Scottish Parliament, 16 March 2006

384 contributions from 81 members. The official report.

Official Report 16 March 2006

Public Transport Projects

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a statement by Tavish Scott on an update on major public transport projects. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

When I took office as Minister for Transport and Telecommunications, I took responsibility for the greatest sustained investment in Scotland's transport system in decades. Transport spending has increased substantially since devolution. In 1999, transport spending was £345 million. Since then, as a result of our commitment to and focus on investment and the transfer of new rail powers to Scottish ministers, the transport budget has risen to £1,649 million in 2006-07 and £1,694 million in 2007-08.

The programme of public transport investment has arisen from the major commitments on infrastructure investment in our partnership agreement. It is a major opportunity for Scotland to improve our infrastructure, improve our economy and improve the travel choices for passengers and freight.

We need to be bold to make the projects happen, but we must have realistic and credible delivery plans to turn the plans into reality. I stated in Parliament last year that I wanted our capital transport plan for new rail and road investment to deliver on time and against budget.

I am here today to update Parliament on progress. Before I turn to the programme of major public transport projects, I will say a little about progress on the significant investments that we are making in improving strategic roads. Our major roads programme is aimed at reducing congestion on the network, tackling pinch points and completing the strategic motorway and road links. The investment supports the Government's principal objective of growing Scotland's economy.

We will build the Aberdeen western peripheral road. Detailed engineering and environmental work is now progressing, with the aim of narrowing down the line of the road corridor next month. I understand the obvious worries of local people and can say today that the Stonehaven link will not be an upgrade of the existing Netherley road. Where the corridor reaches Milltimber, we are working hard to reduce the impact of the route. I can confirm that the route will not affect any properties in Peterculter village and that where the route passes Milltimber village no options are being considered to the east of the route that was previously consulted on. We will bring forward draft road orders at the end of the year.

The contract for the new Kincardine bridge was let earlier this month. Construction work is expected to be under way by the summer and we will complete the bridge in 2008. Proposals for upgrading the A8 between Baillieston and Newhouse will be published in the next few weeks.

I expect the major roads programme to hit budgets and be delivered on time.

For our major public transport projects, I am establishing—for the first time—a rigorous baseline against which I expect projects to be delivered. I will today present a programme that is realistic, affordable and deliverable. It is all about delivery. We need to be clear about what stands in the way of delivery and must overcome those obstacles. That is the challenge that I have laid down to Transport Scotland, the promoters of the major projects and the rail industry as a whole. It is a challenge that I expect them to meet.

In presenting the programme today, I tackle one of the perennial problems that face the construction industry as a whole and the rail industry in particular: establishing the expected price of a scheme. By stating today the expected outturn cost of schemes, I will allow all those involved to focus clearly on delivering to budget. Furthermore, our transport and works bill aims to improve the process for the future.

This is an ambitious programme. We must ensure that overall it remains affordable and provides value for money as we move through its delivery. We are committed to applying best practice in procurement, to setting challenging milestones and to making best use of the gateway review process. The focus is not only on individual projects. I have asked officials to consider the affordability of the programme as a whole and how it would be affected if in future there were any changes to the timing or the costs of the individual elements of the programme.

Rail devolution gives us a new option for funding rail projects. It offers an alternative form of public-private partnership, working in strategic partnership with Network Rail. Such an approach makes the best use of Network Rail's expertise in delivering rail infrastructure enhancements. However, as with any public-private partnership project, we need to be convinced that that method of procurement offers best value for money.

I will outline where we are on the individual projects, state what we believe to be a realistic target and highlight any changes from information given to Parliament previously.

The Larkhall to Milngavie rail project has relieved a pinch point on the northern Glasgow rail network and opened up economic opportunities for the people of Larkhall. We have delivered the first new branch line in 25 years by reopening the Larkhall branch. The new line was delivered by a partnership between Strathclyde Passenger Transport and Network Rail. It took a long time to get the project moving, but once we did so the project came in on time and on budget. In the 70 days for which the Larkhall line has been open, 68,749 people have used it, which is 34 per cent above projected passenger numbers. The fact that a new rail line has been opened and passenger numbers have increased shows that the investment is already paying dividends.

At a time when other parts of the United Kingdom have struggled to deliver enhancements, we have shown that we in Scotland are capable of breaking the mould and getting things done. We must build on that. I want the completion of projects on time and on budget to be the norm, not the exception.

Our investment in the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line will connect Alloa to the rail network; improve the efficiency of the transport of coal to Longannet power station, which generates 20 per cent of Scotland's electricity; and free up space on the Forth rail bridge for additional passenger services between Fife and Edinburgh.

Work began on site last October and continues on schedule. Clackmannanshire Council and TIE have set themselves challenging targets for completing the railway by summer 2007 at a cost within the range of £65 million to £70 million. The range is due to mine workings and land valuation. Those targets are achievable, but they will require the project team to work together extremely effectively. I welcome the team's appetite for the challenge.

The Waverley station project is a flagship that is within Scotland's capital but is for Scotland. The station is already at full capacity during peak times, yet passenger growth is forecast to continue. I strongly welcome that growth, but capacity needs to be addressed. Our investment will add new platforms and allow more trains per hour. The trains will be on time, because punctuality will be one of the key advantages of the investment. The project improves Waverley station for passengers, including the elderly and the disabled. The project was on site in January and will be completed by December 2007, on time and within a budget of £150 million. The Waverley station project, funded from additional resources secured in the rail review, is proof that we can work effectively with Network Rail in Scotland.

Edinburgh's trams are a strategic investment in tackling congestion in Scotland's capital. The interchange at Haymarket station will be particularly important for commuters and for visitors from outside Edinburgh. I have confirmed our commitment to contribute £375 million plus inflation. I expect that to add up to a contribution of between £450 million and £500 million towards the capital cost of the tramline from Ocean Terminal to Edinburgh airport. The challenge for the promoter and construction manager is to deliver efficiencies against that budget. The gas, electricity, water and telecoms diversions needed for the project are expected to start this autumn, with project completion in early 2011. The City of Edinburgh Council's original target of the end of 2009 has had to be moved back as it underestimated the length of the private bill process.

Transport Scotland is working closely with Network Rail to deliver the Airdrie to Bathgate line as a real alternative to car travel on the A8 and M8 corridor. The investment will provide a public transport choice, particularly for people in North Lanarkshire and West Lothian. I am pleased to announce that we reached agreement with Network Rail earlier this week to allow work to begin on doubling the track east of Bathgate at the turn of the year. I am pleased to be bringing the project forward to the earliest possible date so that we deliver benefits to passengers as soon as we can. The project will be delivered within a budget for completion of £300 million to £375 million in outturn prices. Overall, the project is on target for delivery in 2010. That target reflects the significant scale of the project and the parliamentary timetable.

Scotland's airports need to be part of the country's rail network, so the investment in airport rail links will be good for visitors, good for business and good for Scots. They will also be good news for the airports themselves as they will improve their competitive position and provide accessible links to many destinations throughout Scotland. We attach great importance to BAA's co-operation with and contribution to that work and we are taking steps to secure that co-operation and contribution. We hope that a deal on Glasgow airport will be concluded shortly. Further discussions on Edinburgh airport will continue.

The Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill was introduced in January and the Edinburgh airport rail link bill is due to be introduced by the promoter, TIE, today and published tomorrow. The Glasgow airport rail link is on target to cost £170 million to £210 million and the cost for the Edinburgh airport rail link will be £550 million to £650 million in outturn prices. We do not expect any real-terms cost increases on the projects. We expect Glasgow's airport rail link to be delivered by the end of 2010 and Edinburgh's by the end of 2011, but the promoters are working to deliver them up to a year earlier. I welcome and support that drive, but we need to be realistic. We expect preparatory work that does not require parliamentary approval to start early in 2007.

The Waverley railway partnership's objective, and ours, is to reconnect the Borders to the rail network. We will contribute £115 million in 2002 prices and we expect the uplift for indexation on that contribution to bring the figure up to £155 million. Work on the scheme is also expected to start early in 2007 and the rail link is expected to be delivered by the end of 2011, but the Waverley railway partnership is working to deliver it more than a year earlier.

We must set out realistic, deliverable and affordable plans to enhance Scotland's railway. We expect the whole of the rail industry—Network Rail, First ScotRail, local authorities, SPT, the new regional transport partnerships, Transport Scotland, consultants and contractors—to work together to deliver enhancements. New engagement is needed to achieve that and this is the industry's chance to show that it has changed. For too long, rail transport has been thought of as the poor cousin. That is no longer the case. Rail transport can be a driver of economic growth in Scotland; it can move people and freight across the country safely, efficiently and affordably.

I have outlined the Government's current committed major transport infrastructure programme up to 2012. The programme can be funded from within our overall budget. All the projects that I have mentioned can be delivered by 2011. That was our commitment in the infrastructure investment plan. Seventy per cent of our investment over the 10-year capital plan will be spent on public transport. So far, one railway line has been completed and two are under construction. We are already delivering.

We look further to the future through the national transport strategy and the strategic projects review. We will consider Scotland's transport investment needs for 2012 to 2022 and beyond. There is no slowing down in our determination to look to Scotland's future. Scotland's rail investment programme is the envy of the rest of Britain. I want Scotland to be the place where people come to see how rail projects are delivered.

I look to all concerned to step up and deliver.

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

I thank the minister and his office for providing an advance copy of his statement this morning. I also congratulate the Scottish Executive on producing a ministerial statement that does not appear to have been leaked to the press and media in advance. That may be because it has nothing new to say.

There are many projects about which I would like to raise questions, but I will confine myself to one: the Waverley station project. Is the minister's statement significant for what it does not say on that rather than for what it says? Up to this morning, the Executive was committed in principle to supporting work on the project in two phases, but the minister's statement referred only to the work in phase 1. That work will allow an increase from 24 trains per hour to 28, but professionals expect that extra capacity to be exhausted by 2012. Phase 2 is required if there is to be a further increase to 32 trains per hour, but this morning's statement excludes any reference to phases 1 and 2. They have been airbrushed out as though they were former members of Mr Stalin's politburo.

Has the Scottish Executive quietly abandoned its plans for phase 2 of the Waverley station project? In view of the fact that new lines—the Airdrie to Bathgate line, the Borders rail link, the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line and the Edinburgh airport rail link—are to be opened, when does the minister estimate that the increased capacity that will be provided by phase 1 of the Waverley station project will be exhausted? Does he agree that additional capacity can be provided almost immediately through cost-effective measures such as longer trains with selective door openings?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I welcome Mr Ewing's support for the statement. I am sure that it was only an oversight on his part that he did not reflect on the fact that, when I came into post, I said to the Local Government and Transport Committee, which is convened by Bristow Muldoon, that I would bring to the Parliament a full, updated report on the position of the capital investment programme as it affects transport. That is what I am doing and I am surprised that Mr Ewing does not seem to think that parliamentary scrutiny of the Government's capital investment programme is appropriate, because he argued in the committee that it was appropriate. Dear me, he has not leaked his questions in advance to the press, which is unlike the normal state of affairs.

The £150 million that we are investing in Waverley station now is in our capital programme. It is what we said that we would do and we are now doing it. That investment will provide significant enhancements to the rail network throughout Scotland. In particular, it will help the performance of the Fife service and help commuters and other passengers to enter Edinburgh daily. It is an important investment for the future.

The second part of Mr Ewing's question was about what would be done in future. To determine that, we will shortly consult on a national transport strategy and have already begun work on the strategic projects review. I envisage that, in that assessment and in continuing discussions with the rail industry and others, we will consider future investments, the importance of freight and how to tackle capacity issues as they arise. It is also important that we assess the rail network as a whole now, so that we find out where the pinch points are and what investment is needed to tackle those pinch points. That work will be taken forward and we will also inform the Parliament as appropriate.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Since 1999, we have heard many promises from the Executive about transport projects, but precious little has been delivered. We have had seven wasted years in which not enough has been done and, as a result, we are falling behind with our infrastructure, which is important if we are to grow our economy. The Enterprise and Culture Committee's report on business growth, which was published this week, called on the Executive to ensure that its expenditure is targeted on areas that will deliver maximum economic benefit. The statement seems to contain nothing about the relative priority of the various projects that were mentioned, or of others that were not, and no assessment of their impact on economic growth relative to that of trunk road and motorway improvements. What steps is the minister taking to assess the impact of each of the schemes on economic growth and to prioritise those that will provide the greatest benefit?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Last night, I read with interest the weighty tome that is the Enterprise and Culture Committee's report and I agreed with much of it. It is a substantial piece of work and a useful contribution to the debate on economic growth within and outwith Scotland. I welcome the report's recommendations on transport, as they have some useful pointers for us all. There is a programme of major transport projects that were noted in the partnership agreement and we are taking those forward to delivery. When they are fully delivered, they will make an enormous impact on the whole of Scotland and particularly on our economic sustainability. The projects have been assessed, and will continue to be assessed, against those criteria. Today's statement provides an update on the projects, because that is what Parliament asked of me.

Laying out the delivery timetable has been important. The business community has raised justifiable concerns with me about our ability to say when projects will come on stream, how they will tackle pinch points in the road and rail networks, and how they will help the movement of freight on road and rail. We have therefore laid out the timetable as clearly as we could, using rigorous guidelines and rigorous assessments of budgets, and describing the direction of travel and the milestones we have reached.

I make the same point to Mr Fraser that I made to Mr Ewing: the strategic projects review will include an economic assessment of projects. It will look to the future and will continue to consider the pinch points in Scotland's transport corridors and how we can make the best and most strategic investments to assist the growth of the economy.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I welcome the minister's statement and the continued record investment in transport infrastructure.

I firmly welcome the news that the minister has reached agreement with Network Rail on twin-tracking the existing Bathgate to Airdrie line. That will make a substantial difference, but does the minister have a completion date for that part of the project?

In relation to the Edinburgh airport rail link, I understand that BAA has expressed concern to the promoter on engineering issues and on costs. Have those concerns been resolved?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I will answer the question on the Edinburgh airport rail link first. Discussions continue on the points that Mr Muldoon raises. I hope that all parties—in what is, by any standards, an extremely complex project—will come together with their particular sets of skills and expertise.

The construction of the T5 terminal at Heathrow is also complex, as it involves tunnelling and various other construction issues. More than 40 companies have been brought together in a strategic approach to project management that has been essential to delivering the project on time and—as far as I know—on budget on an extremely difficult site. That is no mean achievement; I want to bring similar skills to bear in what will be an important and strategic investment in Scotland's future.

