Scottish Parliament, 22 June 2006

289 contributions from 73 members. The official report.

Official Report 22 June 2006

Business Motion

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is consideration of business motion S2M-4589, in the name of Margaret Curran, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during Stage 3 of the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limit indicated, that time limit being calculated from when the Stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when the meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the Stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 and 2: 1 hour Groups 3 to 5: 1 hour 50 minutes—[Ms Margaret Curran.]

Motion agreed to.

Legislative Programme

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The next item of business is a statement by Margaret Curran on the legislative programme. The minister will take questions after the statement, so there should be no interventions.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Last September, the First Minister outlined to the chamber a legislative programme to take us through to the end of this parliamentary session, in the spring of 2007. As we approach the summer recess, I am grateful to have an opportunity to note the bills that have been passed and those that are in progress, and to advise members of adjustments and additions that we propose to make to the programme.

In the nine months since the First Minister's statement, a whole suite of bills has been passed in the chamber to make Scotland a better place. The Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005, the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill and the Joint Inspection of Children's Services and Inspection of Social Work Services (Scotland) Act 2006 build a safer Scotland and protect the most vulnerable. The Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 modernise laws for a modern Scotland. The Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 gives reassurance to those who lose loved ones in tragic circumstances. The Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 encourages the private rented sector and protects tenants within it. The Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006 gives more parents the flexibility to decide their involvement in their children's schools. The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 puts us at the leading edge of sustainable government in Europe and the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill gives stronger protection to animals from cruelty and harm. Furthermore, we should not forget the implementation of the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005, which has been recognised as the most significant public health measure in a generation.

The legislation that we have dealt with has involved significant work for the Parliament, and members and particularly the committees have played a full role in that work. I record my thanks to the committees for their contributions in the past year and for the contributions that they will make in the coming year.

The Executive is keeping its promises, is in touch with the real needs of the people of Scotland and is delivering on health, crime, education and the environment. However, we want to go further.

An ambitious programme is already before us that is based on a vision of a strong and ambitious Scotland in which opportunities are not only available to some, but are accessible to all Scots, whatever their background and culture. The Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill will strengthen families and allow more children to have a family of their own. The Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Bill will protect adults who are at risk of abuse. The Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Bill will strike a balance between debtors and creditors and allow people to get on with their lives. The Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill will make justice quicker and better, particularly by toughening up on bail. The Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill will improve the services that are provided by the legal profession and address public concerns about how complaints against lawyers are handled. The Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill, which we will deal with today, will modernise elections. The Planning etc (Scotland) Bill will introduce a quicker and more efficient planning system that has community involvement at its heart. The Crofting Reform etc Bill will expand and safeguard crofting for the 21st century. There is also the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill. The programme is certainly ambitious, but the Executive still has more to do.

I want to make a number of announcements and intimate to the Parliament a number of adjustments to the legislative programme, many of which aim to make Scotland safer by tackling crime and protecting those in our society who are vulnerable. I will also say something about children, our rural communities and improving the way in which the Parliament deals with transport developments.

I am pleased to say that the Executive will introduce a sentencing bill as a key priority. That bill will be tightly drawn and will focus on two central issues that I know are of keen concern to hard-working families and communities throughout Scotland. First, the bill will introduce measures to end automatic unconditional early release and achieve greater clarity in sentencing so that the public—especially victims—will know exactly what a sentence means. The bill will ensure that offenders will be in no doubt about what will happen to them. Offenders will no longer be automatically released unsupervised into our communities. Secondly, the bill will introduce new measures to restrict the sale of non-domestic knives and swords, about which the Minister for Justice will give fuller details in the near future.

I want to spell out how we will take forward our commitment to replace the existing soliciting offence with an offence that criminalises nuisance or offensive behaviour, whether that is caused by those involved in prostitution or their clients, as announced in our response to the report by the expert group on prostitution. In other words, the men who use prostitutes will also face prosecution. A short bill will be introduced in this session, provided that committee time can be secured to consider it.

We have considered carefully the issue of aggravated sentences for hate crime and we will issue a formal response in due course to the proposals that have been made by the working group on hate crime. We want to deal with the matter in the wider context of on-going work on consistency in sentencing. A report will be forthcoming from the Sentencing Commission in August.

I am pleased to confirm that, following the Bichard report, there will be a protection of vulnerable groups bill. There is perhaps no greater responsibility than protecting our children, and taking action on the Bichard recommendations therefore demands priority from the Executive and the Parliament. The bill will form part of our commitment to protect the most vulnerable in our society and will complement our wider child protection reforms. Giving priority to the bill has had an impact on our plans to progress proposals to reform children's hearings services, but I will return to that matter later.

