative? Is an agreement on benefits in place to allow people to volunteer as a step towards employment in time?

I end by making a plea for the small organisations, which Donald Gorrie mentioned. They do very good work on a small scale but are told that there is no point in their applying for more lottery funding if they carry on doing the same thing—that is on the Community Fund website.

For some people who need support, innovation is not good, because they like the familiar and like to continue with what they have. That must be acknowledged.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I share some of Christine Grahame's and Linda Fabiani's sentiments about the format of the debate. I welcome the opportunity to debate the subject, but I wish that we had a little more focus to the format. I hope that the Parliamentary Bureau did not make the decision to hold such a debate in the expectation that members would be elsewhere in the country and would not want to miss a vote. I am sure that it did not.

We keep debating volunteering year after year, and it is right that we should do so in one format or another because volunteers keep volunteering year and after year. The Parliament must maintain its interest in that work and its recognition of it.

In last year's debate, I mentioned a few aspects of my experience of volunteering, such as with recycling projects. The Executive should be commended for reaching its recycling targets, but I am sceptical about whether it would have done so without people such as the community activists who got doorstep recycling projects up and running before anybody else caught up during the many years when recycling was recognised by few but the voluntary sector. Those activists are still diverting much waste from landfill. Many furniture recycling projects not only divert waste from landfill but ensure that, rather than junk them and buy new, we get more use out of our resources.

I also mentioned the volunteers in sexual health in the statutory sector and the voluntary sector whose work helps the Executive hit its targets and meet its sexual health strategy priorities.

I touched on youth work, which has far more to contribute to the Executive's antisocial behaviour agenda than is often acknowledged as it helps to develop young people as active citizens. The fact that volunteers and the voluntary sector do so much to help the Executive meet its targets should be acknowledged. The best way to do that is to ensure that volunteers and the voluntary sector do not feel that they are the poor relation. We need to ensure that they are given the same level of support and recognition as the statutory sector and other public service providers.

There are a few areas in which we could do better. I hope that the Executive will address some of them when it works on its strategy. I am sure that members of all parties acknowledge that many asylum seekers who come to our country, whose interests we represent just as much as we do those of people with citizenship, are skilled, articulate, passionate and motivated. It is essential that they do not lose those qualities and the self-esteem that allows them to use them, regardless of whether they are granted asylum, refugee status or permission to stay. If they return to their country of origin, we have to equip them with the skills and ability to make a go of it. If they stay here, we want to ensure that they are able to contribute fully to our society, which many of them want passionately to do. I wish that we in this Parliament were able to give them the opportunity to work, but we can give them the opportunity to volunteer and make use of and expand their skills.

We also have to ensure that we give people the time and support to combine volunteering with a working life. I hope that the Executive is talking to its colleagues at Westminster about welfare reform. If we are looking—as we should—to encourage people to move into work if they are ready and able to after being on benefit for a long time, a stepping stone of volunteering can be of great use. I hope that the Westminster Government acknowledges that the gradual transition back into work should be supported.

I make no apology for mentioning the volunteers to whom I am closest, as I am sure are many members: the political party activists who are part of a vibrant volunteering democratic culture. Whether they are volunteering this week in Dunfermline or anywhere else, we should congratulate them all.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I welcome this morning's debate, not only as a timely reminder of the importance of the voluntary sector and of volunteering to our country, but as an opportunity to endorse and refresh our commitment to volunteering. I also welcome a troupe of Boys Brigade from my constituency—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Yes. I have noticed that Mr Macintosh's microphone has not come on and I wonder whether the sound engineer could connect him now.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Should I move to the next seat?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Yes, you should move to the connected microphone and probably begin again, Mr Macintosh. I do not know whether the official reporters caught your first remarks, but I am sure that the public in the gallery will have struggled to do so.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

It is worth saying twice, Presiding Officer.

I welcome this morning's debate because it reminds us of the importance of volunteering and gives us an opportunity to refresh and endorse our commitment to volunteering. I want to extend a welcome to a troupe of Boys Brigade, who I know have just arrived downstairs. They are an example of community spirit and are supported by volunteers in Barrhead in my constituency.

The point that I want to make, which many members have also made, is that it is vital to support the voluntary sector not just with words but with funding. I am particularly concerned that we are both consistent and fair in the application of that funding.

I will give a couple of examples of the difficulty the voluntary sector faces. Members might be familiar with the questions that have been raised about the scout facility called Lapwing Lodge in my constituency, not least because of the members' business debate that Bruce McFee initiated last year. It is an old-fashioned scout camping facility that is well used not just by a range of uniformed organisations but more broadly by groups and individuals throughout the community. It desperately needs upgrading and modernisation.

I do not believe that any of us who has taken the time to visit Lapwing would argue that it should not qualify for some form of public support. Unfortunately, it does not qualify. I will not repeat all the arguments and explanations for that. Although my local authority has offered a substantial contribution, the lodge has, so far, failed to meet the criteria laid down for lottery, Executive and other public sector grants, despite its being, on the face of it, a deserving cause.

One of the comments made by the applicants, which has stayed with me, is that many of the voluntary sector grants that are awarded, particularly through the lottery, go to newly formed organisations that turn out to be unsustainable and cease to exist after a couple of years. That point is similar to one Donald Gorrie and other members made. The approach hides a complex process of accountability, but I appreciate fully why it rankles with long-established youth uniformed organisations that have proven their commitment, worth and benefit year after year but struggle to meet the criteria for voluntary sector funding.

The Executive and the public purse will never be able to meet all the demands, but if we can demonstrate consistency, equity and fairness across the board, the disappointment of some will not be further marred by a sense of grievance or injustice.

Voluntary Action, an umbrella organisation for all the voluntary groups in East Renfrewshire, has just built a tremendous new centre for all those groups to use. The funding came from umpteen different sources and the process involved in securing it was long and arduous—and involved several disappointments along the way. How many of us have heard the same story from voluntary groups: too much time is spent filling in forms and applying for funding? How many of us have heard people say that they were led to believe that they would get a grant and put a huge effort into getting it only to be turned down at an advanced stage? Volunteers do not give up their time to be full-time fundraisers and grant chasers, but that is what can happen.

There is not enough time for me to expand on other examples and issues that I want to highlight. I mention in passing the uncertainty about the future and about long-term support that many voluntary organisations face, even those that work with local authorities. Some organisations have difficulty securing funding from local authorities that fail to recognise the value for money that they can provide.

The good news is that the strategic funding review addresses those difficulties. The Executive has already taken a number of positive steps, from the millions it put into the futurebuilders fund to simple steps such as introducing a common application form for all its grant schemes. The move to three-year funding and further streamlining of the over complex application process is also welcome. I am particularly hopeful that the new funders forum, which will bring together national and local government and voluntary providers, will drive on the process.

We might not meet every demand, but we can apply the principles of consistency, equity and fairness in all our decisions. We have made great strides in that direction and I commend the Executive for its continued support and commitment.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Volunteering is something that we Scots are very good at. It comes naturally to us; it is instinctive within the Scottish character, which embraces an understanding that we have a mutual responsibility and an obligation to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves. That view is borne out by the statistics. There are 50,000 voluntary organisations in Scotland, supported by more than 1 million volunteers who put in 9 million hours of unpaid effort each month. That means that, at the average wage level, more than £1 billion-worth of wages do not have to be paid by the state because volunteers successfully provide services and support that, in effect, the state has failed to provide. The first thing that we politicians need to do is give a resounding thank you to Scotland's volunteers. Their contribution to Scotland's economy is massive and their service to the people whom they support is even greater.