I do not have the answer today to Mr Muldoon's question on the timescale for the Airdrie to Bathgate line, but I will be happy to write to him with an answer. I certainly hope that we can make progress as quickly as possible.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the minister's update on public transport projects, underlining as it does the Scottish Executive's commitment to improving travel options.

Two weeks ago, the minister made a statement explaining the importance of improved public transport to easing congestion on the Forth road bridge. Will he consider supporting an expansion of the park-and-ride scheme to go further up the M90 to include Halbeath, Kinross and even Perth, and to go east to Kirkcaldy?

In relation to improving rail transport, will the minister use his good offices to bring to an early completion the extension to the park-and-ride facility at Kirkcaldy station?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I will be happy to look into both those issues. In addition to making improvements to connections and capacity—including increased platform lengths and the provision of trains of a size suitable for peak times—it is essential that we improve the ease of access to stations and alternative facilities if we are to ensure that more passengers can use rail and therefore move away from using their cars. With Network Rail and First ScotRail, we plan to provide an enhanced park-and-ride programme. I will also be happy to consider the points that Mr Arbuckle made about park-and-ride facilities on the motorway network.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The minister will be used by now to hearing criticisms of his transport policies from this quarter. Our criticisms are generally that investment in public transport is nice but not enough if it happens alongside ever-increasing road traffic.

Given the ever-increasing road traffic in Glasgow and the ever-increasing air pollution that results, and given the Executive's reputation as an advocate of Europe's biggest urban motorway project, in Glasgow, does the minister understand the sense of disappointment that many people in Glasgow will feel because his statement contained not one word about the Glasgow crossrail scheme? Many people in Aberdeen will be similarly disappointed that there was not one word about the Aberdeen crossrail scheme either. When can we expect the minister to get to his feet to tell us that he backs those projects with the same enthusiasm with which he backs the M74 extension?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The biggest sense of disappointment comes from Mr Harvie's question, which is always the same. He never gives the Administration any credit for investing 70 per cent of our transport moneys, over a 10-year plan, in public transport. Not once have the Greens ever given any credit to the Government for what it is doing. I am disappointed that a party that claims to care about the environment—although the claim is pretty hollow at times—never gives any credit to a Government that both cares and delivers.

Mr Harvie just was not listening. I made it clear that the programme that I spoke about today was the programme that was in our partnership agreement, that was in our 10-year capital investment plan and that was in the infrastructure plan that will take us up to 2012. We are delivering on the programme and we were asked to report to Parliament on where we were on budgets and timescales. That is what we are doing today.

If Mr Harvie wants to ask about Glasgow crossrail and Aberdeen crossrail in the context of the strategic projects review, that will be fine—but that is where those projects will be considered. We have always said that that is how those projects will be taken forward.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I ask the minister for some joined-up thinking on Glasgow. He will be aware of the plans for a new children's and maternity hospital within the campus of the Southern general hospital, which will create one of the largest hospital campuses in Europe, never mind in Scotland. Given the present woefully inadequate transport links, will the minister give a commitment today to consider plans to create dedicated travel links for the public to and from that super-hospital? Does he agree that that type of project would be effective and would be much more welcome in Glasgow than the spending of £500 million on an unwanted motorway link on the M74?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I do not agree with Mr Sheridan's final point on the M74, but I certainly agree with his point about integrated transport planning for primary health care facilities and new hospitals. The Minister for Health and Community Care and I have already had some discussions and the national transport strategy will ensure that the planning of health services is considered from a transport point of view. Mr Sheridan makes an entirely fair point about that. Different Government portfolios will plan how transport solutions for local people can tie in with major investments in our health service, such as the one that Mr Sheridan describes.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I welcome the commitment in the minister's statement to take forward a number of transport proposals. However, just to show that we notice the budget figures, I point out that since previous ministerial statements there has been a change on the Borders rail link—indexation was introduced last March by Nicol Stephen—which has taken the price to more than £150 million, for a project that is highly marginal in its cost effectiveness. It is also fair to point out that the initial commitment to the trams was £375 million for two trams, but now we have £400-odd million for one tram. The task for the minister is to convince us that budgets are being managed effectively and that projects are being considered effectively.

On Mr Sheridan's point, there are two practical propositions to improve links to the Southern general hospital: extend the Glasgow underground system by establishing two extra stops, one north of the river and one south of it, or link the Golden Jubilee hospital with the Southern general. I put in my bid beside those of others. The minister will know of my interest in the north Clyde development route.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

All I can say is that we will seriously scrutinise budgets, whether they be in the east or the west of Scotland. I am sure that Mr McNulty, as the convener of the Finance Committee, would expect me to say that.

On budget scrutiny and the process that we now apply to the project management of major capital transport projects, quarterly reviews of project progress against cost and time targets have been established, which identify actions that are needed to ensure projects' success. All of the projects have been reviewed over the past couple of months and, as Mr McNulty would expect, they must continue to represent value for money. The business case for each project is re-examined each time to ensure that there is a need to commit significant expenditure.

In addition to quarterly reviews, projects are subject to the Scottish Executive's gateway reviews, which examine projects at critical stages in their life cycle to provide assurance that they can progress successfully to their next stage.

We have put in place a number of processes and, quite appropriately, shared details of them with the Finance Committee. They are designed to ensure that projects meet our targets for them.

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

I welcome the minister's statement, particularly the parts about the progress that has been made on building the new Kincardine bridge and the progress of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine rail link. However, as the minister is aware, there are concerns about the cost overruns on both of those projects.

With regard to the Forth road bridge, on 10 November the minister issued a press release in which he said that a

"full engineering technical study into the condition of the bridge cables"

would be

"complete by summer 2007".

In November, the Forth Estuary Transport Authority received a report from the bridge master stating that there would be a feasibility study into replacing or augmenting the cables and that a further tender report would be brought before the board. In his statement to Parliament on 1 March, the minister repeated his promise that the work would be done by 2007.

Is the minister as concerned as I am that there is still no sign of that important tender report, despite the fact that 18 weeks have elapsed since it was said that the full engineering study would be completed by the summer of 2007? During that time there have been two FETA board meetings, and another is due on Monday. I know that the minister is concerned about the issue—it is hugely important. I seek assurances from him that the engineering study will be completed by summer 2007.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I will deal first with the points that Mr Crawford made at the start of his question about the two transport projects that he mentioned.

On the cost of building the new Kincardine bridge, the figure of £70 million was estimated four years ago, which represented the expected tender price at that time, excluding VAT. The successful tender bid was £93.5 million, plus VAT. Some of the press comment was somewhat excitable. One of the major reasons for the additional costs was the effect of the large increase in the price of untaxed petrochemical product—that is, blacktop. We should bear in mind the fact that 6.4km of road are involved in that project. That gives some context to the issue.

On the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway, we have been able to get the project team and the processes that I described a moment ago to Mr McNulty to focus closely on some of the cost issues. Work is now at a stage at which we can have confidence in the forecasts. The prospect is positive with regard to the remaining risks. We look forward to progress continuing to be made.

Mr Crawford made a number of serious points with regard to the Forth road bridge. As is patently obvious, I cannot tell the FETA board what to do. However, I know that the board has started initial work on dehumidification. It has let two contracts for early work and it is working on the tender documents for the cabling element. I will write to Mr Crawford with further details in relation to the contracts. I am focused on the need to ensure that we keep to the timescale that has been announced.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Some members have given a grudging welcome to the minister's proposals, but I welcome them whole-heartedly, particularly his on-going commitment to the Executive's top priority, which is the Airdrie to Bathgate rail link. Will the minister reassure me that there will be no further slippage in the timetable for either the private bill or starting the work? Given his earlier comments on alternatives to car usage, will the minister comment on the development of new stations on the line, particularly at Blackridge, in my constituency, and at Plains, in Karen Whitefield's constituency? Although I welcome the proposals to double-track the Edinburgh to Bathgate line, does the minister agree that, in the meantime, measures should be put in place to alleviate the problems that my constituents are experiencing because of the cancellation and early termination of trains on that section?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Mary Mulligan has raised a number of practical issues to do with the project, which is of strategic importance not only to her constituency but to the whole of Scotland. I recognise those points and would be happy to discuss them with her.

I appreciate the points that she made in the latter part of her question about the challenges—if I may put it euphemistically—that people are facing. We must do better in that regard and find ways to deliver better services. I would be happy to talk about that with those who are responsible.

I hear Mary Mulligan's concerns about slippage in the timetable. It is why we have put in place the processes that I have outlined to Parliament today. The partners who are involved in the project must focus more on meeting the timescales, in terms of the bill and the agreements that have to be reached on the project.

The initial investigation and the review process that I described earlier concluded that some benefits could be delivered early if work to double-track east of Bathgate were separated from work that relies on the bill being passed. As I have said, we have reached agreement with Network Rail on that point. The promoter's work plan needs to include milestones for the submission of the bill, and the design needs to be reviewed from an operator's perspective. We look to all of that work coming together as quickly as possible.

I will write to Mary Mulligan with further details on those important points.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I welcome the minister's assurances on the Aberdeen peripheral road, particularly his assurance on where the western leg of it will not go and on the aim to narrow down the route of the road corridor next month. However, I stress the importance of taking an early decision on the exact route in allaying the concerns of the many local residents who currently feel threatened by the road.

What is the anticipated timescale for the completion of the road?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I understand Nanette Milne's point about the concerns of local people: many members of all parties have made that fair point. I hope that we will narrow down the route by April, and thereby alleviate as many of the concerns as possible.

It is inevitable that when a major road of this nature is constructed in residential and business areas some people will encounter disruption. That will be the case regardless of the route that is chosen. Most rational people would accept that observation in the context of the road that we are discussing. However, we will do what we can to achieve the spirit of what Nanette Milne said.

It is our intention to meet the timescale that I outlined on 1 December.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

There is much to be welcomed in the minister's statement, particularly the Airdrie to Bathgate line, which will benefit my constituents. However, the minister did not say anything about buses, which are a particularly important form of transport for women. Has the Executive considered the specific public transport needs of women? Does the minister have any plans to consider operating bus services via public provision? The private profit system that we have in many areas at the moment is simply not working.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I suspect that those questions would be more appropriately raised in the consultation on the national transport strategy, which will take place soon. It would be entirely legitimate to raise those matters in the consultation. However, we seek to ensure that we are designing and committing to the delivery of an approach to transport that meets the criteria that Elaine Smith mentions. I take her point about buses, but my statement was on our programme of capital investment in rail. We are working with First ScotRail and Network Rail on enhancements to station design to improve people's safety and security, which is why the roll-out of closed-circuit television and other such measures are important. We will continue to work on those enhancements.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The minister is aware of the anxiety of many of my constituents about the Aberdeen western peripheral route, in particular the Stonehaven spur road. His announcement today will be a relief to those who live on the Netherley road.

The minister confirmed that he hopes that the scheme will be finalised in outline by April, but can he confirm that there will be a full public consultation on both routes and an opportunity for people to object to them? Given that there will almost certainly be objections to the two routes, can he tell me the timescale for a local public inquiry?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I confirm that we hope to narrow down the options for the route during April. I take the member's point about public consultation. As I said in my statement, draft road orders will be published by the end of the year and there will be public consultation on them. It is fair to assume that there will be some objections during the consultation. We cannot predict what will happen, but I suspect that that will lead to a local public inquiry, probably in autumn 2007. Some of Mr Rumbles's constituents might wish to avail themselves of those opportunities to express their views.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

I thank the minister for his statement, in particular for the additional information on the Edinburgh airport rail link that he gave to my colleague Bristow Muldoon. My constituents in Stirling will welcome that link, as will others.

As the minister knows, I continue to have discussions with a group of visually impaired people in Stirling and Mary Dickson of First ScotRail about tactile walkways and ways in which barrier systems could be made more accessible for the visually impaired, particularly at Waverley station, but also at other busy stations, including those in the west of Scotland. What progress is being made on the plans for such innovations and the negotiations on them?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Those innovations are the responsibility of First ScotRail and Network Rail. One of the main advantages of the devolution of rail powers—the additional powers that Scottish ministers now have and their accountability to Parliament—is in this area. Practical enhancements can be made by Network Rail as the owner of stations and by First ScotRail as the operator. That will bring improvements to facilities for people who use the rail system. As passenger numbers increase, it is eminently sensible to ensure that we have a range of appropriate facilities that meet the needs of the group that Sylvia Jackson mentioned.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I welcome the minister's rhetoric about Waverley station being a flagship for Edinburgh and Scotland. However, as Fergus Ewing pointed out, the Waverley project has two stages and, as Murdo Fraser said, the plans have been in place since 1999-2000. In his statement, the minister made a commitment only to stage 1, which includes work on platforms and disabled access. The plan was available in 2000 and the work could have started then. Why do we need further consultations, given that we have been consulting on Waverley since 1999? Continual consultation appears to be a characteristic of the Executive.

Will the minister match his rhetoric to the reality and make a commitment to stage 2 of the Waverley project?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I have to be blunt: there have been many discussions about stage 2, but I do not yet have on my desk an agreed programme from the various partners and the local authority that are responsible for the project. Mr MacAskill criticises me for not agreeing to something that I have yet to see and that has not even been agreed by the partners who are responsible for promoting it. When they agree to a programme I will be interested to see it, but I am focused on delivering what we said we would deliver, which is a £150 million package of enhancements at Waverley station. I repeat the point that I made to other members: the national transport strategy and the strategic projects review represent an important opportunity to look to the future and consider what further enhancements are appropriate.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Improved and additional park-and-ride facilities are essential if we are to encourage rail travel. I ask the minister to comment on three points. First, the Scottish Executive made a considerable amount of money available to Strathclyde Passenger Transport for park-and-ride facilities at Croy station. What is the Executive doing to encourage SPT to spend that money? Secondly, Network Rail needs to improve Croy station by working on the gap between the platform and the trains, which causes great difficulties. The Executive should press Network Rail to do that work. Thirdly, there was a proposal for a park-and-ride facility at Castle Cary and improved rail links in the Cumbernauld area. I am disappointed that the minister did not mention that this morning.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Those projects are important, but they do not come within the capital transport programme. I am happy to write to Cathie Craigie about the details. I share her frustration that the improvements at Croy station are not yet in place. I agree that money was earmarked for the project and that it should be spent on the enhancements that she and I want to see. We have made it absolutely clear that the money is in place and that we expect the work to proceed.

I will write to Cathie Craigie on her other two points because I do not have the details with me today.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

That concludes questions on major public transport projects.

Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4095, in the name of John Scott, on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, on the appointment of the Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner for a second period.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I speak to the motion as a member of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body's reappointment panel and invite the Parliament to agree to the reappointment of Dr James Dyer as the Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner for a second term. To assist members' consideration of the motion, the SPCB has published a report that gives the background to the reappointment process and some information on the work that Dr Dyer has carried out to date.

The Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002 provides that

"A person who has been appointed for one period as the Commissioner may",

with the Parliament's agreement,

"be appointed for a second period".

Following good practice guidance from the United Kingdom and Scottish commissioners for public appointments and given early indications from the Procedures Committee's consideration of mechanisms for Crown reappointments, the SPCB concluded that the reappointment of the standards commissioner should be considered by way of a non-competitive, administrative mechanism. Therefore, a reappointment panel was established. The panel was chaired by the Presiding Officer and the other members were Duncan McNeil, Nora Radcliffe and me.

An independent assessor was appointed to oversee the process and to say whether good procedures had been followed and whether the appointment was on merit, to give the Parliament added confidence.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

In annex A to the SPCB's report, Dr Bernard Kingston—the independent assessor—says:

"I am pleased to enclose my Validation Certificate. In addition, this highlights my concern regarding the absence of regular appraisals of the Commissioner's performance.

This runs counter to good practice which requires that public bodies must have in place regular and transparent performance assessment procedures to provide necessary and robust evidence when considering reappointments."

Procedures singularly failed to be put in place.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I thank the member for his contribution. Dr Kingston was our independent appraiser and we are grateful for his good works. The matter that Mr McFee mentions was perhaps an omission, but he is well aware that the SPCB's view was that it would be difficult to find someone to undertake appraisals.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I will not—[ Interruption. ] I will take no more interventions and I ask Mr McFee to let me finish my point.

I will move on. On the SPCB's behalf, I thank Dr Bernard Kingston, who acted as the panel's independent assessor. He brought a wealth of appointment experience and was of enormous assistance in ensuring that we complied with good practice. As Mr McFee said, in his report and validation certificate, Dr Kingston recommended that we put in place an appropriate appraisal mechanism for the commissioner. We will consider how best to put that into practice. That is also in line with the report on Crown appointees that the Procedures Committee published last week.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

John Scott said that all members of the reappointment panel were from the corporate body. Did the panel consult members of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee? If so, what was the result of that consultation?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Mr Scott should be finishing now.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Presiding Officer, if I am to answer Mr Rumbles's questions, I ask for some extra time. We did not consult the Standards and Public Appointments Committee in any way other than informally, if that clears up the matter.

The reappointment panel was convened on Thursday 9 February. The commissioner was tested on the skills and competencies that were set out in the original recruitment advertisement and in his job description. Those were: knowledge of the commissioner's remit and role; understanding and awareness of the political and institutional environment in which the commissioner works; use of resources; interpersonal skills; and oral and written communication skills.

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

Will the member give way?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

No—I am sorry, but I am out of time.

Dr Dyer's first three-year term in office will end on 31 March 2006. As the first commissioner, he was charged with setting up the role and putting in place suitable policies and procedures. In his first term of office, he dealt with 71 complaints, 15 of which were fully investigated. We believe that he will continue to be an effective commissioner who will build on his knowledge and experiences to continue to provide the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland with a sound and impartial system for dealing with complaints about members' conduct. I am sure that the Parliament will want to wish him every success in his second term of office.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees with the recommendation of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body under Rule 3A.1.2 of Standing Orders that Dr James Dyer should be appointed for a second period as the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner with effect from 1 April 2006.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

To reappoint the commissioner today would be entirely wrong. The matter is not party political—members across the parties have had serious doubts about the commissioner's work and the public have complained about his handling of cases. I do not believe that he has proved himself to be up to the job. The system that he operates is neither transparent nor accountable and reflects badly on the Parliament's probity.

I will concern myself not with any individual MSP, but with how the reputation of an employee of the Parliament can be damaged—without proof—if they are caught up in a so-called standards investigation and denied even a right of reply. Dr Dyer wrote into one report a serious allegation against an employee of the Parliament over an alleged incident. The commissioner presented no proof that the incident took place and failed to contact the worker to put the allegation to them before doing serious harm to their reputation. He failed to use an earlier official statement that the worker made that refuted the allegation, and failed to tell the worker that their statement was to be removed from his report. He then published hearsay claims in the Parliament's name, but removed an official statement that contradicted those claims. Dr Dyer and the Standards Committee simply went ahead and published a seriously damaging and unproven accusation against a worker in our Parliament and the person was cut off from any chance of challenging the report.

The standards process is not transparent. It is carried on behind closed doors and a report's contents are hidden and unknown until publication. There is no system of appeal to any ombudsman. The unproven allegation is still on the Parliament's website and on paper reports and is presented as if it were true. It continues to damage the worker and to cause immense stress and it should be removed.

That example suggests that workers in the Parliament will be placed in severe danger if they are ever involved in standards issues, because they will be treated as people who have no equal right to fair play. How could that happen to any worker in the people's Parliament? How did that get past lawyers? The commissioner has asked to use external legal firms, on which he ran up a bill of more than £26,000 last year, although only one case was taken through stage 2. Why was £26,000 of taxpayers' money paid out in one year for lawyers when such intolerable disregard for normal civil and legal rights has been shown? Did any lawyers vet Dr Dyer's work? If so, who were they?

The commissioner operates as a one-man band and is virtually cut off from any accountability. Last year, he objected to his draft work being shown to complainers and accused MSPs to check for errors, and his word persuaded the Standards and Public Appointments Committee to remove that basic right for the public. Even Westminster has a better system, having introduced the safeguard of being able to challenge the facts by a process that uses an independent legal assessor and a panel. By rubber-stamping this man's appointment today, elected members will put third parties—including workers—at risk of injustice.

The Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner is supposed to act fairly and independently and to weigh all the evidence. The example that I have outlined shows that the public and the Parliament can have no confidence in his so doing. Therefore, I call for a halt to his reappointment and for a full investigation by independent outsiders into the commissioner's practices and the standards process.

I move amendment S2M-4095.1, to leave out from "agrees" to end and insert:

"does not, at this stage, agree with the recommendation of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body that Dr James Dyer should be appointed for a second period as Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner and agrees that an independent investigation should be instigated into the transparency and accountability of the actions of the Standards Commissioner and the standards process."

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Two members wish to speak. I can give them two minutes each.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I will make just a small point that is not about the individual, but about the process. I intervened on John Scott because I was a bit concerned about the apparent lack of consultation with our representatives on the Standards and Public Appointments Committee. They deal with the commissioner and must have the utmost confidence in him. John Scott referred to informal consultation. I asked him what the result of that consultation was. It would help if he would tell us that now.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Mr Rumbles will be aware that Mr Adam, the Standards and Public Appointments Committee's convener, declined the invitation to be a member of the reappointment panel.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

That is not what I am talking about. My point is that Standards and Public Appointments Committee members, who are our representatives, must have confidence in the commissioner. I asked what the result was of consulting the committee informally and I have still not had an answer. I understand that members of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee are not happy. I hope that members of that committee will take part in the debate and will tell us whether that is the case.

We seem to be working in a vacuum, which is not a satisfactory situation. The process is wrong and needs to be revisited.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

A generally accepted principle of job interviews is that they are conducted on the basis of trying to ensure the appointment of the best available man or woman for the post. Normally, one would advertise the position and invite applications, which would be sifted so that a smaller number of applicants could be invited to interview. Somewhere down the line, the individual who was believed to be best for the job would be selected. That is what the Parliament did until today.

Today, we are invited to reappoint a commissioner for another three years to an unadvertised post for which no other candidate was allowed to apply, for which no proper evaluation was made of the present post holder's work and for which only one person—the present post holder—was interviewed. There was no element of competition for the post. Such a process would not have looked out of place in Soviet Russia or modern-day North Korea. Welcome to the brave, new, transparent, we-will-do-things-differently Scottish Parliament.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Will the member give way?

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I have only two minutes.

Parliament is being bounced—make no mistake about it—into making a decision today by using a process that we have not even debated, far less endorsed. What has been nicely named an "administrative" process for determining the post is not provided for in either the 2002 act or standing orders but has been decided on by the SPCB alone.

Proponents of the process have made much of the independent assessor. However, Mr Scott was somewhat selective in referring to the independent assessment. The assessor also stated:

"I recognize the argument put that it is difficult to independently investigate the independent investigator but I do not accept that this is insurmountable."

However, for Mr Scott and the SPCB, evaluating the commissioner's work was never on the agenda.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Mr McFee, you must wind up now.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

On 8 February 2006, Mr Scott told the Procedures Committee:

"it is important to remember that the officials are independent of Parliament; therefore, we are talking about an administrative procedure rather than evaluation of their work as commissioners."—[Official Report, Procedures Committee, 8 February 2006; c 1374.]

However, we are being asked to accept that, one day later, the same people conducted an interview that was transparent and robust. Who are they trying to kid?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I can give Margo MacDonald only a tight minute and a half.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I simply want to ask Mike Rumbles whether he was suggesting that the appointment should not be confirmed until Parliament has discussed with the proposed appointee changes to the way in which the procedures and process work, given the dissatisfaction with them. Will he clarify that important issue?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I can give Mr Sheridan a tight four minutes to wind up.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I hope that I will not need four minutes, although the shortness of the debate is probably illustrative of the problems of the process, which is woefully inadequate.

Rarely does an amendment in my name enlist support from the likes of Mike Rumbles, Bruce McFee and Margo MacDonald, but this is a cross-party concern. This is a non-political issue that is about process, transparency and accountability. From that point of view, I hope that the Parliament will not rush ahead with or—to use Bruce McFee's term—be bounced into a decision today.

Mike Rumbles asked a fair question during Mr Scott's opening speech, but he never received an answer. He posed the question again and allowed Mr Scott an opportunity to respond, but he never received an answer. The truth is that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has proposed the appointment after establishing itself as a group of independent assessors and without consulting anyone.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

rose—

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I give way to Elaine Smith.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Elaine Smith must be brief, as we have little time.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

If Parliament does not agree the appointment today, will we be left without a standards commissioner? What are the implications of that?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

We have until the end of this month to appoint a commissioner. After investigating the work that has been carried out by the present commissioner, we may decide that he is not up to the job. I am not for rushing into appointing someone who is not up to the job. I would rather go four or eight weeks without a commissioner and appoint someone who can do the job—

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

rose—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The member cannot accept any more interventions.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I am sorry.

We should not appoint someone who is not doing the job properly. I hope that Parliament will agree to ca' canny and see a bit of sense. We should not rush headlong into making a decision that might come back to haunt us in the future. I commend the amendment to members.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Mr Scott has two minutes for his winding-up speech.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The debate has been an opportunity for members to make their views known. On Mr Sheridan's amendment, I point out that the primary legislation gives the SPCB the task of appointing the standards commissioner with the approval of Parliament. That is what we seek to do today. The debate is not about the complaints process, which is provided for in statute.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

The commissioner conducts his investigations and makes his reports under the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002. Transparency and accountability are provided for by the act. The commissioner is required to report to the Standards and Public Appointments Committee the facts of any investigation and his conclusions on a possible breach of the code of conduct. It is for the committee to decide whether to accept the commissioner's recommendations.

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

Will the member give way?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I do not have time, as I have only two minutes.

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is quite unacceptable that, on such an important appointment, members do not have the opportunity either to express their view or to receive an answer to points that they make.

I wanted to make the point, which I hope Mr Scott will confirm, that we are not barred from extending the contract beyond 31 March—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Ms Marwick cannot ask a question in the middle of a point of order. She did not raise a point of order. The timing of the debate is a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau. If she has a dispute about the timing, she should speak to her business manager.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

If Mr Sheridan is dissatisfied with the process and the manner in which the commissioner conducts his investigations, he should raise that with the Standards and Public Appointments Committee.

On the other points that were made, I point out to Mr Rumbles that today's debate is about the appointment, not the procedure. The statute gives the SPCB the role of appointing the commissioner.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The SPCB is not doing its job.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Bruce McFee must accept that, throughout the process, we have followed best practice, as outlined by the UK and Scottish commissioners for public appointments.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The rules have been broken.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I do not believe so.

The Procedures Committee has made some good recommendations about future appointments. We welcome those hugely. Subject to the Parliament debating and agreeing that committee's report, the recommendations will provide us with a sound basis on which to proceed in future.

At decision time this afternoon, I hope that all members will support the motion to reappoint Dr Dyer.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am concerned about the accusations that were made from a sedentary position that the rules were broken. If that is the case, do standing orders provide any way in which the procedure can be delayed until the matter is further investigated? It seems inadequate that we have had such a short time for such an important issue.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

That is a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau and for business managers.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. With all due respect, if Parliament decides that it needs more discussion on the matter, someone would need to suggest that, using the procedures that are available. I do not suggest that that should be done at this precise moment in time.

As the member of the bureau responsible for arguing that the appointment should be debated, I feel that we may not have investigated many issues that have been raised in the course of the debate. Members may want to pursue that further.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The timing of the debate was agreed by the Parliament. If, given the nature of the debate, members now say that they need more time, I can only refer them to the bureau and to their business managers. There is a procedure by which the timing can be changed, but it cannot be changed at this moment.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

On a helpful point of order, Presiding Officer. Members have available to them an amendment that would precisely inspire greater debate and discussion.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

That is correct.

Make Poverty History

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is an independents group debate on make poverty history. I call Dennis Canavan to open the debate. Mr Canavan, you have five minutes.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Last year, more than 250,000 people took to the streets of Edinburgh to demonstrate their support for the campaign to make poverty history. It was the biggest demonstration that the city has ever seen, and the participants travelled from all over Scotland and Britain—indeed, from all over the world. The aim was to get the message across to the G8 leaders at Gleneagles that it is an international scandal that, in the 21 st century, more than a billion people on our planet live on less than $1 a day and more than 200,000 people die of preventable causes every week. Ordinary people on that demonstration demanded action on aid, trade and debt. The public declaration that emerged from the Gleneagles summit was a step in the right direction, but those fine words have still to be translated into effective action.

The problem of debt is a millstone around the necks of many people in developing countries. During the past 30 years, we have been living off the backs of Africans. For every £1 that rich countries such as ours have put into Africa, we have taken out £17—much of that in debt servicing and repayments. The G8's deal on debt should be worth up to $1 billion a year for the 18 qualifying countries, but that is small beer compared with the $10 billion a year of debt cancellation that is required to help developing countries to achieve the millennium development goals. Of course, much of the debt relief is tied to conditions that impose economic policies that make the eradication of poverty more difficult, if not impossible—policies such as the privatisation of water and cuts in expenditure on essential services such as health and education.