The protection of vulnerable groups bill will include provisions to improve protection by preventing those who are unsuitable to work with vulnerable groups from doing so. It will put in place the legislative framework that is required to deliver the new vetting and barring scheme that Bichard recommended and will make other necessary changes to procedures to tighten protection measures further. The provisions will relate not only to those who work with children, but to those who work with adults at risk, in a paid or unpaid capacity. We will seek to make provision about information sharing to protect children at risk, as the First Minister announced earlier this year.

The Executive is committed to a comprehensive package of reforming legislation, but we must also be able to respond quickly and effectively to the needs of our citizens. Members of all parties will have been moved by the plight of those who suffer from asbestos-related disease and their families, and concerned by obstacles that lie in the way of fair damages being awarded. Des McNulty has built on his long record of campaigning on the issue by moving quickly to propose legislation, but time is against him in this session. The Executive will therefore publish an asbestos damages bill to address the issue of relatives' claims so that a choice does not have to be made between claiming while a person is alive and waiting for them to die tragically, and so that families do not suffer disadvantage as a result.

We are concerned about the implications of the recent Barker judgment in the House of Lords, which might reduce some compensation payments. I am sure that members are aware that the United Kingdom Government has announced its intention of legislating to overturn the ruling, and we remain in close contact with it. We will seek to reverse the ruling by the quickest possible means to ensure that all Scots are advantaged where that is possible, whether through our own bill or possibly by means of a legislative consent motion before the end of this parliamentary session. We will move as swiftly and efficiently as we can.

Following last week's emergency legislation, the Parliament is aware of the unfortunate illness of the Lord President, which has delayed the judges' response to our judicial reform proposals. Moreover, given the Lord President's central role in the plans that were outlined in the consultation paper, it would not be right to proceed without his response. However, I will be crystal clear. We are still firmly committed to placing the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland on a statutory footing and to carrying out the other proposed reforms. We will publish a bill before the end of the year that will allow an incoming Administration to expedite the process, should it wish to do so. Indeed, the fact that emergency legislation was needed shows that there is a need for appropriate reform.

I am sure that I am not the only person who was pleased to hear Jamie Oliver's praise for school meals in Scotland, but we want to build on that success and we will do so. Accordingly, I can confirm that the schools nutrition and health promotion bill will be introduced as planned. We are determined to turn around Scotland's poor health profile and we want to establish healthy lifestyles in children as early as possible. Our bill will ensure that all food and drink in schools is healthy and nutritious, which will make it easier for children to stick to the healthy options and to enjoy the long-term health benefits that come with that. The bill will ensure that all schools put health promotion at the heart of their activities and will improve take-up of free school meals.

I return to the issue of children's hearings. Last year, we consulted on a programme of reform that will improve children's services and support those who work with children and young people to deliver improved outcomes. The "getting it right for every child" proposals properly place the child at the heart of children's services. We have set out a unified approach, with less bureaucracy and more freedom to get on and respond to children's needs, in line with the Scottish Executive's vision for children. That means earlier help, with the child getting the right help at the right time for their particular needs. The proposals have received wide support. We want to implement key proposals as quickly as we can, which means bringing about changes in practice and developing the tools and material to support change. Pathfinder projects are developing and refining the approaches, which we will roll out across Scotland without the need for legislation.

However, legislation will be necessary to bring about some changes. I have made clear our intention to legislate on information sharing to protect children at risk and we are seeking to make provision for that in the protection of vulnerable groups bill. Having given priority to a bill to enact the Bichard recommendations, we have decided to consult on a draft bill this autumn with a view to early introduction of legislation on the "getting it right for every child" proposals early in the next parliamentary session, should the incoming Administration wish to do so. In the draft bill, we intend to include provisions to ensure that a robust, modern framework for children's services is put in place and to strengthen and modernise the children's hearings system. Peter Peacock will announce more details later today.

Many members can testify to the demands that have been placed upon the Parliament by the existing private bills procedure, particularly in respect of transport developments. [Interruption.] We can hear some of that now. We have made progress in opening new rail lines and there have been record levels of investment, but we know that there is now a need to speed up the parliamentary process to ensure that future transport investment can be implemented more quickly. I am sure that members will be relieved to hear that we will, as planned, introduce the transport and works bill—

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I will not be tempted to respond to that. The transport and works bill is intended to bring greater consistency with existing processes for handling development applications, such as those that are applicable to trunk road developments, and to enable the detailed scrutiny of development proposals via a public inquiry or local hearing, to be carried out by persons appointed, on the basis of their qualifications and experience, as independent reporters.

I am pleased to confirm that an aquaculture and fisheries bill will be introduced as planned. The bill will strike a balance for the fish farming industry between prosperity and employment for rural communities and protection of the environment, by providing a backstop for the industry's voluntary code. It will also improve a number of matters for Scotland's many anglers, while protecting freshwater biodiversity.