One of my favourite times of the year is volunteers week, when, like other members, I am asked to volunteer by a number of local projects. Thus far I have, among other things, helped to deliver meals on wheels in Kirkcudbright and—believe it or not—helped to create new flower beds at Threave gardens near Castle Douglas, which I thoroughly recommend to anyone who is in the area. I have also helped to build a bird hide from which the pupils at Belmont primary school in Stranraer can study the bird life in their gardens. It is probably the only structure I have built that has remained standing four years later. However, pride of place goes to the occasion when I called the bingo numbers at the Millennium centre in Stranraer. I think that I can modestly say that I have a natural flair for that activity and the experience gave me some comfort that there is a career that I might successfully pursue should the electorate ever decide that I need a new one.

Volunteers week serves to highlight the vast range of activities that volunteers undertake. Some 90 per cent of those who are involved in citizens advice bureaux and 53 per cent of museum staff are volunteers. People do not know that. The Museum of Lead Mining at Wanlockhead in my constituency is a unique monument to the incredibly tough lives that the miners led, but I can safely say that it would not exist if it was not for the voluntary effort that is put in. Other members mentioned befriending schemes; prison visitors; drug rehabilitation initiatives; victim support; work with abused women, men and children; our sporting life; our cultural life; and our environment. All of those and more would be considerably the poorer without the input of volunteers, which is often unsung and taken for granted.

I endorse and support the volunteering strategy and its aims. As members said, it is difficult not to support it. However, I do so with a belief that the correct level of state management of the voluntary sector involves a balance that is difficult to achieve but vital to attain. I will suggest two areas in which the Executive could act to improve the balance. I must be right to do so, because almost every member who has spoken has mentioned them. The first is funding—not the amount, but the timescale and the process. All too often, applications for funding, if they are approved, result in a three-year package. The funded body spends the first year becoming established, the second year carrying out the work it was established to do and the third year trying to secure further funding to guarantee survival. Surely that is not the best way either to ensure the best return on taxpayers' input or to make the best use of volunteers' efforts.

The second area that is ripe for improvement is the process that is required by Disclosure Scotland. It is sad that the process is required at all, but it is necessary. The complex processes that we have had since the introduction of disclosure have put some people off volunteering and made recruitment to voluntary organisations much harder. I welcome the commitment that the Minister for Education and Young People made in yesterday's debate to simplify the process and end the ridiculous requirement for multiple disclosures. Those changes cannot come soon enough. They will give a welcome boost to volunteers' morale and bring an overdue element of common sense to a process that no one wants but which is forced upon us by some of the darker elements in society.

I am interested in the commendably compact brief that Volunteer Development Scotland issued. As well as being a perfect example of how to present a brief to MSPs, it contains a subtle message. It says, "Please continue to support us along the lines of the volunteering strategy. Please help us to build on the positive base from which we start in Scotland. Please continue to debate what Parliament can do, with others, to energise the latent resources of the people of Scotland." However, it also seems to state an unwritten message: "Beyond that, please keep your hands off and let us independently do what we do best: volunteer, with minimal interference, to the huge benefit of our country and our citizens."

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

The Scottish Socialist Party welcomes this morning's debate on volunteering because it gives us an opportunity to think about and discuss the many thousands of people in Scotland who give their time to help others, who could be close to home, many miles away or even on other continents. However, I agree with Christine Grahame's remarks about the nature and focus of the debate and I hope that the Minister for Communities will take those concerns on board.

Recent disasters such as the tsunami and the earthquake in Pakistan threw on to our television screens individuals and organisations who work around the clock to ensure that assistance reaches those in desperate need. Food, blankets, medicines and clothing are collected, packaged and delivered to other parts of the world. Volunteers also provide crucial support for people here in Scotland.

Like others in the chamber, I worked as a volunteer. I was an advocate at Equal Say and I worked as a volunteer councillor at ChildLine Scotland. I was subsequently employed as a supervisor at ChildLine Scotland. If people do not already know what that entails, they should be made aware of what is involved, how that relates to funding and where the problems lie.

Voluntary organisations train their volunteers to do their jobs. Equal Say and ChildLine delivered training that stood me in good stead for my job as an MSP. For example, the training gave me the ability to assist people who are in pain, people who are afraid and folk who are in a crisis and have no one else to turn to. MSPs will recognise those situations. I am extremely privileged to have the tools to know what to say and do at a time of crisis and I was given those skills by my trainers at ChildLine.

I was also given a unique insight into the difficulties that young people face. I learned how to handle casework, how to deal with paperwork, how to deal with the pain of a desperate child and how to seek appropriate help. My self-esteem and confidence improved enormously during the process. I am eternally grateful to ChildLine for that training, which gave me strings to my bow that I would not otherwise have had. However, the training took 12 weeks and it cost £1,500 to deliver. What did ChildLine get in return? I worked on the phone lines for a time and I stayed on as a supervisor, but then I moved on. A new volunteer had to go through the training and take my place and ChildLine incurred training costs again.

The turnover of volunteers costs organisations such as ChildLine and Equal Say a fortune and there is little or no recognition that people are being trained and given skills and confidence that enable them to participate in society. Workplaces benefit from that, as do society and the economy. Voluntary organisations provide a service to the child on the phone or the starving and cold in Pakistan but they also develop the skills of volunteers. I want us to recognise that those skills are transferable.

As Linda Fabiani pointed out, the voluntary sector comprises a huge network of organisations from global charities to local groups. Their work includes child care, education, youth work, care of the elderly, anti-poverty initiatives and the environmental initiatives that Patrick Harvie mentioned. The list of those who benefit is endless. The voluntary sector holds civic society together and we would grind to a standstill without its work and support.

When we praise volunteers, we must also recognise that the voluntary sector faces a constant battle for funding and resources. That has been said time and time again. I want the minister to hear it and to respond to it. Annually reviewed funding packages leave organisations and groups in a precarious situation and can affect volunteers' motivation. It has to be said that employees in the voluntary sector suffer from lower pay than their counterparts in the public sector.

We must not simply pat volunteers on the back; our job is to ensure that organisations that provide vital support and training have secure funding that fully recognises the vital role that they play in our society. The Scottish Executive should today make a commitment to ease the precarious nature of funding by establishing a four-year minimum funding period for all publicly funded projects and ensuring that funding takes account of inflation and staff training costs. That would surely reduce the atmosphere of uncertainty that constantly surrounds projects that are funded year to year.

Many members have said that they visit organisations and meet brilliant volunteers and employees, only to hear that some of those people may lose their jobs soon and that the services may be lost. The voluntary sector should seek not to duplicate services that local government should resource and provide. In recognising the people who give so much for others, we should promise those folk and those organisations support, security, respect and funding. That would be a true vote of thanks and support. It is incumbent on us to make that promise.

In his opening remarks, the minister said that the potential is limitless. That is not true: the future of many essential organisations hangs in the balance. The limits are therefore clear.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

In preparing for the debate, I was taken by an article in a Holyrood magazine supplement. It listed the five things that volunteering is not. It is not a cheap option, as it requires resources, commitment and skilled management, and I commend Rosie Kane for discussing those. Volunteering is not amateurish, as many volunteers are highly skilled, with a wealth of experience. It is not a minority activity, as research indicates that over 1.5 million people are involved. Volunteering is not unchanging, as it continually affects and is affected by change in society. It is not a cliché or a stereotype, but incredibly diverse. Those descriptions are why, in a debate such as this, Parliament should not deal in clichés, platitudes or patronising pats on the back, well-deserved though a pat on the back may be. Volunteers in Scotland look to the Parliament to tackle real and difficult practicalities. Several members mentioned funding and disclosure, which I will come back to later. We have responsibilities; we have to make things easier for volunteers. We have to remove the barriers. That is the test of whether we are doing our job.

Fantastic volunteering work is being done. Only last night we had a debate about the Linlithgow primary school pupils who act as tour guides and take people round Linlithgow Palace. That is a great example of the positive role that young people can play in volunteering. I agree with Patrick Harvie that volunteering is the flip-side of the antisocial behaviour argument. The involvement of young people in positive aspects of life means that they can make a constructive contribution well into the future.