A similar situation exists regarding policy on international trade. At the World Trade Organisation negotiations, the British Government and other rich countries seemed more concerned with market access for multinational companies than with allowing developing countries the flexibility to decide their own policies. For example, the European Union has proposed that industrial tariffs should be decided by a predetermined formula that may suit developed countries but which could mean, for developing countries, the erosion of their industrial base, increased unemployment and more poverty.

The G8 summit also signalled an extra £48 billion a year of aid by 2010. If that promise is kept, millions of lives could be saved. However, the aid pledges that have been made this year are not of the scale that is needed to make poverty history, and progress is too slow on meeting the United Nations target whereby countries should spend at least 0.7 per cent of their gross national product on development aid. Fifteen member states of the European Union have now committed themselves to reaching that target by 2015, but that is still nearly a decade away. Between now and then, many people will die of poverty and disease.

It is more than 30 years since the UN set that target of 0.7 per cent of GNP. It is also more than 30 years since Willy Brandt's commission referred to the obscenity whereby spending on international development was only a tiny fraction of what was spent on the international arms trade. The arms race is still one of the biggest threats to the human race, and our Government is one of the biggest participants in it. It is sheer hypocrisy for Tony Blair, Jack Straw, John Reid or anyone else in the Government to lecture countries such as Iran on the dangers of nuclear power when the British Government is plotting to spend billions of pounds of taxpayers' money on the replacement of Trident. What an example to set for the rest of the world.

We should show a lead to the rest of the world by spending more on the eradication of poverty and spending less on weapons of war and mass destruction. We should invest in ways to save human lives instead of in ways to destroy human lives. If such priorities were pursued by our Government and other members of the G8, we would have at least a chance of making poverty history and ensuring an end to the appalling situation whereby, since the start of the debate, more than 100 children have died as a result of poverty. That cannot and must not be allowed to continue.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I endorse and adopt Dennis Canavan's fine words. Alongside the G8 summit, the W8 was set up in the Scottish Parliament early last year to offer practical assistance to African women, one in 13 of whom is likely to die in childbirth or pregnancy. We had a presentation on that yesterday, which was extremely emotional, and I am sure that women in the Parliament will take that issue forward in practical terms.

My colleagues will deal with international aspects of poverty. If the independents will forgive me, I will focus on poverty that is close to home, among Scottish pensioners. The minister this week launched a consultation on our aging population. That is welcome, but I wonder what effect it will have had seven years down the road. If any pensioner in Scotland is asked what their concerns are, they raise three main concerns: the state pension, council tax and fuel bills, about which the minister will do nothing.

The basic state pension is currently £82.05 a week. Only 17 per cent of women qualify for it, because most of them have not made sufficient contributions. The minimum income guarantee is just under £110, and many people could live on that in Scotland today. However, targeting the pension credit has been a complete failure, as some 40 per cent of pensioners who are entitled to pension credit simply do not claim it. It is reckoned that, United Kingdom-wide, £1 billion in pension credit is not collected.

There is a simple solution. The Government should give people a decent state pension—which would mean that those with small occupational pensions would not subsidise the state pension—and should tax people at the top, such as me. I claim my state pension and I am taxed; that is how it should be. That is what should happen for pensioners in Scotland, and it would immediately release them from some of the poverty that they face. There is no pensioner in Scotland who would not put that at the top of their list.

The second issue is council tax. Just because the house that someone has lived in for years has now become valuable, they face a swingeing council tax. Again, there are targeted benefits, but they simply do not work, with 40 per cent of those who are entitled to claim council tax benefit not claiming it. That is not the Scottish National Party's figure; it is the figure from Age Concern Scotland. I cannot understand why we are not moving towards a local income tax, a service tax or something that is based on ability to pay. What we hear from the Labour Party are the words of revaluation—words that may come back to haunt it. With an election in the near future, the Government is reviewing the situation while pensioners are worried sick about paying their council tax bills—and pensioners pay up; they pay their bills timeously.

The third issue is fuel costs. I do not need to remind members that we have recently experienced an increase of nearly 30 per cent in fuel costs. It is reckoned that, for every 5 per cent increase in the cost of fuel, 30,000 people return to fuel poverty. Many of them are single pensioners living in their own homes, who choose between eating and heating. The warm deal central heating programme has its faults, but it is welcome; nevertheless, there is no point in someone having central heating if they cannot switch it on. It is reckoned that many pensioners sit in one room with a fire and do not put their radiators on because they cannot afford the bills.

In Scotland, we have one of the highest rates of excess winter deaths—deaths from hypothermia; let us give it its name. It is reckoned that there were 3,500 excess winter deaths in Scotland last year. Other countries that are much colder, such as Sweden and Germany, do not have so many excess winter deaths, yet we live in an oil-rich country.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Does the member agree that one of the reasons why those two countries have a greater amount of cash flowing through the system, which can go to pensioners, is the fact that they do not spend around £20 billion a year on nuclear weapons?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Margo MacDonald will get no resistance from me on that point.

I fully recognise the dreadful picture that Dennis Canavan has painted of poverty throughout the world, to which I realise that the poverty here does not compare. Nevertheless, I believe that, although we have a duty to those abroad, which we must recognise here—I hope that, one day, when the Scottish Parliament is independent, we will be able to play our full part in that—we must not forget the poverty that exists on our own doorstep.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Poverty is a wide-ranging issue with many causes and consequences, and it is impossible to do justice to all of them in such a short time. However, the Scottish Conservatives are very pleased to support keeping poverty on the political agenda.

As Christine Grahame was speaking, she made me think about a letter that I received this week from a lady whose mother is in a care home. My constituent's mother saved all her life so that she could look after herself in her old age but because she is a self-funder, she pays £143 more per week than others in the care home who are partly or fully funded. I have written to the minister about that situation, but if we are talking about poverty, we also have to think about giving people the incentive to save so that they can look after themselves in their old age without being penalised by being ripped off in a care home.

Yesterday Christine Grahame, Shiona Baird, Rosemary Byrne and I heard a presentation from the charity Safe Hands, which is raising funds to help and support women in Africa—specifically, Ethiopia—to give birth safely. It is not appropriate to go into detail about that today; I will say only that whatever is said on the subject of poverty today in Scotland, the situation here cannot be compared to the plight of women in Africa who have to give birth with no trained person to help them and, when complications set in, who have no money to pay for transport to hospital. That leaves many women crippled and incontinent for life, and many stillborn children. My colleague, Nanette Milne, will discuss health issues further.

As Dennis Canavan said, last year was clearly an historic year for the make poverty history campaign. There was an unprecedented level of campaigning to end global poverty that gained enormous public support and raised understanding of the many issues involved. On a political note, I welcome the input and involvement of Sir Bob Geldof as an adviser to the Conservative anti-poverty group. The results are already to be seen in David Cameron's document "Built to Last", which states:

"It is our moral obligation to make poverty history."

The Scottish Conservatives welcome that commitment, as well as the commitments to free and fair trade, to increase international aid and to press for further debt relief. The problem can be summed up in one statistic: although more than 40 per cent of the world's population live in low-income countries, those countries account for only 3 per cent of world trade.

Today we can focus on poverty in Scotland. Help the Aged Scotland has highlighted the yearly increase in winter deaths among the elderly, to which Christine Grahame referred. Although the central heating initiative and improved insulation are certainly helping, much more needs to be done to improve energy efficiency in our homes so that the elderly are not frightened to switch the heating on.

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

Does Mary Scanlon agree that although we welcome the central heating and insulation initiative, delivery in some of our constituencies is rather patchy, and that, despite the best intentions of the Scottish Executive, we are not quite getting there?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I could not agree more, and I do not think that there is a member of this Parliament who has not heard from someone who has had a very bad experience. Elderly people find the experience quite traumatic and I am not sure that all the fitters are fully trained.

Poverty has no age barrier and can affect the youngest of children as well as the oldest of people in our communities. Young people are, however, wholly dependent on their parents' lifestyle and choices. We hope that the cross-party review group that was announced by the First Minister recently will help to support the many children with substance-abusing parents.

One group that should not be forgotten is the increasing number of working adults without dependent children who live in income poverty; their number has increased by 100,000 in the past decade. They appear to be the forgotten ones in Chancellor Brown's tax-and-spend regime.

In 2004, almost 3,000 young people left school in Scotland with no qualifications—hardly preparation for the world of work. Further education colleges offer a second chance and many come back into education and training in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s, but it is unfortunate that colleges such as Inverness College are faced with cutting another 25 lecturing staff, which reduces the number of courses available and thereby the training, education and career opportunities for many in the Highlands.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I welcome this debate and agree with almost everything that Dennis Canavan said. Eradicating global poverty requires commitment across the United Kingdom. While foreign policy and international development are reserved matters, all levels of Government can and must contribute to eradicating global poverty. The Scottish Executive must continue to support the principles laid out by the make poverty history campaign.

Every day, 50,000 individuals die unnecessarily because they live in poverty. How many people have died since this debate started? More than one in four individuals lives in extreme poverty on less than $1 a day. As a developed nation, we must help our fellow citizens worldwide to achieve a higher quality of life. Britain has already committed to cutting in half the number of people who live in extreme poverty by 2015, but we can do even more.

As part of the three-pronged approach presented in the make poverty history campaign, the United Nations has announced the target of 0.7 per cent of national income that countries should commit to spend on foreign development and aid. The Labour Government in London has promised to reach that target by 2013, but I suggest that that promise is not good enough. The Liberal Democrats advocate achieving that important landmark by 2011 at least, and we should be at least at 0.5 per cent now. We are still falling far short.

Fifty billion pounds more in donations is needed to help to eradicate poverty worldwide, and Scotland must play its part.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I will finish my point.

Of that £50 billion, £25 billion could come from not building a new Trident submarine.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I entirely agree with the member about Trident.

Does the member agree that the Scottish Executive and Parliament are perfectly able to make up the shortfall between what would be spent on our behalf on international aid if we met that target and what is being spent at present?

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

As I have already said, we can all do more. Of course, the Scottish Executive has already committed £3 million to work in Malawi and Africa, but I am sure that we can all think about how we can improve on that.

Public opinion is on our side. The make poverty history march in Edinburgh in July 2005 drew 225,000 people, making it the UK's largest demonstration against global poverty. As the MSP for Edinburgh South, it was wonderful for me to see the streets of my constituency filled with coaches and buses from all over the UK. The huge sea of white that was created on the Meadows, which all who were there that day will remember, spoke volumes. Additionally, 800,000 people campaigned online to eradicate poverty, and 8 million across the UK wore the white make poverty history band to demonstrate their support. The public strongly supports a full commitment to eradicating global poverty and the Scottish Executive must do the same.

The Scottish Executive has been able to provide funds to alleviate poverty in countries such as Malawi, which I visited again recently and on which I will speak in tonight's debate on the Commonwealth. We must continue to support the principles of the make poverty history campaign.

It is also important to note that we have made progress. Focusing on Malawi, to which Scotland is historically linked, the Executive has set up the Scottish Malawi appeal fund, giving £1.2 million for projects fighting AIDS and establishing the co-operation agreement to provide practical help in Malawi.

We have already started down the path of playing an important role in the eradication of global poverty and we must continue to follow that path. It is up to the Scottish Executive to take a leading role and advocate a full commitment to fighting poverty worldwide. The principles that have been laid out by the make poverty history campaign are the right ones, and we must continue to ensure that they are carried out. We must do everything within our power to fight the catastrophe that is poverty and to protect the rights of individuals worldwide. The Liberal Democrats, as the true internationalist party, will continue to press for that to be done.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Last week, I attended a memorial service for Hugh McCartney, the former Labour MP for Clydebank and Milngavie and, before that, for Dunbartonshire East. Hugh is an example of somebody who fought against poverty all his life. He had the opportunity to work through the trade union movement and in the parliamentary Labour Party, whose 100 th anniversary this is. Despite what Christine Grahame has said, I am in no doubt that the Labour Party is the party that has constantly fought for social justice. It was the Labour Party that introduced the national health service and all the other mechanisms that are designed to address poverty.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will Des McNulty take an intervention?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Members of Christine Grahame's party could not even be bothered to turn up to Parliament when the minimum wage was introduced. They constantly opposed family credit, which has provided significant gains to poor people in my constituency, where unemployment has been halved since 1997. Members will be aware of the substantial improvements that have been achieved through tackling child poverty; the Labour Party bows to no one in its efforts to deal with poverty.

However, I do not want to engage in party politics for too much longer, because there is an argument that we all need to make and it needs to be shared by the whole Parliament. It is the question of how we tackle third-world poverty, debt and trade, and on that matter we should be working on a consensual basis. I certainly appreciated Dennis Canavan's speech this morning and I appreciate his long-term commitment to tackling those issues.

If we look at the issue from outside the confines of the party-political cockpit of the Parliament, we see that it is Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Hilary Benn who stand at the international forefront of the drive to take those issues into key areas such as the European Union's central chambers and the G8 summits, promoting the commission for Africa and trying to secure the support of other nations. They have been bringing to George Bush's attention the plight of the third world—not always successfully. I recognise that there is much more to be done, but there has been massive public mobilisation around the issue, which represents a step change from what we have experienced before.

When Gordon Brown made his speech at the 40th anniversary of the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund last October, he made it clear that the key issue is tackling trade. Unless we give people in Africa reasonable conditions of trade and an opportunity to sell their goods, the plight of those in consistent and spiralling poverty will worsen. That change in trade is not one that can be achieved without there being a cost to us, and it will not just mean the price of supermarket goods increasing. We have to stop using the share of the world's resources that we are currently using. Anybody who has been to Africa, seen deforestation and asked where the resources gathered in Africa are actually being sent to and used will recognise that we in the west are living on the backs of the poor countries and the poor people who live there. We cannot do that, and we must explain to people that we cannot continue to do it.

We cannot simply rely on capitalism to change itself from the inside. We have to change the way in which we are governed and the way in which we operate to deal with poverty in our society. Those are big questions that my party wants to address, and I hope that other parties also want to do so.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I really enjoyed listening to Dennis Canavan opening the debate. It struck me that he had so much to say and so little time to say it in, which is a mark of just how big the poverty agenda is, both nationally and internationally.

Dennis Canavan made the important point that, although we can have respect for Hilary Benn and for others who are doing some good work, there is fundamental bottom line, which is that we do not contribute the 0.7 per cent that we said we would contribute. Other countries comparable to ours manage to do so, but we do not, and until we meet that commitment we have no right to be parading about saying just how wonderful we are.