Finally, I shall mention a bill that has been in development for some time. The Environment and Rural Development Committee is considering its stage 1 report on the Crofting Reform etc Bill, but I wish to record that the Executive has followed with interest and care the evidence on all sides. We await the committee's report and will respond constructively to what it has to say.

This parliamentary session is entering its final stages. Before too long, every member here will need to submit themselves—as they should do in a parliamentary democracy—to the judgment of the people in an election. I have laid out today some of the legislative detail, but I close by emphasising the Executive's aspirations for Scotland and Scots. The Scottish economy is growing. We said that it was our top priority, and the economy has grown above its average rate every year since the previous election. Some people do not like to hear this, but I will say it anyway: gross domestic product grew by more than 1.8 per cent in 2005 and the private sector has grown for 33 months in a row. Since devolution, 170,000 more people are in jobs.

We are tackling crime and overall crime rates are falling. We have been honest about the challenges that we face. Violent crime is coming down and we have created new laws to tackle Scotland's booze and blade culture. Through the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, we have taken tough action to tackle antisocial behaviour in communities. Through, for example, the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005, we have put ourselves on the side of the victim.

Schools in Scotland are going from strength to strength. The attainment of Scottish pupils is improving and standards are being driven up. Our 15-year-olds are among the best performers in the world. Since devolution, attainment has improved. Test scores are up an average of nine points at primary and by 20 percentage points in secondary 2 reading.

Waiting times for hospital treatment are at their lowest levels and survival rates from Scotland's key killer diseases are increasing. We are working to improve Scotland's national health: by banning smoking, through the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005; by providing free fruit in primary schools; and by delivering exemplary standards of nutrition in our schools.

There have been dramatic increases in rates of recycling and renewable energy and there is free travel throughout Scotland for older people. There are new and refurbished schools throughout Scotland and there has been housing investment at unprecedented levels. Child poverty has been reduced by a quarter as promised and we are on track to end it.

When the election comes, we will be proud to stand on our record of promises kept and trust repaid for hard-working families, and of using the powers of devolution to make Scotland better. We have focused on the needs and priorities of the people of Scotland.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement, although I had taken the precaution of buying a copy of The Herald , which I found to be presciently accurate.

I welcome the sentencing bill, the asbestos damages bill and, as someone who has served on a private bill committee, the transport and works bill. On the Barker judgment and the problems arising from that, the Scottish National Party will seek to assist the Government in getting a solution as quickly as possible. The minister was on weaker ground in the latter part of her speech when she moved from legislation to Government performance overall, but I am sure that we will debate that at length over the next nine months.

In relation to bills promised or required that have not been delivered, I wish to make two points. First, Governments should not announce bills that they cannot deliver. Last September, the First Minister committed to the judicial appointments bill, as did the Government in the partnership agreement in 2003, so it is really not good enough to blame the non-appearance of that bill on the recent judicial illness. That will not wash. Secondly—as the minister would expect of me, I mention this in a consensual manner—there are delays in getting bills to Parliament. The Executive must carry the can for that and be held accountable for it. However, if the minister, who mentioned this twice in her statement, perceives that there is a potential problem once a bill gets to Parliament—we know that both justice committees are overloaded, while other committees are relatively lightly worked—will she undertake to liaise with the business managers to see how the committee structure could better address both the Government's task of getting its legislation through and Parliament's task of scrutinising the Government's performance?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Like Alasdair Morgan, I shall start on a consensual note. I welcome his approach on the asbestos damages bill. The Executive will look to work with members of all parties to improve the lives of those Scots who are deeply affected by asbestos. We will continue to discuss that.

It is well known—in the Parliamentary Bureau, throughout the parliamentary system and on the coalition benches—that we are attempting to engage constructively with the parliamentary process so that we can manage the bills that are there. There is no doubt that we are sent by our constituents to work hard in the Parliament—they expect us to do that. I make no apology to my colleagues, a number of whom have had many onerous requests made of them, but that is our parliamentary duty. We, as MSPs, are here to scrutinise legislation; when important legislation is passed, it is important that we do that. I shall take any opportunity I can and liaise with whoever I can to ensure that we improve that process. We all believe in the committee process. We know that it is effective. We know that it produces good results and we would want to do whatever we could to support it. We will happily talk to the SNP about that.

I turn to the less consensual part of Alasdair Morgan's question. It is astonishing that such a nice man as him can stand there and say that what we have done with the proposed judicial appointments bill is shocking, given that he called last week for the bill to be delayed. However, never mind that. Responding to events and recognising the issues that we face is a fundamental part of Government and the key to that is ensuring that we remain focused, that we deliver our programme and that we deliver on the priority needs of the people who elect us. We have laid out exactly that: a coherent programme on which we are still delivering.