I want to touch on three areas: young people; the elderly; and disclosure. I am interested in ProjectScotland, and I wish it well. I am interested in the minister's focus on involving those from more deprived areas in ProjectScotland. He also said that Scotland is the first area in the UK to develop a national volunteering programme. I recognise David Cameron's belated entry into the debate; he wants to have forced volunteers, which is a contradiction; national social service is different from volunteering. However, I am pleased that the idea has raised its head. Interestingly, Gordon Brown and David Blunkett have talked about young people volunteering. They are considering the possibility that young people who want to go to university, but have a gap year, will have their tuition fees paid if they volunteer. That would be interesting, bearing it in mind that we are not meant to have tuition fees in Scotland, although we have the graduate endowment fee. Can the minister tell us whether there will be any Barnett consequentials should the UK scheme go ahead, and if so, whether we could use some to pay off the graduate endowment fee for students who volunteer in their gap year?

I welcome the fact that the focus may be on those from more deprived areas becoming involved in ProjectScotland. If that is the case, it is important that we know that that is where the focus is. It is well and good that any Barnett consequentials should go into that, especially if it is explained why. Again, that is something practical that the Parliament should discuss. We should consider paying graduate endowment fees for those who volunteer in a gap year before they go to university. That is a practical and simple move that we should debate. If we want to put those resources elsewhere, we should debate that as well.

A lot of voluntary work is done in children's services and there is a huge opportunity to combine that and the work that is done with the elderly. Developing cross-generational understanding has a lot of good will. Karen Whitefield had a debate about the good work that the older generations do with the younger in her constituency. That work can generate huge synergy and we should pursue it.

Many of us have complained for many years about disclosure. The Education Committee's child protection inquiry raised some of those concerns. I welcome the fact that people who work in more than one children's sector will have to go through the disclosure process only once. There will be organisational issues about how all the voluntary organisations with which they work will then be notified if there were a change in their circumstances. When the Bichard legislation comes to the Parliament, we should look at disclosure through the lens of the volunteer to ensure that we make it simple, operational and safe. We must have realistic risk. The best way to prevent young people being at risk is to ensure that there are well-organised youth organisations. We want young people to participate in society, not hang around the streets. One way of ensuring that is to champion the idea, but we need to ensure that we have a robust disclosure mechanism that protects our children and also makes volunteering risk averse for those who want to do it.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

There was some question in the early part of the debate as to whether this was a constructive or an appropriate time to debate volunteering. Although I am concerned that no great announcements were made, it is has been a practical and sensible way to use an hour of our time. I have found the debate reassuring.

My concern has always been to ensure that we appreciate all that the voluntary sector contributes. I remember hearing Carolyn Leckie speak in a previous debate and heaping great praise on the voluntary project that was under discussion, but she suggested that, ultimately, the public sector is always better than the voluntary sector. Rosie Kane said that again today about certain projects. I have never taken that view. I continue to believe that the voluntary sector is capable of providing services as good as—if not better than—those of the public sector. That is why it is important that we all accept that the voluntary sector is not only here to stay, but is something that we should encourage, fund and develop where possible. I took from Malcolm Chilsholm's speech that he believes that too. He certainly said nothing to discourage me in that belief. That is why I take something positive from the debate.

However, several serious and significant points have been raised to which I will add my support. The first concerns funding. Many of the voluntary sector projects that we all visit in our constituencies face the same problem: three-year funding. Many of them depend on finding grants, and they live from one year to the next without knowing whether they will be able to continue. I regularly visit Angus young carers' project in Arbroath. That is an incredibly worthy organisation, but it never knows where its funding for the year after next will come from. For that reason, I have the greatest sympathy with much of what Donald Gorrie said about funding.

Alex Fergusson was perfectly right to say that volunteering makes a major economic contribution. Volunteers freely give billions of pounds worth of effort. Without them, the country would be a lot worse off. However, there continues to be a problem in encouraging people to become involved in volunteering, particularly those who are less well off, unemployed or on benefits. Consequently, because some areas in Scotland are better off than others, there are certain areas in which there remains a shortage of volunteers.

That takes us to some of the things that David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative party, recently said about volunteering. He is no new convert to the concept of volunteering. In fact, through his personal circumstances, David Cameron has been involved with voluntary organisations for many years. That is why he has become highly motivated by the idea that volunteering should be encouraged. Listening to the minister's opening speech, it is clear that many of the things that David Cameron is talking about in the south are already further along the road in Scotland than they are in England.

However, we must address the key issues, which perhaps need to be dealt with in the south as well. As many have said in the debate, we must ensure that volunteering provides those who have had health difficulties or who have been unemployed with a stepping stone—as Patrick Harvie said—back into work. However, that means that there must be a more understanding attitude towards the payment of benefits, particularly unemployment benefit. The combination of being on benefits and doing voluntary work should be as smooth as possible. Volunteering should not be seen, as it is by many in difficult circumstances, as a barrier to continuing to claim benefits.

The debate has been extremely useful. I have heard some positive contributions, not least from the minister, and I support the position that he set out. I hope that the debate will encourage others in the chamber to support their local voluntary organisations and to bring the message of those organisations back here in future.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

When I saw that we were going to debate volunteering, I and others, not just in my party, thought that this was an ideal opportunity to question ministers on core funding and strategic funding. I am sorry that the ministers seem more interested in the Tory plot over there than they are in the speeches, but perhaps that tells us something about the ministers. We come here to debate and we expect answers and announcements from the Executive; it is not about platitudes or patting people on the back. I am not being dismissive of volunteers; I am saying to the ministers that they should take volunteering much more seriously. It has been mentioned throughout the debate that volunteers come to us every other day about core funding. We want answers. Here is a ministerial statement, but no motion on which to vote. We are speaking in a debate that gives no answers to people out there. The Executive should consider closely its agenda and not waste the Parliament's time on a debate such as this, when a members' debate on volunteering would have had the same outcome.

I thought that there might have been consensus in the debate, but the Tories have broken it. If Mr Cameron wanted his name constantly mentioned here, why did he not stand for the Scottish Parliament? It is a disgrace that the Tories mention Mr Cameron. On behalf of the many thousands of volunteers in Scotland who want an answer from the Executive, the Tories should tell Mr Cameron to stand for the Scottish Parliament and to stop electioneering. The Tories are no better than the Executive.

As other members have said, we must celebrate volunteering, but it is also important to give volunteers something to celebrate. Core funding has been raised time and again in the debate by members from all parties. I would like the minister to answer a couple of questions on funding. Strategic funding was first mentioned in 2000; then the Executive said that it hoped to report back in 2004. Now, six years down the line, we have the minister's admission that

"The Strategic Funding Review aims to improve the availability"

of funding, but that it

"will be implemented over the next year to 18 months."

Will the minister be more specific about the date? We have waited six years, only be told that the plan

"will be implemented over the next year to 18 months."

The volunteers out there want to know an exact date and they want to know exactly what is happening with strategic funding. That is what debates in the Parliament are all about: getting answers, not platitudes.

I commend the minister for considering older people in volunteering. Although, quite rightly, he mentioned youth volunteers throughout his speech—the aim of ProjectScotland is to encourage young people to begin volunteering— we all know that the vast majority of volunteers are older people. We have an ageing population and a golden opportunity to produce a strategy, so I welcome the minister's announcement that he will produce a paper. I have raised it time and again with the minister, while older volunteers have also asked for the matter to be addressed. However, we do not have a date for that report either. That makes two issues for which no date has been given: the strategic funding review and the report on a strategy for older volunteers. I would like answers on those issues.

We have missed out another great swathe of the population: disabled volunteers. The report on volunteering and disability is good; I hope that the minister will try to take its recommendations further, one of which is as simple as improving access to buildings to enable disabled people to volunteer. Another recommendation concerns engaging in information. Those are two core issues that are raised in the report—I hope that the minister will take them up.