Patrick Harvie mentioned that it would be possible for this Parliament to do something, and indeed it would. We welcome the £3 million that was announced for international development, and it is wonderful that this Parliament is taking a stand, but other devolved legislatures—in the Basque Country, for example—use a portion of their income for international development. I would like the Government in Scotland to say that that is something that it wants to achieve, and it is something that would gain cross-party support in this Parliament.

There are lots of different issues that could be mentioned, but as there is not enough time to cover them all, I want to highlight the hypocrisy of the developed countries in the European Union, whose own commissioned studies have come to the conclusion that trade liberalisation harms poor communities and environments, yet which still push ahead with the agenda of pressing developing nations to agree to ambitious market targets. We have to stop pushing those poor countries, through the world trade talks, to open their economies in ways that suit us, and we must respect their right to decide their trade policies so that they can end poverty and protect the environment.

That is not a naive view, because I also recognise that there are highly inappropriate forms of democracy in some developing nations. Governance is a really big issue, so we also have to fund governance measures in a lot of those countries to ensure that the people who are worst affected actually help to make the decisions on how to move their countries forward. We can sometimes be a wee bit smug when we look at some of the things that we are achieving, and we tend to think that things are working well when the reality is often different.

I am going to say something about Malawi, because I was there last week and it is freshest in my memory. It may look on the surface as if we are doing really well with HIV/AIDS programmes in which there is take-up, and people are quite positive about how things are moving forward, but there is also evidence that there is not equality of access for treatment in some of those health programmes, because the poorer people are not getting the treatment. There are cultural reasons for that, so education at grass-roots level is needed in communities, so that they can grow and blossom into something that will help the country to make progress.

We talk about the fact that some African countries have achieved 100 per cent primary school education. That might be the law, and it is wonderful, but there are a heck of a lot of orphans out there who cannot get to school because they are looking after younger siblings and trying to earn money to keep the family. If there are about a million orphans in Malawi alone, that will be a huge issue for the future, and it is something that we must consider if we are serious about moving the country forward.

I am not knocking what people are doing, but I caution all of us not to get too carried away with what we see as good results on paper. Let us be a bit more objective when we look at what we are actually achieving, and let us recognise that social organisations as well as Governments need to be funded. I hope that such organisations in Africa will blossom and move up, as happened in Latin America. I hope that what comes down from the top level will help to create a better future.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It must be a matter of concern to any civilised society that poverty is still a global problem in the 21 st century, and I would like to touch briefly on a few of the health problems that arise from it. Whether as a result of natural disaster, conflict or corrupt government, there are still huge numbers of people suffering from severe malnutrition. Maternal, infant and child mortality rates are unacceptably high in many countries, and life expectancy is very short in much of sub-Saharan Africa as a result of the modern scourge of HIV/AIDS.

Scotland's involvement with Malawi has brought home to us the seriousness of the health problems that face such impoverished countries. With more than 65 per cent of its people living in poverty, and a further 27 per cent in extreme poverty, Malawi is among the 10 poorest countries in the world. Almost unbelievably, life expectancy there has fallen by 10 years since 1990—from 48 down to 38—due to causes that are largely preventable. Maternal mortality in Malawi is the third highest in the world and cultural behaviour, coupled with a lack of resources and economic opportunity, makes women particularly susceptible to poor health.

An annual population increase of 2 per cent in a country that is short of midwives, obstetricians and equipment has resulted in an infant and child mortality rate that our society can scarcely comprehend. The steps that the Scottish Executive has taken in recent months, following last year's launch of the Scottish Malawi appeal fund, are to be commended, but there is still a long way to go.

The improvement of maternal health is a millennium development goal of the United Nations, which aims to reduce maternal mortality by 75 per cent between 1990 and 2015, but huge effort is still required if that is to be achieved. It is estimated that reproductive health care is needed for 200 million women worldwide who have no access to safe contraception, and more resources and trained medical staff are badly needed in many developing countries. The necessary services will not be provided without significant help from the world's developed nations and it is our moral duty to provide at least some of the help that is required.

As we have heard, poverty is not confined to third-world countries. Even in Scotland, the impact of poverty—albeit relative—on our nation's health can be observed. We can all point to areas of deprivation in Scotland today and we know that there are pockets of severe deprivation in rural and even in affluent communities. It is shocking that eight out of the 10 authorities in the United Kingdom with the lowest male life expectancy are here in Scotland. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report "Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2003" showed that, proportionately, there are more premature deaths in Scotland than there are in the rest of Britain; that mortality rates among the under-65s in Scotland's most deprived districts are twice as high as they are in the least deprived districts; and that, at the other end of the age spectrum, Scottish five-year-olds have an average of two and a half missing, decayed or filled teeth, whereas children in the south-east and the west midlands have just one such tooth.

Everyone was quite shocked by the map that was published last month that showed the postcode differences in the incidence of cancer in Scotland. Men in some areas are almost three times more likely to develop lung cancer than those who live in other parts of the country. The rate in Glasgow, where 145 out of every 100,000 men have lung cancer, is the highest, whereas the rate in Shetland is just 54 per 100,000. Those figures—it is clear that they are related to the high prevalence of smoking in deprived areas—are a stark example of the need to encourage lifestyle changes in today's Scotland. Thankfully, we do not have the problems of extreme poverty that are found in third-world countries, but we still have a long way to go in tackling the health inequalities that prevail in early 21st century Scotland.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I commend the independent MSPs for choosing to debate poverty.

I repeat some remarks that I made at a Fairtrade event in Glasgow last week. Fundamentally, poverty is not a law of nature; overwhelmingly, the poverty that exists in our world is the result of choices that have been made. The Fairtrade movement is composed of people who are not content to wait around for their Governments to make better choices on their behalf and who understand that, through their choices, they have the power to make a difference.

An argument that received an extremely positive reception at the event in Glasgow was that free and fair trade is a meaningless concept because free and fair are incompatible. Governments and corporations are either free to exploit other people or they are not, and the exploitation of others is not compatible with fairness. I certainly hope that Mr Geldof explains that to my Conservative colleagues.

Brian Monteith (Independent, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member think that Mr Geldof, who ran the Conservatives' election campaign, would ever take an advertising account from the Conservatives again?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I do not propose to speculate on Mr Geldof's motives in relation to the Conservative party.

The rest of my remarks will deal with issues that were raised by our guests at an international conference that was hosted partly by the Scottish Parliament; the guests included parliamentarians, representatives of non-governmental organisations and others from around the world. The inter-European parliamentary forum on population and development—I admit that that is not the snappiest title an organisation might have—seeks to promote sexual and reproductive health and rights, the lack of which is deeply linked to poverty. In extreme cases, more than 30 per cent of a country's population might be HIV positive. The approach of some Governments in promoting the idea that it is wrong to use condoms is not morally defensible and has huge economic, as well as social and human, impacts.

In other developing countries that do not suffer from that particular chronic problem, the extent to which people have sexual and reproductive health and rights has a profound impact on poverty. We all acknowledge that the status of women in society is connected to poverty and is an important factor in a country's development. The issue is not just a matter of education. The right to make choices about how many children to have, when to have them and with whom is fundamental. The power to exercise that right is fundamental to women's position in society and the development of society. It is not a coincidence that most women in developed countries are accustomed to having such rights and take them for granted.

It was important that the European forum hosted the conference that I mentioned, which took place before the G8 summit at Gleneagles. The aim of the conference was to influence the summit agenda, because there are countries—such as America—and institutions that go around the world attacking the idea that everyone should have sexual and reproductive rights; they seek to deny those rights to people in developing countries and even threaten to remove them from people in developed countries.

In the light of that international dynamic, it is essential that countries that are committed to sexual and reproductive health and rights advocate their position with clarity and consistency. I hope that members of all parties—those who think that the future lies in independence and those who think that it lies in devolution—will support the idea that the Parliament should play a greater role in international development; after all, many other devolved institutions are capable of exercising such a role.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

How do we define poverty? Rather than take an international perspective, I will be parochial. The official definition is that any household whose income is less than 60 per cent of the median income is in poverty. That is good political doublespeak. Let me make myself clear: people do not need politicians to define and explain poverty. Quite simply, when someone cannot make ends meet they are not only in poverty, but they are bang in trouble.

A university study concluded that the minimum amount that would be required simply to keep body and soul together—for anyone, far less for a pensioner—was £160 per week, which would allow for no luxuries at all.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

Will the member give way?

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.

Next month the level of pension credits will be raised to £114 per week and means testing will apply. However, only the master of the house will receive that sum; the spouse will receive the usual 50 per cent of her husband's pension. Is that equality? Quite frankly, I am of the opinion that the average politician—perhaps I should say median rather than average—could not even spell the word "equality". Ladies gain such equality only when their partner dies. The good news is that pension credits will be index linked until 2008. The UK spends between 5 and 6 per cent of its gross domestic product on such things as pensions. In other, more advanced, European countries the figure is as high as 15 per cent.

I look forward to a time when there is no need for organisations such as Age Concern and Help the Aged to exist because our Government is doing what it was elected to do. Those worthy organisations must be praised for the great work that they do, but surely our policies at the top level should aspire to do more than provide a level of charity care for the elderly who have served their country well and contributed to it all their lives.

How can anyone be expected to live on the paltry sum of £114 per week? It is a fact that 83 per cent of women pensioners do not receive a full pension, which is only £82.50 per week. It is a fact that £600 a week is the cost of keeping prisoners incarcerated; they are not means tested and there is no clawback, which is not the case with students. It is a fact that 35 per cent of pensioners do not apply for pension credits. When the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Andrew Smith, introduced his green paper on pension credits at Westminster in December 2002, he admitted that the Treasury had budgeted for only a 66 per cent uptake. So far, that is the only estimate that he got right.

The forecasted increase in the number of pensioners in the next few decades must cause considerable disquiet, even among politicians who are most adept at burying their heads in the sand.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

One minute.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

In this life, we get only what we pay for; all politicians have to face up to that reality. If we are to fund future pensions, which must be paid without means testing, we must opt for a realistic increase in national insurance contributions. No matter how unpopular it would be, NI should rise to a compulsory minimum of 6 per cent of total salary.

If pensions are means tested, pensioners who have other sources of income would see their citizens pension of £160 per week reduced through income tax. For example, my citizens pension would be reduced to £96. The big fear for political parties is that the introduction of such a measure would be electoral suicide for the party that proposed it. The media have brainwashed political parties into thinking that any commitment to tax increases equates to political failure at the ballot box.

It is essential, therefore, that the benefits of tax increases are marketed to the public to make them more acceptable to voters. For example, sabbaticals could be introduced into the equation: on reaching the age of 50, people could take time out on a sabbatical of six months or more. The time that they took would automatically be added to their working life—in effect, a sabbatical would act as an extension to someone's retiral date. Sabbaticals would allow people to take quality time in the prime of their lives when they are at their fittest and able to fully enjoy a break from the daily treadmill. According to medical experts, such sabbaticals are beneficial to life expectancy.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I must hurry you, Mr Swinburne.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

A recent study forecast that the life expectancy of a child who is born today is 97 for a female and 93 for a male. When the retiral date was reduced in 1920, from 70 to 65, life expectancy was a mere 49 years.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You must close, Mr Swinburne.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

We must do away with means testing, which is not only an abomination but acts against saving. By all means, we should give all possible help to alleviate the circumstances of the poor in Malawi and other parts of Africa, but we must not forget those at home who are suffering—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am afraid that I have closed down your sound, Mr Swinburne. You are more than a minute over your time.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Caring about poverty issues at home and abroad must be key to and at the heart of any politician's raison d'être. When Labour came to power in the United Kingdom in 1997, we found that child poverty had doubled since we were last in power. It is now falling significantly; indeed, it is falling faster in this country than it is in any other country in the European Union. However, we want to make progress and we must make progress.

It is not acceptable for any child in this country to grow up in poverty in this day and age. That is why it is right that we have set ourselves the objective of eliminating child poverty. In 1997, we found that 4.2 million children were living in poverty and almost 5.5 million people were living on benefits—almost 3 million more than in 1979. We also found that the number of people who were claiming unemployment benefits had risen by 50 per cent and that the number of those who were claiming lone parent benefits and incapacity benefit had more than tripled.

Again, in 1997, we found that 2.8 million pensioners were living in poverty; many of them were expected to live on as little as £69 a week. People had been condemned to a life of dependency on benefits; they had been written off. Families were suffering intergenerational poverty; they had little expectation of work. Communities had become breeding grounds for despair and low aspiration. In partnership with the Westminster Government, the Scottish Executive has made it a top priority to tackle that legacy. By raising aspirations and breaking cycles of deprivation, we have made a difference.

Patrick Harvie rightly said that we should develop fair trade. I would couple that with the development of co-operatives and mutuals. I declare an interest as an MSP who is sponsored by the Scottish Co-operative Party.

Instead of being at the bottom of the league tables, the UK is now close to the European average for child poverty. We have made the biggest improvement of any EU country. More people are now in jobs than was ever the case in the past—the figure is more than 2.3 million higher than it was in 1997—and the number who are on benefits has fallen by around 1 million. With almost three quarters of the working-age population in work, our employment rate is the highest of the G8 countries.

Pension credit has made a real difference for millions of pensioners: in the last year alone, the number of pensioners who are in relative poverty has gone down by 15 per cent. The Government has provided additional support for all pensioners; I am thinking of the above-inflation increases to the basic state pension and £200 winter fuel payments, with £300 going to households that include a pensioner over 80. I am also thinking of the one-off payments that the Government has made to those over 65, including the extra £200 payment to help with council tax, and the free eye tests for all pensioners and free television licences for those over 75. Most help has been targeted at those pensioners who need it most.

Pension credit is helping a large number of pensioners. In November 2005, figures showed a fall of 1 million since 1997—from 2.8 million to 1.8 million—in the number of pensioner households living below the 60 per cent of median income threshold. That is a remarkable achievement, which comes at a time when median incomes have risen quickly thanks to the success and stability that we have seen in our economy.

In December 2005, pension credit was uprated to £114 and that uprating will continue in line with earnings until at least 2008. In November 2005, the Department for Social Development published figures that showed that annually £221 million of pension credit goes unclaimed by many thousands of pensioners across the country. That is an important issue and all of us hope that our colleagues in Westminster will address it.