Of course we should acknowledge the Lord President's situation and the knock-on effect that it has had. That is why we have taken proper action. It is not as if there is now a vacancy in the legislative programme; we are using the time to introduce the damages bill, so that is not an issue of concern to us. However, in case anyone misses the point, I re-emphasise that we are committed to the policy that lies behind the proposed judicial appointments bill. We will publish a draft bill and move forward with that policy.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I, too, thank the minister for her courtesy in providing an early copy of her statement. Like Alasdair Morgan, I congratulate the press and the media in general on their unerring ability to anticipate the contents of Executive statements.

In the run-up to next year's election, it is accepted that time is at a premium and we will certainly do everything possible to assist in the passage of legislation that we consider beneficial. The proposed transport and works bill will make the committee process more efficient, and we are all acutely aware of the suffering of those who have mesothelioma and a limited life expectancy. We look forward to scrutinising the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill very carefully to see that its content will achieve what is suggested.

We are pleased that the judicial reform proposals are not to proceed in the meantime. That might allow wiser counsel to prevail in respect of legislation that has the potential to damage the independence of the judiciary. We note, however, that the proposed sentencing bill will proceed. Perhaps the minister will confirm that, irrespective of so-called supervision, it will still be possible for someone who is sentenced to four years to be released after two years and, indeed, that the measures would enable someone who is serving six years to be released after three years, as opposed to the existing four years. That demonstrates that the purpose of the proposed legislation is to empty prisons and is nothing to do with public safety.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

What did the Tories do in 1993?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The First Minister highlights the fact that the more often a lie is told, the more readily it will be believed. He knows that the Conservative Government introduced legislation in 1993 and then corrected it to revert to the previous position, which remained until his Government scrapped it. That is the fact of the matter, of which the First Minister is well aware.

The Executive says that it is proud to stand on its record. Does the minister accept that we in the Conservative party look forward to the election with much greater confidence and prospects of success than she has? On every recent test of public opinion, Scottish voters have made their judgment very clear. They want an Executive that will put reality before hype, and achievement before the smoke and mirrors of the present bunch. In one year, when Annabel Goldie is sitting in that man's seat, we will have an Executive that Scotland can be proud of and which can claim very real achievements.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Who could say that legislation is dry when Bill Aitken is talking? He could not even keep his own face straight. I thank him for a good laugh; it is a good way to start the morning. The prospect of the Tories returning to power in Scotland, apart from being fantasy, does not bear thinking about. We remember 1993 and what the Tories did in relation to automatic early release; that is the problem.

I will be absolutely clear. The reform of sentencing that Cathy Jamieson, the Minister for Justice, has proposed, is one of the most comprehensive packages of reform, which will deliver safety and solutions. The Tories do not appreciate that we are trying to solve the problem of crime in Scotland. We are not trying to deal with one part of it without worrying about the consequences—that is what a Tory Administration did to Scotland and how it blighted communities through automatic early release. The Tories do not seem to appreciate that it is now possible for prisoners to be kept in, whereas a Tory model would allow them out of prison and into communities unsupervised. Now, for the first time, there will be a robust system that will give communities the safety and protection that they need. Sentences and their conditions will be clear and communities will understand them. Judges will have many more powers to deal with sentencing.

I appreciate Bill Aitken's remarks about supporting us on the damages bill and the transport and works bill. However, that is all that he could say about our raft of reforms on criminal justice, health and education. The Tories' lack of vision and policy in this area is striking.

If we wait long enough, bizarre things happen in Scottish politics. I heard Kenny MacAskill quoting Tony Blair positively the other night because he recognises what the sentencing bill will do and that the Executive is trying to tackle crime and its causes. That is exactly what the bill will do. I expect that we will never persuade the Tories to adopt that policy, but at least Kenny MacAskill is persuaded.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

I welcome several of the proposals, particularly on the improvement of nutritional standards in school meals and the transport and works bill.

However, there is agreement that climate change is the most important challenge that we face today, and yet there has been nothing in the Executive's legislative programme to address the issue despite strong public concern and cross-party support for back-bench legislation on climate change, home energy efficiency and microrenewables. Does the minister agree that it is high time that the Government took a clear political lead on climate change? Why has there been nothing in this Government's legislative programme to improve Scotland's awful record on energy efficiency? Will the Executive now support green proposals for legislation on climate change, microrenewables and home energy efficiency?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I disagree with Chris Ballance. He asked whether the Executive would give a clear political lead on issues associated with climate change and that is exactly what we are doing. The answer is not to produce one piece of legislation; change has to be actioned across a raft of policy areas. Whether it be the work that we have done in housing with the warm deal, energy efficiency and the home efficiency packs—I think that I have that name right—or the work that has been done on recycling, or the variety of work that is being done by Rhona Brankin and Ross Finnie, we are taking Scotland forward. We have delivered on our far-reaching recycling targets and we are committed to renewables targets; we have a comprehensive package of policies.