We welcome and celebrate volunteering, but it must not replace core services. We must take it on board that that is happening in various areas. The Executive is making cuts to councils left, right and centre, and some core services that are run by councils, such as after-school care, are having to be taken over by volunteers. If that is the Executive's approach to volunteering, we will struggle dearly to get more people to volunteer. People volunteer because they get great pleasure out of it and learn from it; they do not want to be used to replace core services. I would like answers, not only to my questions but to those of other members.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

We can divide the debate into two parts. First, there were the sensible, practical and thoughtful contributions on the hard issues for the voluntary sector. Secondly, however, there were the contributions that basically said two things at the same time: that we should not be having the debate and that there are lots of hard things to be said in the debate. Christine Grahame ought to try to be a little more consistent. She should not say that we should be debating something else, then say that there are lots of things to debate. The definition of a debate should not hinge on whether there is a motion. Anybody who knows the Scottish Executive will know that it is perfectly capable of having a robust, hard and challenging discussion without a motion at the end of it.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

There is no focus.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Then we have a responsibility to give it focus. I am grateful that others in the chamber have managed to do that. [ Interruption. ]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The minister is not taking an intervention.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I wish to say something on a technical point. The SNP may wish to raise with its representatives in the Parliamentary Bureau whether there should be a subject debate. Today's debate was agreed by the bureau. The Executive members of the bureau did not insist that there should not be a motion. It is a red herring on Christine Grahame's part to raise that point.

I want to reflect on some of the hard issues that Christine Grahame could have raised and that we could recognise in relation to challenging—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The minister will not take an intervention.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Not from a sedentary position, Ms Grahame.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I wish to make a general point about volunteering. People talk about platitudes and about being patronising and so on, but there is a hard political issue here, and there are dividing lines on it in the chamber. There was a time when I would have argued that volunteering is nothing to do with Government or the state; that the state should provide and it should be a matter for the public sector to deliver for people. However, that view flew in the face of the Executive's experience and our understanding that people volunteer because it is something that they want to do. Not only can volunteers work where the state does not choose to work, but they can go to places that the state cannot reach.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the minister give way?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I ask Fiona Hyslop to let me make progress.

I had the privilege of visiting the Caladh Trust on Uist, which is a project that provides a service that the state is incapable of providing. Its volunteers did not talk to me about funding, but about the initiatives that the trust has developed. The vast majority of its funding does not come from the state. Many voluntary bodies do not talk simply about funding. When we are talking about volunteering we have to be careful that we go beyond the important and relevant debate about funding and develop it further.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the minister give way?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

If the member will let me progress, I will take her point.

We should recognise the hard questions that have been raised, such as how services are delivered and what the voluntary sector consists of. However, people should be consistent. They should not say that they welcome the voluntary sector then define social rented housing as privatisation. We have to ask a hard question: to what extent can the state control a sector that develops from human instinct? What level of state intervention should there be? I accept that an interesting and challenging question arises about the balance between funding innovation and funding success. We are wrestling with that, because we realise that the voluntary sector and volunteers can be innovative. We must have a place for that, but we must also have a place for successful projects.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

rose—

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

There are now record levels of funding for the voluntary sector, which I am sure Fiona Hyslop will welcome.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

That is interesting. Is the minister acknowledging that the Executive has only belatedly recognised the importance of volunteering? The SNP has acknowledged for some time that volunteering is essential, as have the Conservatives, to be fair. I see that the Minister for Education and Young People is in the chamber, so I point out that we should remember that the voluntary sector provides a huge number of children's services, which will now be subject to the joint inspections that are to be introduced. Why has the rest of Scotland had to wait while, by the deputy minister's admission, the Executive has played catch-up on the importance of volunteering?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I was reflecting on my 30-year journey as a political activist. Some members have not yet made such a journey. Since devolution, we have shown that we understand that Government should track and support innovation rather than impose it from the centre, and thereby support local communities. The centralists in the Parliament may wish to reflect on that. The Executive has embraced that idea and the country has made progress on that journey.

A false division can be made between big and small organisations. It is possible to have a volunteering strategy that recognises the success of ProjectScotland and at the same time accepts that we must not drive out small organisations through overwieldy and overburdensome regulation. There has been movement on that issue in relation to Disclosure Scotland and the central registered body in Scotland. The SNP is trying to knock down a straw man, because the Executive has made progress.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Surely the minister accepts that we acknowledge the movement on Disclosure Scotland and are delighted with it, although it has taken a bit longer than we hoped. The question that I asked earlier was about what has happened to the strategic funding review, for which we have waited for six years. That was a straightforward point for the minister to address, but she has not done so.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

As the member has been harassing me to take an intervention, I will respond to that. We recognise the importance of a strategic funding review and we are moving to implementation of that following the publication of the joint action plan. Nobody thinks that we should not move on that, but we have to move at the same pace as all the partners, which include the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the SCVO and the wider public and voluntary sectors. It has not taken six years—we have already made a great deal of progress. As I said, we are moving to change and slim down the grant application process. I am sure that all members accept that we do not want to create an industry that rewards those who know how to fill in application forms rather than those who can support developments.

As Cathy Peattie said, volunteering is about much more than the voluntary sector. Research from a variety of sources has shown consistently that about 25 per cent of people who volunteer say that they do so in the public sector. Volunteers work with local councils to make life better for vulnerable people such as children, older people and people with learning disabilities. We have a recognised Executive initiative in community planning to harness volunteers' energy to ensure that decisions about local communities are made by those communities.

Mary Scanlon mentioned citizens advice bureaux. We recognise their role and I accept the point that she made about communication systems, but we must put that in the context of the highest-ever funding for the voluntary sector. We should work round the system rather than expecting those who are in need to do so. However, we must recognise that, even though we want to make the disclosure process easier, address the central registered body in Scotland and make more funding available, there will still be hard questions about where the money goes. We must have public accountability in relation to disclosure. We must have confidence in the system so that vulnerable people are not made more vulnerable. We accept that tension and we want to work together to find solutions to it.

We should not listen to the SNP members with the half-empty glasses who say that nothing has been done. They sit passively and say that we need to do this and that, but the fact is that the Executive is addressing the hard issues in partnership with the voluntary sector and local communities and a great deal more will be done.

We understand that an active voluntary sector and active volunteers are challenging. Volunteers are not sitting passively waiting for things to happen; instead, throughout Scotland, they are contributing more and more, to the benefit of the people of this country.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on the place of history in the school curriculum. (S2O-8937)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am clear that history is a subject that has a huge contribution to make to the purposes of education. As such, it will continue to play an important part in the school curriculum.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I welcome the minister's firm support for history, which I assume is for the teaching of history as a discrete subject in secondaries 1 and 2. The minister will be aware that concerns remain. Will he comment on a report in today's press that the head teachers of Lochend community high school and Govan high school in Glasgow have decided to phase out the subject for first and second-year pupils as of the next academic year? Given the age profile in history departments throughout Scotland and the number of history graduates who are undertaking teacher training, is the minister confident that history has a future?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

History certainly has a future. I am not going to make it a thing of the past, as somebody once suggested I was thinking of doing.

In the Scottish education system, it is ultimately schools and local authorities that decide on the precise way in which to teach subjects and to deliver the curriculum, within the guidance that is issued. However, it is inconceivable that people could have a complete education without exposure to history. The methods of delivering that are for schools, but it is an important part of children's learning. When we have completed the curriculum review that is under way, we will issue guidance on the way in which the matter ought to be dealt with.

On the issue of the age of history teachers, we now profile the ages of all the different groups in the teaching profession as part of the annual workforce planning exercise. We use a much more sophisticated method than was used in past generations, which allows us to secure university places in advance to ensure that we have an adequate supply of teachers for all subjects. History will remain an important subject in schools and it will remain part of our workforce planning to ensure that we have an adequate supply of new teachers.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I call Murray Tosh.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer—sorry, I mean Presiding Officer. [ Laughter. ] I was repeating the refrain that I am so used to hearing from other members.