In 2005-06, as a result of the measures that it introduced, the Government spent an extra £11 billion on financial support for pensioners. The Government has targeted the increase at the poorest of pensioners, which means that almost half of the spending—over £5 billion—has gone to the poorest third of pensioners. They have seen big improvements in their circumstances.

Since 1996-97, the number of pensioners on absolute low incomes has decreased by more than 2 million, from 2.8 million to 700,000. Housing costs are taken into account in those figures.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

I, too, welcome the debate. When we had the G8 in Scotland last year, a quarter of a million people demonstrated in Edinburgh, more than 9 million people bought the make poverty history wristband and 360,000 people e-mailed Tony Blair on the issue. It is absolutely clear that the people of Scotland and Britain wanted their Governments and the G8 summit to make poverty history. Did the G8 summit make poverty history? No; that was a complete and utter illusion—the G8 was a magician's trick.

Some members did not buy in to the Government-sponsored protest and spin. Did the G8 leaders have the power to make poverty history? Yes. Could they have implemented the policies that they said they would implement? Yes. Did they do so? No—because they are the bag carriers for the neo-liberal free market capitalism that benefits the multinational companies.

I cannot agree with Des McNulty that the Commission for Africa is such a good thing and that all of us should pull together to support it. It fills me with fear that the Commission for Africa is supporting, and will work with, Business Action for Africa, a body that represents the African interests of companies like Halliburton, Exxon Mobile, Coca-Cola, General Motors, Microsoft, Shell, De Beers, Diageo—the list goes on. Poor countries are trying to protect their economies and maximise their resources including their agriculture, oil, diamonds and minerals and, all the time, those vultures are circling on the sidelines.

Poor countries are trying to do that, yet the most important decision that the G8 and the World Trade Organisation could take was to state their intention to force indebted and poor countries to open up their economies to multinational investment. The G8 and the WTO want to stop protection and force through the privatisation of health and education in the poorest countries. It is as if they think that the multinational companies have no agenda for profit or exploitation. Is the main concern of those companies, or the reason that they are involved in Business for Africa, a desire to lift out of poverty all the poor children—the starving masses—whom we see on television? No, it is not.

The G8 and Blair and Brown's central neo-liberal agenda causes world poverty, yet they cannot even guarantee that their agenda works. Brazil adopted neo-liberal free market capitalism, and that country crashed and burned. Argentina adopted it and it, too, crashed and burned, as did the south-east Asian economies that adopted it. There are no guarantees that neo-liberal free market capitalism will work for Africa.

Some Governments around the world are fighting poverty; their policies are making poverty history. Last year, Hugo Chavez's socialist, social justice programmes lifted 3 million people in Venezuela out of poverty. He is also working to help his neighbours. He will hand over 150,000 barrels of diesel every month to Bolivia, which is one of the poorest countries in South America. Hugo Chavez has said that he will not accept a cent from Bolivia and that it can pay in agricultural products.

Evo Morales is the new president of Bolivia. In Bolivia the privatisation of water was prevented by a general strike and mass protests and riots in the street. Bolivia will provide us with a model for the eradication of poverty, because Morales says that he will eradicate poverty in Bolivia by nationalising the country's oil and gas resources and by working with other partners in South America. The nationalisation of energy reserves is the key to eradicating poverty.

The good news for the 9 million people who bought make poverty history wristbands and for the 360,000 people who e-mailed Tony Blair is that there is an alternative. The Parliament should support protest movements and Governments throughout the world that are gaining more support every day because they have put socialist issues on their agendas and are eradicating poverty and making it history.

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

The debate has been interesting and thought provoking. I will briefly comment on as many speeches as I can and try to draw out common threads in the debate.

I congratulate Dennis Canavan on a fine speech. He told us that a billion people live on less than $1 a day. Such statistics certainly make us think. Ours is one of the richer nations of the world and Dennis Canavan brought that home to us. He and other speakers referred to the iniquity of the arms race and my colleague Mike Pringle—and others—mentioned Trident.

Christine Grahame rightly drew our attention to poverty at home. It is a sad, almost tragic aspect of society that benefits are not taken up by people who are entitled to them. We must tackle that problem.

Mary Scanlon made a good point about incentives to save. I am co-convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on tackling debt, which has begun to consider evidence that some banks appear to be less than scrupulous in their approach to debt. People can get into a tragic debt trap, in which one debt leads to a bigger debt that must be paid back at a higher rate of interest. I hope that the cross-party group will consider the matter in the Scottish context, but perhaps the international banking system should consider how it operates.

Mike Pringle talked about the role of the Scottish Executive and rightly drew attention to the £3 million that is being sent to assist with the situation in Malawi. Given the contact between Scotland and Malawi, such aid is appropriate. Like many members, Mike Pringle talked about the extraordinary demonstration—that sea of white— that we witnessed in Edinburgh last July. Although I agree with all speakers that much work remains to be done, the number of young people who turned out to demonstrate that day gives me cause for optimism. I am no longer young, but young people are better at getting involved in the issue than we or our parents were. Involvement seems to have grown organically among young people. I do not know why that has happened but I welcome it, because it is a positive indicator for the future.

Des McNulty started his speech by making political points but then pulled back and made a fine speech—I look forward to Brian Monteith's summing up. Des McNulty pointed out that work is being done via the Scottish Executive. Notwithstanding the poverty in this country, which members mentioned, we should consider this country's GDP and the fact that people who are in employment can spend amounts in supermarkets every week that their parents would never have dreamed of spending. People in work have more disposable cash than has ever been the case. If we calculate the amount of money that is needed to end poverty as a percentage of world GDP, it is clear that poverty could be eliminated with a click of our fingers. We must not forget that it would be easy to eliminate poverty.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The member says that people in work have more disposable income than has been the case at any time in living memory. Does he accept that the working poor account for the biggest growth area in poverty? Does he agree that being in employment is not enough and that people must be well paid?

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

Tommy Sheridan's comment reflects the good thing about this debate. Unlike many parliamentary debates, this is a proper debate because we are attempting a philosophical discussion and examination of the issues. The range of comments that have been made gives me hope that, collectively, we can tackle poverty. If the debate does nothing else, it will surely prod our collective conscience. As every speaker said, we should follow up the debate with work outside the Parliament.

I am sorry that I do not have time to talk about the speeches that Nanette Milne, Patrick Harvie, John Swinburne, Helen Eadie and Frances Curran made, but I echo Frances Curran's comment that the people of Scotland turned out to demonstrate in Edinburgh because they care. That is wonderful. I mentioned problems to do with the central heating programme in an intervention during Mary Scanlon's speech.

As members said, there is no doubt that the fair trade movement is a huge contributor to the eradication of poverty. It is fascinating that the movement has evolved, just as young people's engagement has evolved. If we can build and deliver on that, we can do a great deal.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The debate has been wide ranging, as members have said. Members have talked about poverty at home and in the international context.

Dennis Canavan kicked off the debate by referring to the international situation and identifying three issues: trade, aid, and debt. A number of speakers offered statistics that underline the problem. Every year, 10 million children die of hunger or preventable disease—one child dies every three seconds. Some 25 million people in sub-Saharan Africa are infected with HIV/AIDS, according to the official figures. In Malawi, which I visited recently with other members, the official infection rate among adults is 14 per cent—in reality the rate is probably higher. HIV/AIDS is probably the most serious problem in sub-Saharan Africa. As Nanette Milne reminded us, in many countries life expectancy is falling. For example, in Malawi life expectancy has fallen by about 10 years. The situation is deeply worrying.

What can be done? A number of members called for measures that could improve the situation. We should consider our trade rules, as Des McNulty and others said, because the rules militate against access to our markets by third-world traders. When we were in Malawi, Mark Ruskell and I visited sugarcane producers who access the fair trade market, which is of considerable benefit to them. However, the producers that we met were hampered by European Union quota rules, which prevent them from exporting to the EU as much of their crop at market rates as they should be able to export. If the markets were open to them they could create wealth and deliver prosperity to their country. They are not able to do so, simply because of the international trade rules.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Does the member agree that the common agricultural policy and system of subsidies should be dismantled as soon as possible?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I would not call for the wholesale dismantling of the CAP at this stage, but we must reform the policy. It is nonsense and an abuse of EU taxpayers' money that, for example, we subsidise farmers in Italy and Greece to grow tobacco.

Members mentioned the valuable fair trade movement, which has grown in leaps and bounds. Consumers in this country exercise choice and decide to support producers in the third world. This week I was interested to receive a letter from Marks and Spencer, which said that its shops stock more and more fair trade products as a result of consumer demand.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

rose—

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I apologise to Patrick Harvie, but I have only five minutes for my speech and I will not be able to make all the points that I want to make if I take more interventions.

Foreign aid has grown exponentially in recent years. In particular, there has been an explosion in personal giving during the past two decades. Of course Governments are giving more, but often the direct aid that individuals give to charities and non-governmental organisations is more effective, because there is more control over how the money is spent.

Governance is the key to many issues to do with poverty in the third world, as Linda Fabiani said. There must be democratic structures and the rule of law. There is nothing complicated about the elimination of poverty; countries that enjoy political stability and enforce the law prosper. The problem is that basic elements of good governance are not in place in many countries. Uganda, which I visited some years ago, provides an interesting example in that regard. For 10 years Uganda enjoyed political stability and had a legal system that was generally regarded as free and fair. During that period the country was able to deliver much higher levels of economic growth than could be delivered by many of its neighbouring countries. It is sad that the situation in Uganda has gone into reverse, but the example shows what can be done if the basic structures are in place.

I do not have time to address many of the other issues that I would like to. However, I will comment briefly on poverty at home, which Christine Grahame and other members mentioned. Scotland has the worst life expectancy in the United Kingdom—in some parts of Glasgow, the figure for males is 53.9 years. Those utterly depressing figures are worse than those in many third world countries and they are getting even worse. The big-state approach has failed. Instead, we should create new community groups and aim to build up the voluntary sector through a new compact. That is the way to make poverty history, abroad and at home.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I congratulate the independent group on using its time to debate poverty. As others have done, I pay tribute to the quarter of a million people who marched in Edinburgh last July to highlight the issues of poverty and to show support for the move to eradicate it worldwide. Many of the people who marched live in poverty in Scotland and I will touch on local as well as international issues. We accept absolutely that there is no comparison between levels of poverty in Scotland and those in Malawi and other areas but, to people who live in deprivation in a country that is as rich in resources as Scotland is, their situation is very real.

It has not yet been mentioned that the real reason for poverty is inequality in the distribution of wealth. Once we sort that out, I hope that we will start to eradicate poverty, not only in Scotland, but worldwide. It angers and saddens me that, as members have mentioned, my city of Glasgow has within its boundaries 17 of the poorest areas in Scotland, including the 10 most deprived areas. In Glasgow, 41 per cent of households live in poverty. Glasgow has three quarters of Scotland's poorest areas and one third of Scotland's worst council wards.

Murdo Fraser mentioned life expectancy. Scotland's average male life expectancy is 64 years, which is lower than that in Bosnia, Lebanon, the Gaza strip, Iran and North Korea. I make that point particularly for Des McNulty and Helen Eadie. Labour has been in control in their areas and in Glasgow for decades. I ask the Labour members what they plan to do about the terrible figures that I have just mentioned. They cannot pat themselves on the back for their efforts to get rid of poverty in Glasgow and the rest of Scotland.

I turn to the bigger issue of world poverty and the make poverty history campaign. I sincerely thank and pay tribute to Jubilee Scotland and the trade justice movement for their continuing work to ensure that the issue is kept on the agenda of all Governments, particularly ours. The issue is not only for Westminster; as has been mentioned, we can do a lot in Scotland. Jamie Stone mentioned the money that we have spent, but, as Linda Fabiani said, the Basque Country and Catalonia give money directly to tackle world poverty, so the Scottish Parliament could do more.

As various members have mentioned, debt relief, increased aid and trade justice must be paramount. As Patrick Harvie said, Governments have choices, but, unfortunately, people in the poorer countries simply do not. It is not acceptable that countries that have been brought to their knees by poverty are even more disadvantaged as a result of the strict criteria that developed countries have put in place. Dennis Canavan mentioned some of those countries—the UK, the other EU countries and America are among them. Many members have mentioned trade justice, although perhaps we should rename it trade injustice. I concur with all the comments that members have made on the issue. How can it be right that rich countries such as ours, and America and the EU, use subsidies to dump their products on poor countries and so stifle those countries' economic growth? Countries end up in a cycle of never-ending debt and borrowing, which leads to the collapse of their economies.

All too often, western Governments blame the people and Governments in poor countries. As Linda Fabiani said, we must examine certain Governments, but not all Governments of poor countries are corrupt. We could say that some of the actions of our Government are corrupt, too. We must stop the spiral that is created when western countries set strict criteria on trade and debt relief. Rich nations have a duty to ensure that justice is delivered in poorer countries. We should continue our campaign, collectively and individually, to ensure that we bring justice and make poverty history.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

As Helen Eadie said, addressing poverty at home and abroad must be central to the raison d'être of every politician. Today's debate has touched on international and domestic issues. To start with the former, I am delighted to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the make poverty history campaign, particularly the Scottish organisations that play a leading role in the global fight against world poverty. The Scottish Executive strongly supports the aims of the make poverty history coalition. The Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, who has responsibility for the matter, recently met representatives of the coalition and committed to continue to do so regularly.

Every fair-minded person would agree that the UK Government demonstrated leadership during the G8 summit and worked hard to deliver significant steps towards debt cancellation and more and better aid. However, as Dennis Canavan emphasised in his excellent and passionate speech, there is clearly a great deal more to do. Continued pressure is needed to ensure that the promises that were made during the summit are delivered and that much more is done, particularly on trade, an issue that Des McNulty emphasised.

The Executive believes that, to make poverty history, everyone must play a part in achieving the millennium development goals. As has been mentioned, through our international development policy, we are committed to supporting international development. The first round of awards from our international development fund was announced last November. Almost £5 million over three years will benefit 34 projects that are based in Ghana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Tanzania, Sudan, Malawi and Sri Lanka. The application period for the second round of funding closed last month. Again, the response was overwhelming. Within our broad sub-Saharan Africa priority, there is, as members know, a particular focus on Malawi. In that context, the focus is on education, which Linda Fabiani emphasised, health, which Nanette Milne emphasised, civic government and sustainable economic development.