There is now much greater awareness of the challenge of climate change. We have gone to enormous lengths to ensure that the general populace are much more aware of it. We have worked with local authorities to ensure that they can meet our targets. We have a far-reaching waste strategy. That is what needs to be done to tackle climate change. We do not produce one bill and just tick it off on a list when it is done. Action is required on all fronts and that is what the Executive is doing.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I hope that the whole Parliament will get behind the proposed damages bill and that it will right the wrong that has been done to asbestos victims. I welcome that proposal.

I will, however, challenge the minister on three other matters. Does she accept that the Executive has made very little progress on tackling the scourge that is child poverty in Scotland? Will the minister state for the record when the Executive intends to end child poverty?

Does the minister admit that most people in Scotland realise that the Executive has failed to provide high-quality social rented housing and will she commit the Executive to increasing the number of homes in the social rented sector that will be available to the hundreds of thousands of Scots who cannot gain access to decent housing?

The council tax keeps many pensioners and ordinary workers in poverty. The minister has said nothing about whether there will be a revaluation as part of the Executive's scheme to keep on the council-tax bandwagon. Will she rule in or rule out a revaluation as part of the maintenance of the unfair council tax, or will she do what the majority of Scots want her to do, which is to announce that the council tax will be scrapped and replaced with a fairer income-based alternative?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am pleased to see that Tommy Sheridan is back on form in the chamber, although I do not know whether that pleasure is shared by all his colleagues. I genuinely welcome his comments on the damages bill and again pay tribute to the work that Des McNulty has done, which I am sure is acknowledged by members of all parties. Des McNulty has championed that cause and has ensured that the Executive has responded to, and is in touch with, many asbestos victims. That is a credit to Parliament.

I will deal in reverse order with the other substantive issues that Tommy Sheridan raised. He knows fine well that a finance review is under way and that we will respond appropriately when it has been concluded. It is clear that the arguments that he has advanced on abolition of the council tax do not have much support, are not robust and have not been thought through. When the Local Government and Transport Committee considered Mr Sheridan's Council Tax Abolition and Service Tax Introduction (Scotland) Bill, it did a thorough job and came to firm conclusions.

On housing, I find Tommy Sheridan's audacity staggering. He has opposed every measure that we have taken to improve investment and standards in social rented housing and to provide new housing throughout Scotland. Mr Sheridan and I are both representatives of Glasgow, where the programme that has been undertaken will result in £4 billion of investment. He has opposed us at every step of the way, so he must forgive me if I accept no lectures on social housing from him.

There are organisations of repute throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom that acknowledge what we have achieved on child poverty and they recognise that we are making steady progress on meeting our target of ending it within a generation. We have worked in partnership with the UK Government and we have been honest about what we have achieved. In the world of the Scottish Socialist Party, Tommy Sheridan might think that it is possible to abolish poverty overnight simply by agreeing to a motion or passing legislation, but the rest of us know that the situation is not quite like that.

We will deliver genuine and sustained change for the people of Scotland. Through our actions, we will reduce health inequality, and through our investment in public services we will improve standards for people who are at the lower end of the educational opportunity ladder. Day by day, we are making improvements. Poorer people suffer disproportionately from crime and antisocial behaviour, so we are taking action in those areas. If one asks all the organisations that work in the field what they think we should do to tackle poverty, they invariably come up with a list of the things that we are doing. Child poverty is addressed not through slogans and ultra-left politics, but by real and sustained action that meets the needs of the people concerned.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for providing an advance copy of her statement and I congratulate her on the many meaningful advances that have been made in Scotland for which the Executive has been responsible, not least of which is the progress that has been made on compensation for asbestos victims, thanks to Des McNulty's efforts. As a 17-year-old apprentice, I worked in the shipyards. Inside the ships, asbestos fell like snow—workers went home white with asbestos, looking like snowmen. I thank Des McNulty for campaigning on the issue and I thank the minister for taking action.

Sadly, no specific mention was made of new measures being taken in the remainder of the present parliamentary session to improve the situation of the 20 per cent of pensioners who live below the Government's poverty level. Surely it is time to explore the possibility of Parliament's obtaining fiscal autonomy for Scotland, especially as we read that Gordon Brown has promised to spend billions on upgrading Trident at a time when pensioner poverty—for which he is responsible—is still a reality in the United Kingdom, which is the one of the richest economies in the world.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I thank John Swinburne for his reference to the proposed damages bill and for articulating what it was like to work in the shipyards, where asbestos was commonly used. We will work with him closely as we progress the bill.