The minister clearly understands the point about the age profile of the teaching profession, but is he aware that student history teachers are now readily finding jobs and that, in some areas, shortfalls are emerging with which schools are finding it difficult to deal? Is he aware of the information that was given at a presentation yesterday in the Parliament building that colleges are cutting the number of student places that they propose to offer next year? In the light of the assurance that the minister has just given Mr Butler and that information from the colleges, will he revisit the workforce calculations and satisfy himself that they are rigorous, given the bulge in retirements that the profession faces in the next couple of years?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am happy to investigate that matter. In the workforce planning process, which is now much more sophisticated than it was in the past, we take account of peaks and troughs in the current and future age profile and try to secure the right number of teachers for certain points in time. We do not want to have an oversupply or undersupply in particular subjects, because we do not want unemployed teachers or teacher shortages. That is why there can be fluctuations in the yearly intakes. However, I am happy to look into the matter that the member raises.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I share the concerns that were raised in the previous questions. Does the minister agree that a central part of a civilised society is that people understand their history and where their country fits in, which in our case, means to British, European and world history? Fundamentally, people have to know the basic facts about their country's history because otherwise they are not civilised. Will the minister ensure that that happens here?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I agree completely with Donald Gorrie. One of the few comments that I made to my officials at the outset of the curriculum review was that young people must have a sense of how we got here. They need to understand the origins of our society and how it has developed, but they also need to understand the many lessons that history teaches through consideration of major and other world events. It is hugely important that young people know where they are, how they got here and how our society developed and that they learn the lessons of history, if we are to avoid making mistakes in the future.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is aware of the importance of play opportunities for improving child mental health and tackling obesity and antisocial behaviour in young people. (S2O-8952)

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Play is an integral part of childhood and helps children to develop skills in forming relationships, negotiation and dealing with conflict, all of which are important in emotional and social development. Research evidence suggests that children who have good emotional skills from an early age are likely to have lower rates of obesity, mental illness, teenage pregnancy and substance misuse in later life.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Is the minister aware of a 2004 report from University College London that found that free play was second only to physical education in burning off calories in children? Is he also aware of the 2001 report from the British Medical Journal that warned of an "obesity epidemic" among children? That report said:

"Opportunities for spontaneous play may be the only requirement that young children need to increase their physical activity."

Can the minister assure me that he understands the benefits that play can bring to young people and to tackling the obesity epidemic and that he will give his best efforts to securing further opportunities for Scottish children to play?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Yes. Play is extremely important and the Scottish ministers and the Executive recognise its importance in a number of areas. Of course, the issue is not just to do with play; it is also to do with matters such as physical exercise, the opportunity for games, good dietary habits and our hungry for success programme. Play is not viewed in isolation. We must think about the availability of places in which to play and about what happens in schools, particularly in nursery schools and primary 1, and we must encourage PE and games opportunities in schools.

There are a number of areas across the board in which we are anxious to develop play opportunities. Sadly, some children do not have opportunities to play because their families have forgotten how to play with them; we want to encourage change in that aspect of the matter. There are a number of objectives regarding play that we are trying to support right across the board with such things as our active schools programme and play arrangements for young children.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am pleased that the minister recognises the importance of play, but is he aware of the growing call from communities, particularly in deprived parts of Glasgow, for derelict land to be turned into play and recreation areas for their children? Does he agree that that call from local communities and people is commendable? Will he agree to meet local groups and perhaps help them to turn the derelict pieces of land into areas in which their kids can play and get physical exercise?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I touched on the importance of having and developing places in which to play and of retaining greenfield sites and open spaces. However, by and large, those are matters for local authorities. Although I am happy to talk further to Sandra White about the issue that she has raised, I think that, at that level of enterprise, it is a matter for the local authority rather than the Scottish Executive to be engaged with. However, the Executive strongly supports encouraging play and providing play opportunities in every way possible.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions have taken place at a ministerial or official level with representatives of the City of Edinburgh Council in respect of an alternative strategy for social housing in light of the no vote in the housing stock transfer ballot of tenants in December 2005. (S2O-8929)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I had a formal meeting with the executive member for community safety and housing on 22 December and a number of informal discussions thereafter. Officials from the Scottish Executive and Communities Scotland have also been in on-going dialogue with their counterparts in the council and have had two formal meetings: one in January and one earlier this week.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I know that the minister is as disappointed as I am at the outcome of the ballot, which is a significant blow to hopes for the regeneration of housing in the Sighthill area of my constituency. I am sure that he will agree that there is a pressing need to develop a plan B. I understand that a partial stock transfer of houses in particular estates is under consideration. Given that a total debt write-off by the Treasury was a feature of the original proposal for a total stock transfer, would there be a partial and proportionate debt write-off if there were a number of partial stock transfers?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Certainly, I am extremely disappointed, as I have made clear on many occasions. Clearly, it is up to the City of Edinburgh Council in the first instance to look at the options that are before it. David McLetchie raises one possible scenario. Since 2004, local authorities on the community ownership programme wanting to undertake partial transfer have been able to get the equivalent debt write-off for the section of their housing stock that they transfer, so that is certainly one of the scenarios that Edinburgh may well be considering.

As I have made clear on many occasions, I shall certainly do all I can in this new situation to support Edinburgh, but it is impossible to provide the level of investment that would have been brought into Edinburgh through community ownership. I know that councillors are thinking long and hard about the situation and not ruling out the option of partial transfer for the future.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question 4 was not lodged.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to tackle fuel poverty among low-income households with dependent children. (S2O-8964)

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The Executive is committed to eradicating fuel poverty as far as is reasonably practicable by 2016. We have already installed more than 63,000 central heating systems and insulated more than 220,000 homes, including those of a significant number of households with children. Our warm deal programme is targeted at low-income families in receipt of certain welfare benefits. In addition, we are working to eradicate child poverty by 2020 and have a number of initiatives to help families with children to find routes out of poverty, such as our child care strategy, sure start Scotland and our working for families programme.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Does the minister agree that there is a lack of detailed and reliable data to allow for the monitoring of the effect of fuel poverty on children? Can she assure me that more extensive and reliable data will be gathered on fuel-poor households with children to ensure that fuel poverty programmes reach such families in the future?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Yes. It is important that what we do is based on robust data and that we ensure that when we decide how to invest money in the best way to help families who are in fuel poverty, we do so with a proper understanding of the issues. The data can come in a number of ways through research and so on, but I recognise particularly the role of organisations that work with low-income families and the important dialogue that we have with that part of the voluntary sector, which helps to shape our actions.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I remind the minister of the 5,000 children who live in fuel-poor households with no central heating. Is the Executive considering including those households in the central heating programme that is currently under review at a cost, I understand, of £1.9 million?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

As I have indicated, we are reviewing our central heating programme, which of course is far beyond what is available in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is important that we develop that programme, particularly in relation to fuel poverty. It is clear that what we need to do for children who live in fuel poverty is to support their families out of poverty. That is why our child care strategy, sure start Scotland and our working for families programme are also important. It is important that we recognise the hard work that has been done and the significant investment that has been made. Given that the Scottish National Party's offer to the children of Scotland is independence and not taxing the oil companies, I am sure that those children will recognise the key role of the Executive in supporting them.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to encourage greater devolution of budgets and management to schools. (S2O-9003)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

We have issued revised guidance to local authorities on devolved school management. Everything that can reasonably be devolved to head teachers should be, and certainly up to 90 per cent of relevant budgets, in line with our partnership agreement commitments.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Does the minister agree that standards in our schools will be driven up only by having motivated pupils, which requires motivated teachers, which in turn requires motivated head teachers? Does he consider that head teachers in Fife will be motivated by having only 52 per cent of the education budget devolved directly to their schools? Will they be motivated by the 1.5 per cent cut in their books and equipment budget, which the Labour council has proposed?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Local decisions are matters for local councils, which will stand accountable for them. The administration in Fife has delivered a very good quality of education over many years and I am sure that that will continue into the future. Head teachers have very much welcomed what we have said about devolved school management. The circular that we issued only a couple of weeks ago, which pushed forward the whole business of devolved school management, was warmly welcomed by head teachers, who had been consulted on it beforehand.