Christine Grahame and Mary Scanlon emphasised the crucial role of women. As Patrick Harvie reminded us, the status of women in society is connected strongly to the level of poverty and is important in development matters. That is why our international development fund gives additional weight to projects that promote women's equality and empowerment.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The debate has focused on fair trade. How will the Executive's international development fund support fair trade by supporting the capacity of producers in developing countries such as Malawi to access markets and the demand in Scotland that arises through public procurement?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

As I said, the fund has a focus on sustainable economic development. However, we all accept that the international trade talks are crucial. We certainly need to press for a great deal more progress in opening up markets to the poorest countries.

On domestic issues, John Swinburne highlighted the definitions of poverty. The international definitions that we use rightly focus on relative poverty, so that the threshold becomes higher as wages rise. It is right that I remind members of the figures that came out last week on child and pensioner poverty. Compared to 1998, in 2004, 100,000 fewer children lived in relative low-income households—100,000 children have been lifted out of poverty and prevented from being held back through lack of opportunity. The 2004 figure is a reduction of 34 per cent from the starting point and it exceeds significantly our first-quarter target towards our goal of eradicating child poverty by 2020.

The final point that I have time to mention is pensioner poverty, which has featured strongly in the debate. Clearly, more work needs to be done, but we should recognise that, according to last week's figures, compared to 1997, 120,000 fewer pensioners are in relative low-income households and, since then, more than three-quarters of those who were in absolute poverty have been lifted out of it. Through the pension credit and initiatives such as free central heating, free personal care and free bus travel throughout Scotland, we are maximising Scottish pensioners' disposable income. It is regrettable that Christine Grahame did not recognise that and that she launched an attack on the strategy for older people, which will astonish older people's organisations. That strategy clearly focuses on much broader issues and is crucial to Scotland's future.

My time is up. I congratulate Dennis Canavan and the independents on securing such a good and important debate.

Brian Monteith (Independent, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I sum up the debate as a member of the independent group. Being a member of that group means being independent not only of parties but of each other, so I am sure that Dennis Canavan will understand if I do not entirely agree with his passionate speech. Not agreeing with the opening speaker for my group is something that I am used to.

The debate has been wide ranging, but I want to focus on international aid, debt and trade. It is important to distinguish between disaster relief and economic aid, which have different purposes. It is entirely understandable and commendable that people—individuals in particular—should put their hands in their pockets and make vast donations to help people to tackle natural disasters, but that is different from economic aid, which members have discussed. I am referring to aid that is given from one state to another, or Government-to-Government aid.

I recommend to members the work of the economist, Professor Peter Bauer, who studied the effects of economic aid and found that

"Aid is the process by which the poor in rich countries subsidise the rich in poor countries."

He found that, in general, intergovernmental aid is pernicious and damaging and does not help the poor in poor countries—in fact, such aid is often the reason why tyrants, bullies and autocrats stay in power. I would argue that politicians who advocate giving greater and greater economic aid are as addicted to the guilt release that it provides them, as the many tyrants who receive such aid are dependent on it. Advocating greater and greater economic aid makes politicians feel good, although more difficult reforms need to be tackled. The profits from tobacco, maize or lignite—which used to be ample in his country—do not keep Mugabe in power; it is the economic aid from Libya and China that ensures that he can maintain his grip.

Members have rightly referred to debt. Aid is often tied to debt, which can ensure that democratic Governments that replace tyrants are trapped in the past regime's debts.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Does the member agree that if there is a tyrannical regime in a country that receives aid, the best way of dealing with matters is not necessarily to stop all the aid, but to ensure that it is channelled through non-governmental organisations rather than through the Government?

Brian Monteith (Independent, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I happily accept that that is a preferred route, but the point that I am making is that intergovernmental aid is normally beyond the democratic accountability that we would like there to be.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will Brian Monteith therefore congratulate the socialist Republic of Cuba, which has not received a single penny in aid from any country for 47 years, but has eradicated poverty and delivered fantastic health and education systems?

Brian Monteith (Independent, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is a fallacious point because Cuba received aid from Moscow. As the member knows, I am in favour of ending the trade embargo on Cuba because trade would bring liberty to people in Cuba.

I must move on. Trade is crucial to the future of the poorest countries. Members have mentioned that the European Union is the greatest obstacle to improving trade conditions for the poor of Africa. Murdo Fraser referred to the fact that the European Union erects tariff barriers to protect European sugar beet farmers. The European Union dumps surplus crops, which have sometimes been subsidised—I refer to Italian tomatoes, for example—in Africa, which ruins local markets through which poor farmers are trying to improve their lot without aid. The European Union's tariffs and export subsidies also ensure that the United States of America does not liberalise its trade. Europe could take the lead. Tariffs and dumping are only two examples. In the summer, I was at a conference at which a Kenyan delegate said, "Give us justice, not generosity." He wanted access to markets.

There are two options. We can abolish—not reform—the common agricultural policy; if we cannot do so, we can leave the European Union and trade freely with the world's poor. The obscenity of trade injustice cannot continue. Free trade is fair trade. At the moment, we have neither.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it expects to make available Professor Andrew Calder's independent report into children's health services in Glasgow. (S2O-09310)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The member will probably be aware that, following consideration, I announced my response to the Calder report on Tuesday 14 March. I have accepted the report's recommendation that the Southern general hospital is the most appropriate site for the new children's hospital and have asked NHS Greater Glasgow to start detailed planning for delivery of the triple co-location of maternity, children's and adult clinical services. That planning will include public consultation on moving children's services from Yorkhill to the Southern general hospital site. I have also asked the board to review the group's proposals on how best to integrate specialist maternity and paediatric services. In addition, the board must be able to demonstrate the impact of the modernising medical careers programme on the provision of maternity services in planning the move from three to two maternity units in Glasgow between 2007 and 2009.

The Calder report can be accessed on the Scottish Executive's website. A copy of it has also been placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I welcome the fact that the Calder group recognised the importance of an integrated service for women, children and babies, although Greater Glasgow NHS Board had not. Naturally, I am disappointed that a location could not be found in the west of the city.

Will the minister meet me so that I can outline my grave concerns to him about the suggestion that the Queen Mother's hospital might close earlier if the new hospital is not ready and to outline my anger at the approach of Greater Glasgow NHS Board, which seems to want to close the hospital prematurely? Finally, will he assure me that he will advise me soon and in detail what facilities will be available for mothers in the west of my constituency?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I do not think that Greater Glasgow NHS Board wants to close any hospital prematurely. The issue is fully discussed in the report by Andrew Calder and his group. He has come down clearly in favour of ensuring that maternity services are available as and when changes begin to take place.

All boards in Scotland have a duty and responsibility to ensure that the safety of patients is not endangered in any way as a result of changes. I am more than happy to discuss the member's concerns with her, including any concerns that she has about antenatal and post-natal services, which must continue to be available as locally as possible. I am happy to discuss such matters with Greater Glasgow NHS Board and the member.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Professor Calder's report recommends that the Queen Mother's hospital should close before the new hospital opens. It has been said that that will leave a serious situation at Yorkhill, which will be a stand-alone hospital. Professor Calder has also recommended that the maternity unit at the Southern general hospital be gutted. Will the minister clarify whether that means that demolition work will be carried out while services at the Southern general hospital are still operational, or will the Southern general hospital maternity site be closed? That would leave Glasgow with only one maternity hospital—the Princess Royal maternity hospital—for an indefinite period.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Describing such a prospect is irresponsible scaremongering. Of course Professor Calder and his team and Greater Glasgow NHS Board would not consider services being delivered in the manner that the member describes. I remind her that the content of the Calder report is well considered. It states:

"The advantage of the current adjacency of the QMH maternity service to the RHSC should be preserved as long as it is appropriate and feasible but ultimately it must be seen as subordinate to critical issues of maternal safety."

I need to listen to such voices, which I have done. There has been work with the community and Greater Glasgow NHS Board on the changes and the member can rest assured that any changes relating to the service will be carried out in a way that does not endanger the safety of patients.

Every day, including today, neonate transport takes place safely and appropriately in our health service throughout Scotland—it happens 1,200 times a year. We should not scare people. We should enable them to understand the changes that are taking place. The goal is to achieve triple co-located maternity, paediatric and adult services in one centre. That will be an ideal model—a gold-plated model of care in Scotland. We should be proud of that and I look forward to the scheme's fruition.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The minister will be aware that the model that he refers to will involve a super-campus that will rival the size of any hospital in Europe, let alone Scotland. I invite him to solidify the commitment that the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications gave this morning by acknowledging that the current transport links are woefully inadequate and by indicating that he will be involved very soon in developing the necessary arrangements for proper transport networks to and from the hospital.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The Calder group questioned NHS Greater Glasgow in great detail on the matter and it found that the board had taken into account the relevant factors in respect of access and transport.

The Southern general was not the least accessible of the available sites. When it came to population movements, the Southern general was deemed to be the most accessible of the three available sites. In addition, I am sure that my colleague the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications mentioned this morning that access will be improved around the M8, the Clyde tunnel and Glasgow airport. The Southern general has a helipad, which is used frequently. We will ensure that the whole planning process deals with transport matters.

I repeat that the Calder group went through the matter with NHS Greater Glasgow and found that consideration had been given to the transport issues. Working with Strathclyde Passenger Transport, it deemed that the Southern general was the best site for access.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to tackle the causes of antisocial behaviour. (S2O-09324)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The Scottish Executive is taking action to address both the symptoms and the causes of antisocial behaviour. As well as introducing new legislation and improving antisocial behaviour services, we are continuing our long-term investment to deal with the causes of antisocial behaviour.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

A recent welcome crackdown on antisocial behaviour in Gracemount, in my constituency, appears to have moved the problem to neighbouring areas. Can the minister assure me that the Executive's aim is to tackle antisocial behaviour at its source rather than to move it from one area to another?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

As I said, through both legislation and investment, we are trying to address the symptoms and the causes of antisocial behaviour.

What Mike Pringle describes is an operational issue. If there is a rise in antisocial behaviour in a neighbouring area, the relevant agencies should get together to ask how they can use both the investment and the powers available to them to prevent a problem from developing. Ultimately, we must reflect on the need for people throughout our society to face up to their individual responsibility and to address their own behaviour. Parents must show an example to their children and make them aware of what is right and wrong.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Can the minister outline what on-going discussions he has had with voluntary organisations in Lanarkshire, Kilmarnock and elsewhere in central Scotland about the important role that they can play in working with local communities to combat antisocial behaviour?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

That is a matter for local authorities in their area. It is not for ministers to determine what voluntary organisations do in any locality. I recognise the significant contribution that voluntary organisations make to improving the quality of life throughout Scotland. I have visited a number of voluntary organisations in recent years and have been very impressed with what they do to help young offenders, people who have been released from prison and young people. Although I am impressed with that work, the determination of what happens in a local area is a matter for the local funding agencies.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it ensures that the funds allocated to community safety partnerships are used effectively and for the purposes for which they were intended. (S2O-09309)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Community safety partnerships have agreed community safety problem-solving plans with the Scottish Executive. Funding for subsequent years will be released subject to satisfactory performance against those plans. We have recruited a national community safety co-ordinator to lead a programme of support and training, to promote best practice and to work with partnerships to improve delivery.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I am glad that the minister acknowledges the importance of getting the best possible value from such new investment. Is he aware that Inverclyde community safety partnership obtained in excess of £100,000 from the Executive to buy a mobile closed-circuit television unit, which has been hidden away for 10 months and will continue to be hidden away because Inverclyde Council will not fund its operation? Does he share my view that that hardly represents best value for the taxpayer and that it short-changes my community? Will he assure me that he and other ministers will investigate the matter?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The CCTV van to which Duncan McNeil refers was funded through social inclusion partnership moneys rather than through community safety, but he identifies a real problem. It would be a scandal if any money that the Executive gave to improve safety in the community, under whatever heading, was not used for its intended purposes. I will certainly speak to my colleagues who are responsible for that budget, because we would want some assurances that the money has been used properly. It is unacceptable that a CCTV van should lie in a garage in the way that Duncan McNeil describes. Questions need to be asked of those who are responsible locally and they need to be held to account for any failure on their part.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Marilyn Livingstone is not present to ask question 4 and question 5 has been withdrawn.

Kate Maclean (Labour, Dundee West)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will announce the concessionary fares scheme for young people. (S2O-09302)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

We are currently developing detailed proposals to implement the partnership agreement commitment to introduce a national scheme of concessionary travel for young people. I will make an announcement once the proposals are finalised.

Kate Maclean (Labour, Dundee West)

As the number of students and young people in training in my Dundee West constituency is higher than the average, the introduction of the scheme will be welcome there. Will the minister tell me what measures the Scottish Executive intends to take to encourage young people to take up their concessionary travel entitlement? Unlike elderly people, young people have never expected to have a concessionary travel scheme. Does he share my concern that the take-up might not be as good as that for the scheme for the elderly?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Kate Maclean makes a fair point about the publicity and information that would be necessary to make young people aware of the entitlement that they would have under the young persons travel scheme. We are considering a number of methods for doing that. It is also important to use some of the voluntary organisations that have a particular attachment to young people in that work, but we would be open to any suggestions that colleagues might wish to make on the matter.