I emphasise that a great part of our work has resulted in significant change in the lives of pensioners throughout Scotland. It is right that we pay attention to our older citizens and ensure that they are a priority. Our free travel scheme is one of the most noteworthy measures that we have taken for pensioners, but our work on housing and the central heating programme has also benefited them greatly. It is through systematic change that we can improve people's quality of life.

Statistics show that the gap between the poorest pensioners and the richest pensioners is decreasing and that we are getting more pensioners out of poverty. The UK Government has said that improving the lives of the poorest pensioners is its key priority, but the Executive wants to improve the lives of all pensioners, which is why we have taken the action that we have taken.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

I am sure that all members will welcome the plans to legislate following the Bichard report. As the minister said, there is no greater responsibility than that of protecting our children and other vulnerable people, so it is perhaps understandable that the proposed reforms of the children's hearings system have had to be postponed. Is the Executive still fully committed to establishing a system that is fit for the 21 st century? Does the minister expect that a bill that will achieve that aim will be introduced soon after the May 2007 elections?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I can confirm that the Executive is fully committed to carrying out the modernisation and reform that are wrapped in with the proposals on children's hearings—Peter Peacock will talk about the detail of that. As I said in my statement, we will go ahead with the underlying work and the non-legislative changes that will be required to ensure that when legislation is introduced, its impact can be felt swiftly.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I thank the minister for her statement and echo many of her sentiments on the Executive's achievements to date. I welcome the proposals to introduce a damages bill, a sentencing bill, a protection of vulnerable groups bill and a schools nutrition and health promotion bill. However, I ask the minister to take back to her colleagues the issue of nutrition. Although our work in schools has been a success, we should consider such matters in the context of the whole public sector. Our work in schools should be the first stage in a process of improving nutrition in all the buildings over which we have control, including hospitals and prisons.

Another achievement has been our investment in public transport, which has been a record both in absolute terms and as a percentage of transport spending. I spent 34 months serving as a member of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee and I share the frustration of many people that the proposed investment has been delayed as a result of Parliament's private bills process, so I warmly welcome the proposed transport and works bill.

However, I have concerns about the delays that were mentioned in the statement. I know that the minister has a personal commitment to protecting the most vulnerable members of our society, so I am slightly disappointed that we do not have a cast-iron guarantee that action will be taken on sentences for aggravated hate crimes and that there will be another consultation on the children's hearings system. I seek an assurance from the minister that we will move quickly to bring to fruition the work on those two extremely important issues for the most vulnerable people in society.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Margaret Smith raised a substantial number of issues. Her initial point was about widening our consideration of nutrition—I understand that Andy Kerr is consulting on that at the moment. There is certainly a commitment to addressing Margaret Smith's underlying point and we are considering how that can be done. I would be happy to give the member more details on our plans, if she wishes them.

Every member of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee talks about the 34 months that they spent on the committee—I am now so familiar with the figure that it is embedded in my consciousness. I record our appreciation of the committee's efforts; its experience has led us to try to improve the entire public works bill process. Again, I am grateful to members in all parts of the chamber for their comments on how we should progress the transport and works act.

Margaret Smith's comments on hate crime perhaps portray the Executive in a more critical light. She was involved in many such issues in the previous session of Parliament. I genuinely understand the issue of hate crime and why it became significant to Parliament, and I understand the underlying impulse to tackle forms of violence that are completely unacceptable in our society. However, in producing new categories of aggravated offences, we must be careful that we do not at the same time undermine the system. We could create a range of offences that would lead to inconsistency in sentencing; for example, there is the possibility of being unable to find the right category of offence. If the category of aggravated offences is to be used, sentencing needs to be comparable. We need to ensure that the matter is sent to the Sentencing Commission for Scotland when it considers consistency in sentencing.

I reassure Margaret Smith that the recommendations of the working group on hate crime are being responded to. That work is under way in the victim information and advice service, through a variety of different means that we are using to support vulnerable adult witnesses and through a variety of other issues that came out of the working group on hate crime report. I also reassure her that the work that we are taking forward will ensure that we get the result that all of us want to get. There is no lessening of our appreciation of the reality of hate crime, the dreadful impact that it can have on people's lives and what it tells us about the kind of society in which we live. We want to challenge that.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I ask for shorter questions and answers from now on.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I invite the minister to agree that we should try to work more cleverly as well as harder. In that context, will the minister look again at the current position of the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill? The bill supports an objective that is shared by almost all in Parliament, but it will deliver only the spending of money but nothing for individuals. The Executive could spend the money and we could deliver human rights by other ways. Will the minister consider whether it is appropriate to retain the bill in a legislative programme that already has 10 bills, all of which are approximately at stage 1?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

The Executive said that it would bring forward the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill and that is what is has done. We will continue to take forward that bill. The approach that we have taken has been constructive; we listened to the issues that the Justice 1 Committee raised. We have also broadly listened to the evidence that the Finance Committee is taking on the governance of commissioners more generally and we will listen when Parliament responds to that committee's recommendations.