Iain Smith is right to the extent that having motivated head teachers means having motivated teachers, which in turn will mean better motivated pupils. I am sure that that is as true in Fife as it is anywhere else.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Can the minister explain how anyone is to believe the Government's education targets? The Executive is now stating that it wants to move from an 80 per cent devolved school management target to a target of 90 per cent, despite the fact that, in huge swathes of Scotland—including Fife, as we have just heard—it is failing even to meet the initial target of 80 per cent?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

We are clear about our intentions, and we know that we can do more to liberate head teachers in what they do. We want the role of local authorities to adapt and change so that they become much more supportive in facilitating head teachers' decisions. The circular that we recently issued will drive that aim forward. We will achieve the 90 per cent devolution target that is being sought. Many local authorities have moved dramatically on this issue in recent years. We expect them to move further and I will ensure that that happens.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

The minister has mentioned the views of head teachers, so will he agree with the view that was expressed by Bill McGregor of the Headteachers Association of Scotland in Scotland on Sunday on 29 January? Bill McGregor said:

"If more money was devolved to heads and they were given the freedom to spend it then there would be a far better chance of matching resources to the needs of pupils".

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am pleased to say that Bill McGregor has very much welcomed the increases that we announced we are seeking in the extent of devolved school management, which we will secure. School budgets totalling £2.6 billion are already devolved. We have made it clear that we want head teachers to have three-year budgets, so that they can plan effectively how to use that 90 per cent devolved management. We will do everything that we can to encourage that and push it forward.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board in respect of the board's proposal to close the specialist accident and emergency unit at Ayr hospital. (S2O-8926)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

There have been a number of discussions between the Executive and NHS Ayrshire and Arran about the process for progressing the board's proposals under the review of services project. I understand from NHS Ayrshire and Arran that consultation on the emergency and unplanned care phase concluded on 2 December and that the board received a report on the consultation process at its meeting of 25 January. I am told that the board will reach a decision on the proposals at its meeting of 19 April. The proposals will then be submitted to me for my consideration.

In coming to a decision, I will want to be assured that the proposals are consistent with "Delivering for Health" and I will want to be satisfied as to the adequacy of public engagement and consultation. As with all instances of significant service change, I will consider all the information that is available to me and all the representations that are made to me before I come to a final decision.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The minister will be aware of the local government by-election in Maybole last week, in which the Labour vote melted away. The key issue in that by-election was the threat posed to accident and emergency facilities at Ayr hospital. Would the Executive care to address the concerns of the people of South Ayrshire on the issue?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

When David Kerr's report was discussed in the chamber, it was widely accepted that its conclusions were the right ones for the next 10 to 15 years of the national health service. When it comes to a local proposal to develop five community casualty units in response to community needs, in line with the Kerr report and following consultation with the community, I would rather leave it until the conclusion of the consultation before reaching any views on the matter.

It is a matter of ensuring that we make the right decisions for patients and communities, and that is what I will continue to do. In light of many aspects of our discussions, we are making the right decisions for patients and we will make our decision on this matter in due course.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The minister will be aware of the level of opposition to the proposed changes to accident and emergency services in Ayrshire, with 55,000 signatories to the petitions on the matter and a protest march planned for 25 February. How does he propose to reconcile that huge opposition to the proposed changes with the principles of the Kerr report, which emphasised the importance of noting views that were expressed in a consultation process, when the consultation did not offer the public the possibility of keeping open both accident and emergency units in Ayrshire?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

That will be a factor in the decision that I make when the reports reach me after being discussed by the local board. The Executive very much wants care to be localised and wants to ensure that patients have access to the right clinicians with the right skills as locally as possible. We must deliver that in our modern health care service.

I repeat that we should wait for the completion of the consultation process when the health board's reports reach me. After that, we should consider the evidence in the round and reach conclusions about what is in the communities' best interests and about investment for patients in those communities.

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2104)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

It is appropriate for everyone here to wish all the very best to our two curling teams from Scotland who are representing the United Kingdom and to all the other Scottish athletes who are taking part in the winter Olympics in Turin, which start tomorrow night. [Applause.]

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I echo that—we wish all our competitors the best of luck.

Following the case of the 11-year-old heroin user in Glasgow, the First Minister said last week that he wanted more children of drug-abusing parents to be taken into care. Is he therefore concerned that Glasgow City Council today proposes a £2 million cut in its support services for children who need care?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is hard to comment on Glasgow City Council's proposals before its council meeting. What I said last week was very clear. Everything that I have read since last Thursday in several detailed reports of individual cases reinforces my strong view that the current balance in the system is wrong and that the provisions that should guarantee the exchange of information between the health services, schools, police forces and local authority social work departments are inadequate and are not being competently administered consistently enough throughout the country.

I am absolutely determined that for vulnerable children—not just those of drug-addicted parents, although we think of them in particular at this time—we ensure that agencies work effectively together. We gave the agencies three years to get the system right and we will inspect them now to check whether they have done that. I am also determined that we should review the policy and, if necessary, the legislation to ensure that children always come first, regardless of other circumstances.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

It is all very well for the First Minister to make policy on the hoof, but does he not also have a responsibility to ask whether local authorities can deliver on his policy, given the funding crisis that they face? Should he not be concerned about a proposed 15 per cent reduction in residential care places for vulnerable kids? Should he not also be concerned about the removal of teachers from nursery schools and the replacement of a daily meals-on-wheels service for the elderly with a delivery of frozen meals once a week? Is he aware that such cuts in Glasgow—many more are proposed today—are being replicated all over Scotland? In most council areas, such cuts are to be accompanied by inflation-busting council tax rises. Will he take the opportunity to apologise to the people of Scotland for breaking his promise that council taxes this year would rise by no more than 2.5 per cent?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not agree that policy was being made on the hoof last Thursday. We said just over three years ago that we would give local authorities and the other agencies that are involved three years to put their child protection services in order, after which we would inspect them to ensure that they had done so. I am certain that we will fulfil that commitment in the coming months.

Secondly, it has become increasingly clear in Scotland that when the provisions of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 are being implemented, they are being interpreted in a way that leaves vulnerable children in vulnerable situations rather than leading to their being put into other forms of care. That serious development has taken place over a long period. As I said, policy is not being made on the hoof. I absolutely assure members that I am even more determined than I was last Thursday to see things through.

I will not comment on council meetings in Scotland that have not even taken place. Local authorities must answer for their budgets. It is already clear that some local authorities in Scotland will manage to keep their council tax rises below 2.5 per cent while other local authorities' council tax rises will be above that figure. People throughout Scotland will ask why some councils can keep council tax rises below 2.5 per cent while others cannot, and those people deserve an answer.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will not most councils in Scotland have council tax increases that are well above the rate of inflation? Whatever the First Minister might say, is it not the case that most people are facing service cuts and council tax rises? Could not such a double whammy have been avoided if the First Minister had listened to the Parliament's Finance Committee, which includes members from many parties, when it identified a funding shortfall? Has not Labour achieved nine in a row—nine inflation-busting council tax hikes—since it took office? That is a shameful record. Surely it is time for the First Minister to stop arguing about which branch of the Labour Party is to blame and to say sorry to folk throughout Scotland who will feel the pain of council tax hikes.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not recall Miss Sturgeon saying sorry to anybody last year when Falkirk Council and Angus Council had the highest council tax increases in the country. I am sure that we would welcome her apologising for those increases.