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

The minister will be aware of recent publicity regarding tragic deaths on the A9 north of Inverness. A facet of that tragedy is that a high proportion of those who die are young people, including young drivers. Does the minister agree that, whatever happens with the concessionary fares scheme, it is desperately important that we get over to young people the message that they should get out of their cars and into public transport?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

One of the benefits that will accrue to public transport from the national concessionary scheme for young people is that it will encourage the kind of shift to which the member refers. There is clear statistical evidence that, tragically, many young people are involved in accidents on our roads in their first year of driving after having passed their tests. The statistics are worse for that age group than for any other in the population. Jamie Stone makes a legitimate point about encouraging young people to use public transport where it is available—although availability is an issue throughout Scotland—rather than using the car.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will publish the traffic-modelling data for the Tay road bridge that were prepared to inform the tolled bridges review. (S2O-09323)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Yes. Detailed traffic-modelling data gathered as part of phase 2 of the tolled bridges review have been published through the Scottish Executive and transport model for Scotland websites.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The minister will be aware of the local view that tollbooths on the Tay bridge cause more congestion than would any increase in traffic that the removal of tolls might generate. Will he therefore reconsider his views on the Tay road bridge? In particular, will he reconsider carefully any proposal to spend £8 million on relocating the tollbooths, which are currently at the north end of the bridge, to my constituency? My constituents would consider such a relocation as adding salt to the wound.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The Scottish Executive has carried out a lengthy and detailed review of tolled bridges. That review has concluded and there was a statement followed by a fairly lively debate in Parliament a week or so ago. The construction costs of the Tay road bridge have not yet been recovered. That was the primary reason for the decision not to remove tolls.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Does the minister accept that the Scottish Executive's policy on tolled bridges contains an inequity? Will he respond to the call from Mr Smith—one of his back benchers—and the call from the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board? On Monday, the board asked the minister to reconsider his position urgently and to remove the tolls. The tolls are a punitive burden on the people of Tayside and Fife.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I do not accept Mr Swinney's argument that a one-size-fits-all policy would be right for the bridges. The review on tolled bridges has been published and he can read the clear reasons behind the decisions that were reached. Different circumstances pertain in different parts of Scotland. I am sure that he is well aware of the statistic that 65 per cent of traffic on the Tay road bridge is local, which suggests that a local determination of the issues is important.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question 8 has been withdrawn.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will introduce legislation that would make legally binding the current voluntary system whereby the Crown Estate accepts the recommendations of the relevant planning authorities in respect of fish farm applications. (S2O-09340)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The consultation paper "Extending Planning Controls to Marine Fish Farming" was issued in October 2004. We are still finalising the details, but our intention at this stage is to bring, as appropriate, marine fish farming under the control of the statutory planning system by summer 2006.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for her answer and I support the moves in that direction. How will the Executive ensure that the local authorities in question have the relevant expertise to deal with applications?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I acknowledge the importance of ensuring that local authorities have the necessary range of expertise. We are still considering how to ensure that we get that in place by 2006.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its response is to Scottish Enterprise Grampian's report, "North sea oil taxation: economic impact". (S2O-9267)

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Responsibility for oil taxation rests with the United Kingdom Government. Currently, there are very high levels of exploration activity in the North sea and, with high oil prices, there is no reason why investment and production should not continue for the foreseeable future.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The minister will appreciate that that fails to answer the question. He may recall that his colleagues said that Gordon Brown's tax grab would have no impact on Scotland, yet the Government's own agency, Scottish Enterprise, says that it could leave an £800 million hole in the Scottish economy. Will the minister explain to the chamber and to the oil industry in north-east Scotland what measures he is calling for from Gordon Brown's forthcoming budget to help to repair some of the damage that will be caused if nothing is done soon, to encourage investment in the industry, and to promote initiatives such as those on carbon capture and storage?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

As the member will be aware, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, the Scottish Executive met representatives from the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association to discuss their concerns. Indeed, on 24 November, the Deputy First Minister wrote to the Department of Trade and Industry to set out the Executive's concerns.

Mr Lochhead will be aware that the report showed that the impact will depend on the price of oil in the future and that the future level of oil prices will have a much bigger impact on investment than the tax. The report concluded that if oil prices fall below $40 a barrel, the chancellor's tax increases will have adverse impacts on investment and on the Grampian and Scottish economies. However, we can take some comfort from the fact that oil prices are currently $61 a barrel.

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-2175)

I congratulate Caitlin McClatchey and David Carry on winning Scotland's first gold medals of the Commonwealth games. Let us hope that those medals are the first of many.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I, too, congratulate Caitlin McClatchey and David Carry, particularly as David Carry is a fellow Aberdonian. It was great to see his gold medal swimming success.

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

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is the Deputy First Minister aware that his Government is refusing to publish some 1,400 documents relating to the Shirley McKie case and that, last week, it threatened to use a public interest immunity certificate to prevent any mention in open court of the report of former deputy chief constable James Mackay, in spite of the fact that the report has been quoted in every newspaper in the land? Given that the Liberals have long championed the principle of freedom of information, is the Deputy First Minister embarrassed by the obsessive and paranoid secrecy surrounding the Shirley McKie case?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

It is important to emphasise that the freedom of information requests relating to the documents that are being referred to were responded to by the Lord Advocate, in his role as the head of the prosecution service—a role that is independent of Executive ministers. It is appropriate that there is a strong freedom of information regime in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament has passed the strongest freedom of information legislation in the United Kingdom; indeed, it is stronger than many such regimes around the world. I am sure that the requests will be dealt with appropriately. At the end of the day, the Scottish Information Commissioner will rule on those issues. It would be wrong for ministers to intervene.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

It seems that that Liberal Democrat principle comes cheap, so let us try another one.

Does the Deputy First Minister recall that, last week, a fingerprint expert in Aberdeen, Gary Dempster, speaking in a personal capacity on the BBC, voiced his concerns about the Shirley McKie case? He did so in line with the Scottish fingerprint service's manual, which says that

"any member of staff has the freedom to challenge the accuracy of any process employed in the Service."

Does the Deputy First Minister share my concern that Mr Dempster was informed yesterday—in a letter of which I have a copy—that he is to face disciplinary proceedings at the specific request of the director of the Scottish Criminal Record Office, an organisation that is, we are told, reformed beyond reproach and has nothing to hide? The last time I checked, freedom of speech was a core Liberal principle. Will the Deputy First Minister today defend that principle by condemning the outrageous action that is being taken against Gary Dempster simply for speaking his mind?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I was unaware of that matter, which is clearly between the employee and his employer.

I assure Parliament that I accept, of course, that there were significant weaknesses in the fingerprint service, as was identified in the autumn—or, if we take into account the interim report, the summer—of 2000. That means that, six years ago, significant weaknesses were identified by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. There was a significant inquiry, and three follow-up inspections that examined the weaknesses and recommendations confirmed that action had been taken by the fingerprint service to improve the situation. That ended up, in March 2005, with confirmation that all the recommendations with regard to the weaknesses had been acted on.

A good example is the cropping issue, which has been focused on in recent media comment. Cropping was discontinued in October 2000, one month after the report that contains the recommendations was published.

Further change will be delivered via the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which is being considered by Parliament. By April 2007, the SCRO will become part of the proposed forensic science service, which will in turn become part of the proposed Scottish police services authority, which will have lay representatives as part of its management process. By the autumn of 2006, a new non-numeric standard will be introduced for fingerprinting in Scotland. There could not have been a more significant overhaul of the fingerprint service. We have taken decisive action.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is the letter to Mr Dempster not proof that the Scottish Criminal Record Office is still trying to cover up the truth all these years later? I remind the Deputy First Minister that the SCRO is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. If he wants to see the letter, I will be happy to show it to him. Perhaps he will make a more robust defence of freedom of speech later.

Is it not the case that Liberal principles have gone out of the window in this case? I remind the Deputy First Minister that his party has, in the past year alone, demanded public inquiries on contaminated blood supplies in the national health service, on the political decisions that led to the war in Iraq, and on the events at the Deepcut army barracks. Why is it that the Liberals demand openness and transparency on those and other important issues but are prepared to collude in a cover-up in the Shirley McKie case?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Every Government minister, led by the Minister for Justice, has made it clear that they would not only co-operate with a parliamentary inquiry but would actively welcome and support one. The questions that can be and need to be answered in the case can be covered by a parliamentary inquiry. I and a clear majority of members of Parliament see no need for a judicial inquiry.

In commenting on Parliament's committees, Nicola Sturgeon once referred to

"powerful parliamentary committees, which will ensure strong and forensic parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive."

However, only a couple of weeks ago, Alex Neil said:

"the idea that the Shirley McKie case could be investigated by a parliamentary committee is, quite frankly, laughable."—[Official Report, 2 March 2006; c 23702.]

That is a disgrace. It undermines Parliament and its committee structure, which is seen as one of Parliament's great successes. I would like to see some consistency from the SNP on the issue.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I remind the Deputy First Minister that the Labour convener of the Justice 1 Committee said that a parliamentary inquiry with an in-built Government majority is no substitute for an open and independent public inquiry. I put it to the Deputy First Minister that the Liberals want a cover up in the Shirley McKie case simply because one of the key players is a senior Liberal politician—the former Minister for Justice and Liberal leader, Jim Wallace. Is it not the case that, if the case had arisen south of the border, where the Liberals are in opposition, they would be heading the queue of people who are demanding a public inquiry? Is it not true that the case has revealed the sheer hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats and has shown that they put private party interest ahead of the public interest?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I strongly believe that the independence of the prosecution service is vital. At other times, the SNP has said exactly that on the record. Today, however, the Scottish National Party is again attempting to take politics into the prosecution service and to gain political advantage from a situation in which the Executive has taken clear and firm action.

It is important that Cathy Jamieson has appointed assistant chief constable David Mulhern to produce an action plan on the issue and to look at how we intend to introduce the changes to the fingerprint service to which I referred earlier, including the movement of the SCRO into the forensic science service. We have to ensure that, over the next few months, we have the best international standards for our fingerprint service. The Executive is determined to ensure that that is the case. The SNP and other parties, by continuing to focus on the issues, only undermine the service. That is to be deeply regretted.

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-2176)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The First Minister has no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister and nor have I.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I suspect that there is mutual relief in all quarters.

The Deputy First Minister's responses indicate that the conduct of the Government coalition strikes at the heart of devolved governance. In many ways, it is remarkable that the governing coalition has survived, given the differences over issues such as the single transferable vote system, the Airborne Initiative, reform of the national health service, bridge tolls and the common fisheries policy—and that is a shortened list. Does the Deputy First Minister back his colleague Tom McCabe's handling of the impending local government strike at the end of this month or will he use that as an excuse to finally end the coalition?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

One thing that the Conservatives—at least in Scotland—have still to realise is that people like political parties to work together to provide stable government, to work through differences and to deliver effective policies for the people of Scotland. Whether in education, health, housing or planning, the coalition between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats in the Executive tries and, on the whole, succeeds in delivering exactly what I described.

Annabel Goldie referred to the difficult pensions issue that affects local authority workers. Tom McCabe has, of course, worked hard with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, with local authorities and with trade unions to try to reach a sensible settlement. We have received legal advice on the issue, which led to the proposal to shift the policy, but Tom McCabe has made it clear that he wants to continue to talk and to seek to reach a sensible settlement. He strongly wishes to avoid industrial action of any kind on that important issue.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Worries about the coalition's stability and its ability to deliver stable devolved government are certainly not confined to my party. Only last week in this chamber, Labour's Elaine Murray said that my party's motivation for leading a debate on energy was "to split the coalition." She wondered why we bothered,

"With Nicol Stephen doing such a good job of that".—[Official Report, 9 March 2006; c 23823.]

If the Deputy First Minister will not cut and run over the local government strike, will he back the First Minister if he gives the go-ahead to build replacement nuclear power stations? If not, can the coalition continue when it is split down the middle on an issue of such fundamental importance to Scotland?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I did not hear the final part of Annabel Goldie's question because many members were criticising the line of attack that she sought to develop. The simple answer is that the Executive—the coalition—has a clear policy on nuclear power, which is that we will not approve new nuclear power stations unless the issue of nuclear waste is resolved. That will continue to be the Administration's policy until the Scottish Parliament elections in 2007. It will then be for any party to propose different policies in their manifestos.

The coalition between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats has a clear and firm agreement for a four-year working term. Of course there are issues and events that come up to trouble the coalition—that is politics. However, on such major issues as nuclear power, we are absolutely agreed and determined to deliver on our policies right through to May next year. That is what people in Scotland want—a good, sensible and stable Government that is delivered effectively by two parties working together. It will be a long time before the Conservatives understand the sense of that. Despite David Cameron's efforts down at Westminster, we in Scotland see examples of the Conservatives still being divisive and partisan and still consistently and continually losing support in election after election.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The words

"there are issues and events that come up to trouble the coalition"

will go down as the all-time best euphemism in the Parliament. Those obvious differences make it even clearer that the coalition is not a principled agreement that has been made in the country's interests to deliver stable devolved governance, but is instead a shabby marriage of convenience to serve the partners and not the people. Why does not the Deputy First Minister do the decent thing and end the sham now?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

We all remember Major's Conservative Government, which no one would rush to call a principled Government. That shambolic Government was deeply divided not between two political parties but within itself. We all remember what John Major called certain back-bench members of his party. Before lecturing on such issues, Annabel Goldie should think hard about the future of the Conservative party in Scotland. In my view, her party is currently on a route to oblivion. Its only way back is for it to be more co-operative and more moderate by moving to the centre ground of politics in Scotland. Far be it from me to give greater advice than that on this occasion, but I see no signs of such a move by the Scottish Tory party.

In summary, people like to see parties working together. No party in Scotland has an overall majority under Parliament's fair system of voting. Therefore, if we are to deliver an effective and stable Government, the sensible, moderate and progressive parties need to work together.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can Miss Goldie be given the opportunity to ask question 2 again? As Nicol Stephen said when he gave his unsatisfactory answer, she was drowned out by the Liberal members to my left.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I will not reply to that. There are a number of constituency questions on job losses. I will take Kate Maclean's question, which concerns the largest of the job losses.

Kate Maclean (Labour, Dundee West)

Is the Deputy First Minister aware that Tesco's announcement that it will relocate its distribution depot from its current location in my constituency of Dundee West will result in the loss of more than 430 jobs? Does he share my grave concern about the effect of the decision—for which no plausible justification has yet been given—on the loyal and skilled workforce, which has helped to turn the site into one of the most efficient depots in Tesco's United Kingdom network? Over the next couple of days, I will meet the trade unions and the company to discuss the matter. What can the Scottish Executive do to assist the situation?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I am concerned about the impact of the job losses on Dundee and I am aware of the matter. I am asking Scottish Enterprise Tayside to take action and to consider activating our rapid response team for those job losses.

I should emphasise that Tesco is maintaining, and is, indeed, increasing its commitment in Scotland. As well as relocating that large number of jobs from Dundee to Livingston, Tesco is creating 200 extra jobs in Livingston so that the overall impact on the Scottish economy will be positive. However, I fully appreciate that the impact on Dundee will be very negative indeed. Appropriate action should be taken by Scottish Enterprise Tayside and others.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister what position the eradication of poverty holds on the list of the Scottish Executive's priorities. (S2F-2179)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

We are committed to eradicating child poverty within a generation. We have made good progress in that regard. Since 1999, we have reduced by 80,000 the number of children living in low-income households and we have reduced by 80,000 the number of pensioners living in low-income households. We have also increased employment to its highest levels since quarterly records began.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Last week, a national statistical report concluded that 240,000 children in Scotland are living in poverty and that the circumstances of the poorest children are worse now than they were in 1999. That evidence is endorsed by End Child Poverty and by Save the Children. I quote:

"The poorest children continue to live without nutritious meals, new shoes, or a winter coat when it is needed. There is absolutely no evidence of a decline in the proportion of children living in severe poverty since 1999."

Is it not an absolute disgrace that, in a rich country like ours, nearly a quarter of a million children endure such deprivations? Is the minister not ashamed of those statistics?