We have some sympathy with some of the issues that have been raised, but we want to ensure that we have a sensible governance structure and that we are sensible in the approaches that we take. We are looking to lodge amendments at stage 2 of the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill that will address the issues that Parliament raised in the stage 1 debate. That is the constructive approach that the Executive is taking.

We have been clear about the policy commitments that we want to introduce and we will legislate on them where we are required to do so. However, when Parliament has criticisms and offers alternative ways forward, we will listen and take action appropriately. When we get to stage 2 of the bill, Stewart Stevenson will see some of the responses that we have made.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

From the statement that the Minister for Parliamentary Business has made, it is clear that we have done a lot, but still have much to do.

I declare an interest as a member of the Routes Out of Prostitution board. Does the minister agree that it is right that we should examine prostitution closely, particularly as it affects women? Many of the women who turn to prostitution are discriminated against in the law, whereas men are not. Given that Parliament has not had a debate on the report of the expert group on prostitution and that some of the issues the minister addressed have not yet come before us, can she assure me that issues will come before the chamber for parliamentary debate before they go straight to committee?

The minister quite rightly told some of us in the chamber this morning that she expects us to work hard; we expect nothing less of Margaret Curran. Will she further assure me that in the closing months of the parliamentary session the important bills that we will have before us—the damages bill and other bills, which all of us welcome—will have the highest quality of scrutiny? As parliamentarians, we need to ensure that, as we have done before, we continue to pass a high number of bills of the highest quality.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Pauline McNeill makes substantial points; in fact, she has raised them with me before. I know that Pauline McNeill wants, as convener of the Justice 1 Committee, to ensure that the committees properly undertake their scrutiny role and their role of holding the Executive to account. I know that that view is supported by other conveners. Committees need the time and support to do that and the Executive needs to ensure that we get the balance right. I will continue to engage with conveners and parliamentary officials to ensure that we try to achieve that. I do not need to exhort members such as Pauline McNeill to work hard; they do that without any encouragement.

However, as I said, Pauline McNeill raised substantial points. I know the work of the Routes Out of Prostitution project. The point that she made on prostitution is a reasonable one; the report has not come to the chamber for debate. We need to give some attention to that. There are many significant and complex issues around the bill that we hope to introduce. We want to engage with people on the best way of finding the appropriate time for the parliamentary debate and scrutiny that will ensure that the issues are tackled properly.

I return to the point that Pauline McNeill made on the emphasis that we need to give to the committees in their scrutiny role. We will work very hard to ensure that that happens. We will engage with committees to do that.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I remind the minister that we on the Conservative benches welcome some bills. However, before we come to a final opinion on a bill, we like to see the quality of the drafting and the influence that it will have on our people.

The minister will recall that the stage 3 debate on the Licensing (Scotland) Bill was a bit of a pantomime, to put it lightly. I am very surprised that the legislative programme does not include a revisiting of that legislation, given that that was suggested at the time. We need to get that legislation finished off properly—as everyone remembers, the bill's passage was a bit of a shambles at the end.

I turn to committee time, on which I welcome the minister's words. In taking constructively what Alasdair Morgan said, and given the fair old build up and logjam of bills in the last months of this session of Parliament, should not we do away with non-essential debates? That would allow more committee time and give more clerking support to committees to enable them to do the job that the minister has set before them.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I would never dismiss out of hand any proposal that would allow the committees to do their work and due parliamentary process to be undertaken. However, I balk immediately at the idea that we should not have proper debates in the chamber. A strong principle of parliamentary democracy is that we take debates to the chamber, which is the primary arena of parliamentary democracy.

I accept David Davidson's point about committees. We want to ensure that they have the full time that they need to do their work, so we have brought forward and refined the legislative programme with exactly that principle in mind. We knew that it was important not to say that we would introduce bills that we could not deliver through the parliamentary process, either because the committees did not have time to scrutinise them or we could not find the appropriate time in the chamber. We refined the process for that reason; that was the genesis of the programme that we have brought to the chamber today.

We have to be honest about the fact that we are not doing the children's hearings bill; other priorities have overtaken it. We cannot cut corners in terms of the appropriate parliamentary time that we need for legislation. I hope that I have given David Davidson some reassurance.

David Davidson is also the convener of a hard-pressed committee. More generally, I would be happy to talk to him about how we will manage the process throughout the coming year. The legislative programme is demanding and members will be very hard pressed to fulfil their responsibilities, but they have risen to that challenge before and it is possible for them to do it again.