If we want to have a serious debate, we must have serious information that backs up what we say. There will be a 3.9 per cent increase in the local authority grant throughout Scotland and more than £400 million on top of the more than £7 billion Government grant that local authorities already receive. The reality is that some local authorities have managed to ensure that their council tax increases will be below 2.5 per cent, but the figures for other local authorities will be far higher than that, and those authorities must say why that is so. The people of Scotland will ask why those authorities cannot keep their council tax increases below 2.5 per cent, but others can.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I point out to the First Minister that Falkirk Council has the second-lowest council tax and Angus Council has the fourth-lowest council tax in mainland Scotland. Perhaps he should tell his Labour colleagues to consider what those councils are doing right.

Does not the First Minister realise that the council tax will have increased by 60 per cent since 1997? Does not he understand that such a tax is unfair and bears no relation to people's ability to pay and that, as a result, massive hikes hit pensioners and hard-pressed families hardest? When will he stop making excuses? He should wake up and do something.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We know about the considerable increases in local authorities' budgets as a result of central Government funding in the past few years. There have even been increases of more than 10 per cent in real terms. Such increases have made a huge difference to the provision of services throughout Scotland and are an additional reason why local authorities should be more responsible in setting their council tax rises for the coming year. This year, local authorities have again received an increase in the Government grant that is above the rate of inflation and have again received the largest share of the budget of the national Government in Scotland. They have a duty to behave responsibly when they set local budgets. If some local authorities in Scotland can keep council tax increases below 2.5 per cent, other local authorities must say why they cannot do likewise.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2105)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I expect to see the Prime Minister again soon. We will discuss issues that are important to Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

While hundreds of thousands of households throughout Scotland have anxiously awaited confirmation of their council tax increases, they have watched a public squabble between the Executive and councils. The Executive says to councils that they receive enough money from the Executive and that they should use it better, and the councils argue that the Executive ring fences a significant chunk of what it gives them and that it makes them do more and more with what is left. The real concern for the public is the size of the bill. Does the First Minister accept any responsibility for those increases?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I pose the same question to local authorities and to Scotland that I just put to the chamber. There is a case to be answered. Those authorities that have not managed to keep their council tax increase below 2.5 per cent have to answer the question, "If others can do it, why can't you?" In that context, those councils that received above-average increases in Government grant and which today impose increases at double the rate of inflation must answer the question why some authorities in Scotland can receive below-average increases in Government grant and still stay below the 2.5 per cent increase in council tax. Those important questions must be answered locally, but there are questions that can be asked nationally, too.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It is precisely this sterile blame game that the public find so infuriating—while the squabble rages, the public pay. Surely we have to move the debate on.

Does the First Minister agree that after nearly seven years of devolution, a reappraisal of the role, function and accountability of local government is overdue?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That time might be fast approaching. However, it is also important to take a stand on the issues of today. If Miss Goldie agrees with Ms Sturgeon that we should simply back down in the face of cries from local government for more and more resources, without councils exerting any pressure on their own budgets, I do not agree with her.

We have a duty as the national Government to fund local services, particularly where we specify particular improvements. We have fully funded the agreed settlement on teachers' pay and conditions; additional teachers and other improvements in education; free personal care for the elderly; the concessionary fares scheme, with which local authorities have been involved recently; and a number of other areas.

We have taken our responsibilities seriously, but I take my responsibilities very seriously in saying to local authorities that following on from that funding, they have to keep their council tax rises low. I repeat the question: if there are authorities in Scotland that can stay below 2.5 per cent, even within the current system, why cannot the others?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

With reference to accountability, about which the First Minister was remarkably taciturn, I suspect that it suits him and wasteful local councils to hide behind the smokescreen of confusion. As a first step towards dispelling that confusion and restoring local accountability, will he offer a radical review of how he applies ring fencing?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Given the years and years not just of ring fencing, but of capping, specifying budgets and introducing new rules that came from a Government that was actively supported by Miss Goldie and whose return is desired by Mr Fraser, I have to say that I am proud of the actions that we have taken in this Labour and Liberal Democrat partnership Government since devolution to free up the rules on local authority capital expenditure and on local authorities themselves so that they can make local decisions on finance to ensure that they take the lead with the strategic role that they play locally.

However, with those changes come responsibilities to the local electorate who pay the tax locally. Local authorities must ensure that their budgets are efficient, that they keep rises to a minimum and that resources are targeted at front-line services. That is the challenge to local authorities in that freed-up regime.

We will continue to make progress on relaxing the rules and on giving authorities more responsibility, but they need to respond positively and deliver the efficient budgets and low council tax rises that people demand.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We come to supplementary questions. I will use my discretion to allow questions on the Shirley McKie case, but I warn members that the case is still technically active.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the First Minister now order a comprehensive independent inquiry into the Shirley McKie case and all the issues surrounding it? Does he not agree that the case has thrown up some issues, not least those relating to justice, the now world-wide lack of confidence in the Scottish fingerprint service and the fact that the Executive has ended up losing £2 million that could have been saved if the case had been settled at the right time?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

First of all, a number of important investigations into elements of this case and, indeed, into the fingerprint provisions in Scotland have proved that the fingerprint evidence used in this country is reliable; that we can ensure that it can be used in the Scottish justice system; and that the people involved deal with it honestly and accurately. In this case, it is quite clear—and this was accepted in the settlement that was announced on Tuesday—that an honest mistake was made by individuals. I believe that all concerned have accepted that.

I think that the substantial financial settlement that was reached was appropriate and that it is right to ensure that the family are compensated for what they have gone through. However, it is entirely wrong for politicians and parliamentarians in Scotland to use this situation to run down at home and abroad a justice system in which we can have confidence.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Is the First Minister aware of my concerns that, despite this week's settlement, only one side of this campaign has ever been given any publicity, and that four public servants—three are my constituents and one is represented by Des McNulty—have had their reputations blackened, their families hurt and their careers ruined by a campaign of manipulative misinformation? How does the First Minister think that it is in the public interest to award £750,000 to a policewoman who has been cleared of perjury while the lives of four individuals, who have done nothing other than serve the public interest, have had their lives turned upside down?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am not going to comment on individuals on either side of the situation. However, I say clearly that a settlement that I believe is fair and right in the circumstances has been reached with the McKie family. It recognises that an honest mistake was made and that they deserve compensation. All sides have accepted that. I believe that we in Scotland need to ensure that we move on from this and that the quality of work in the Scottish fingerprint service and the changes that have already been made in its administration are built upon. At the same time, we must ensure that the integrity and quality of our justice system and our confidence both in it and in its fingerprint service are maintained at home and abroad. I hope that everyone in the chamber will want to help in that respect.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-2118)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I meet the Secretary of State for Scotland regularly to discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Three years ago, almost to the day, the Executive parties voted down my Organic Farming Targets (Scotland) Bill. At that time, the Executive made a commitment to increase the area of organically farmed land in Scotland. However, we are now in 2006 and, instead of meeting my 20 per cent target, the area of organic farmed land in Scotland has decreased, not increased. That means more chemicals in the environment, poorer water quality, less wildlife and more pesticides in our food. What is the First Minister going to do to fulfil the commitment that his Executive made to the Parliament and the electorate in 2003?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am not sure about the position with regard to acreage, and I am happy to ensure that Mr Harper receives a written statement on the matter. However, with the commitment that has been made by Ross Finnie and other ministers and with my own personal commitment, I am absolutely certain that provisions in Scotland, including the organic aid scheme, have been increased and improved over recent years. That commitment is important not only to the environment—although that is important in itself—but to the future of farming. Indeed, the quality and reputation of Scottish farming benefit from the natural produce that we in Scotland boast about at home and abroad.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Farmers who are lucky enough to get on the organic aid scheme might get a little bit more money, but the First Minister is missing the point. Organic farming delivers for the environment, clean water, wildlife and chemical-free soils, yet the Executive has slashed the overall budget for organic farming from £8.44 million last year to £2.6 million this year—the budget is a quarter of what it was. The Executive is reneging on its commitments. What will the First Minister say to all those farmers who will be denied financial help to farm land organically because of his dismal overall budget?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am not completely up to date with all the details, but I know that no applicant has been denied access to the scheme and that the resources that are available to those who apply are increasing. The scheme is an opportunity to expand organic farming in Scotland, and we want to encourage more farmers and others in Scotland to exploit it. We want to encourage organic farming for the environmental reasons that Mr Harper raised but also because increasing support for and participation in organic farming can improve the reputation of Scottish farming at home and abroad. That is why we remain committed to it. I do not recognise the picture that Mr Harper paints, and I will be happy to ensure that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development sends him a detailed response.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

To ask the First Minister whether discussions have taken place between the Scottish Executive and Scottish Gas in respect of proposed utility charge increases. (S2F-2110)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Ministers maintain regular dialogue with a range of energy companies to discuss how to protect vulnerable customers.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I am sure that the First Minister shares my concern over the effect that fuel price rises of possibly up to 25 per cent will have on many residents in my Dumfries constituency. It will affect people on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, and those in low-income households. Will he encourage the utility companies to extend programmes such as the winter rebate and here to help, which assist vulnerable households? Will he ensure that those schemes are publicised as widely as possible? Further, does he agree that the current situation demonstrates the perils of overreliance on one source of energy and the need to develop a balanced and self-sustaining energy policy that should not exclude the possible contribution of nuclear energy?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I urge all the utility companies to become involved in the schemes that Elaine Murray mentions and to support and expand them. I also urge them, in advance of their making final decisions or of confirming those decisions publicly, to think again about the scale of the increases that were being suggested earlier this week.

The Executive remains committed to its energy efficiency and improvement programmes in Scotland. They have led the way in the United Kingdom and have ensured that central heating is available for more old-age pensioners in Scotland. The warm deal scheme has also ensured that many low-income families in Scotland have better-insulated, more energy-efficient homes, which has helped to lift them out of fuel poverty. Those schemes have been a big success, and we are building on them, with further announcements due from the minister soon. We will ensure that we remain committed to them.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Given that a gas company such as Scottish Power has just posted a 95 per cent rise in profits this quarter, does the First Minister agree that the proposed 25 per cent increase in the price of gas is unjustified? If so, will he intercede to ensure that there is an immediate price freeze? Will he also accept the case for providing Scotland's pensioners—who are at risk from hypothermia this winter—with free fuel?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Colin Fox started well, but he fell away towards the end. I absolutely agree with him that the utility companies need to think again about such proposed large increases. I do not pinpoint particular companies, because the figures are as yet just speculation. I hope that all the companies involved will think very hard about the scale of the increases that were suggested earlier this week. However, the answer is not for Governments to start running companies or setting utilities prices. Such a system would be entirely wrong, and it has failed in the past elsewhere. However much Colin Fox may want to urge such a system on Scotland, I doubt that the people of Scotland want it from him.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has made an assessment of the impact of life expectancy on economic performance. (S2F-2119)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The link between life expectancy—in particular, healthy life expectancy—and economic performance is complex and no single, quantified assessment has yet been carried out. However, I have no doubt that more Scots living longer, healthier and more active lives is good for our economy; more important, it is good for individuals, for families, for communities and for our society.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Does the First Minister agree that much improved health promotion will help to release Scotland's hidden talent and that population trends make that policy all the more important?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is clear that our work on health improvement is essential both for the individuals concerned and for our economy. We are taking action to reduce the number of Scots who smoke—we hope that, over time, a dramatic reduction in that number will be achieved—to tackle alcohol abuse, to improve eating habits and to encourage more people to be involved in exercise. All those measures are about personal responsibility far more than they are about the responsibilities of the state. Such action can make a difference to individual families, to communities and—in the longer term—to our economy.

It is interesting that the report that was published earlier this week highlights life expectancy and health as areas in which Scotland still lags behind comparable nations, in spite of the improvements that have been made. If we take the chance to make a further step change on that, our economy will prosper as a result.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what progress is being made in connecting renewable energy generators to the national grid. (S2F-2114)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I apologise for the fact that my answer is long, but I thought that Mr Morgan might appreciate some detail.

Our Government is committed to meeting its ambitious renewables targets from a mixed portfolio of generation. That ambition will rely on effective management of applications for grid connection. The introduction of the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements included a deadline of the end of December 2004 for applications to be guaranteed grid connection by April 2006. That led to a rush to apply and the development of a long queue. We would certainly be concerned if advanced projects—those for which planning consent had been obtained and the construction of which was ready to begin—were to be delayed unnecessarily as a result. I can confirm to Mr Morgan that we have been in touch with the grid operator, with the regulator, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, and with others to ensure that such grid connections are dealt with sensibly, and that we will maintain our interest in the issue.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The First Minister alluded to the fact that some projects have been given dates for getting connected to the grid of as far away as 2013. If that rate of progress is maintained, the Executive's highly commendable renewables strategy will not succeed.

At the weekend, an Executive spokesman said:

"We hope that the grid queuing system can be revised".

If we are not to be subject to the price increases and the reliance on gas that Elaine Murray mentioned, does the Executive not need to do a bit more than just hope?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We have made suggestions to the bodies involved and have had a dialogue with them about how they could improve the system that they have put in place, especially for those projects that might get connected after 2006, some of which have been told, as Alasdair Morgan said, that it will take a number of years for them to get connected. It is right for us to give the bodies that are responsible a chance to respond and to say what they will do to improve the system. I believe that improvements can be made.

The main concentration of initial applications will almost certainly be to do with wind energy, but we want a proper balance to be achieved with biomass and with other forms of renewables. Ensuring a better mix of renewables technologies and sources will involve a rearranging of the queuing system. That is what we are seeking to achieve. The fact that we hope that we have made some progress with that is a good thing rather than a bad thing.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Given the difficulties that are being experienced with the national grid, if there was to be a massive investment of public money in energy in Scotland, does the First Minister agree that the project that would give the best return on that investment would be a sub-sea cable down the west coast, which would allow us to exploit our enormous marine energy resource?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Issues arise to do with how energy generated in the islands can be transmitted down the west coast, and issues arise to do with connection to the wider grid. All those issues are under detailed consideration; they are being discussed with the companies involved and with the United Kingdom Government. I would be very happy to ensure that the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning is able to inform Parliament—perhaps through a submission to the Scottish Parliament information centre—of the current position of those discussions. That would be helpful for everybody.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Enterprise, Lifelong Learning and Transport

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Question 1 has not been lodged and question 2 has been withdrawn.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of the recent closures of information technology manufacturing plants, what steps are being taken to encourage businesses to generate well-paid jobs and how such steps compare with those being taken in England, Ireland and Norway. (S2O-8996)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Both "The Framework for Economic Development in Scotland" and "A Smart, Successful Scotland" focus on raising productivity levels as a means of increasing economic opportunities and generating well-paid jobs. The Executive's investment in infrastructure, health, education and skills, along with our commitment to reduce business rates and reform the planning system, is creating an environment where businesses compete effectively in the global economy.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

If the situation is as good as that, why, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, do a third of people who are working in Scotland earn less than £6.50 an hour? Can the minister explain how the decision to exclude the earnings of those who work less than 18 hours a week from the annual survey of hourly earnings will aid his efforts to monitor progress and allay my fears that, for many people, this country is becoming an increasingly low-wage economy?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

We will concentrate on raising productivity levels and increasing employment opportunities as a means of lifting people out of poverty. A key feature of that economic strategy is the minimum wage, which we set in our first year in power—that is, the Labour Government in Westminster set it in its first year in office. Allied to that, of course, are the tax credits that lift the tax burden from many of our low-paid workers.

We have the highest levels of employment in the European Union and unemployment rates are at an historic low. Obviously, we cross-checked our policy, which is set out in "A Smart, Successful Scotland", with comparable strategies in Europe and beyond. I would argue that there is little strategic difference between our policy and those of the Norwegians and the Irish—