On the passage of the Licensing (Scotland) Bill, we know the procedures that will help us to examine the matter. Again, we need to ensure that Parliament gets the wee bit of extra time that it needs, if extra time is required. The issue is more about that than it is about what David Davidson described. That said, we need to ensure that procedures are used appropriately to empower members to discharge their duties. I will continue to work with members in that regard.

I do not doubt that the Conservatives scrutinise the quality of bills or that that is how they arrive at their judgments of support. I reassure David Davidson that if quality is the main criterion for judgment, we will not disappoint.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I am sure that the minister would be the first to agree that, in and of itself, legislation is not a panacea. In the particularly important area of child protection, I seek reassurance from the minister that every effort will be made to ensure that regulation and legislation do not inadvertently discourage or obstruct good work in our communities. Will the Executive ensure that there is a proportionate approach to risk in that context? In the vital area of information sharing, will the Executive take steps across ministerial portfolios and departments to ensure that in addition to changes to statute there will be changes in culture, systems and practice? Will the management and leadership be put in place in our public services so that those changes can be made?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I agree strongly with Susan Deacon that legislation is not a panacea, but I am sure that she appreciates that the changes in culture and practice for which she calls cannot easily or quickly be made. However, there is a desire throughout the Executive, led by the First Minister, to achieve such changes and to ensure that governance in Scotland is sensitive to people's experience—especially vulnerable people's experience—and that it is sensitive to the challenges that people face. There is also a desire to ensure that our regulatory regimes are fit for purpose and that they are empowering rather than limiting. The devil can be in the detail in such an approach, so it is important to ensure that we do not inadvertently cause difficulty. However, I reassure the member that in day-to-day work throughout the Executive the sensitivity to which I referred is being applied to decision-making structures and to approaches to design and implementation of policy. We take the matter seriously and are working on it.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

On the proposed schools nutrition and health promotion bill, the minister said that the Executive would ensure that all food and drink in schools is healthy and nutritious. How will the Executive deal with the contracts that local authorities have signed with companies that sell soft drinks or provide vending machines that supply unhealthy food, about which members are concerned? How can we get round the tendering process, particularly given European rules and regulations, so that schools can be allowed to source healthy and fresh produce locally for the children who attend them?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am sure that Stewart Maxwell noticed that in my statement I cleverly said that Peter Peacock would deal with certain issues, although I grant that I was not referring particularly to the detail of issues that Mr Maxwell raised. In all honesty, it would be more appropriate for Peter Peacock to address such matters and we will ensure that the member receives detailed answers to his questions.

As far as I am aware, Scotland is one of the few countries—if not the only country—in which there is no direct advertising for Coca-Cola in schools, which demonstrates our commitment.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The reputation of Parliament is enhanced when we do the right thing: the Executive is doing the right thing in introducing an asbestos damages bill and reversing the House of Lords judgment. On behalf of asbestos victims and their families, I congratulate the Executive on the announcement that injustices will be remedied. In particular, I thank the Deputy Minister for Justice, Hugh Henry, for listening so carefully to what campaigners said about damages. [ Applause. ]

Can the minister give us more information on how quickly she will move on the two issues? I acknowledge that the issues are complex, but now that we have said that we will deal with those injustices, it is important that we do so as quickly as possible.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I thank Des McNulty for his remarks. As I said, I hope to receive an indication of cross-party support and to be able to brief party representatives on how we will proceed. We can move forward on proposals on one aspect of the proposed asbestosis damages bill and I will be happy to meet Des McNulty to take that work forward.

On the slightly trickier issue of the possible legislative consent motion—the timescales make it tricky—we must ensure that Parliament's interests are protected and that we maximise the opportunity that is presented by the UK Government's apparent determination to legislate. It is not appropriate to give Des McNulty more specific details at this stage, but I reassure him and other members that I am working hard to ensure that Scots have the opportunity to benefit from legislation as quickly as possible. We will attempt to create the means for that to happen within days rather than months, if we can. If I can win cross-party support for our proposal, I hope to come back to Parliament before the end of the session with an indication of how we will take the proposal forward.

Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill. Members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—SP bill 52A—the marshalled list, which contains all the amendments that have been selected for debate, and the agreed groupings of amendments.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes before the first division. The period of voting for that division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, the voting period will be one minute for the first division after a debate, and all other divisions will be 30 seconds.

The Deputy Minister for Finance, Public Service Reform and Parliamentary Business has taken his seat, so we will begin.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 1 is minor amendments. Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 4 and 9 to 11.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Amendments 1, 4 and 9 to 11 are technical amendments. Section 26(2) applies the definitions of terms in the Representation of the People Act 1983 to the same terms when they are used in part 1 of the bill. Section 50(2) applies definitions of terms in the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 to the same terms when they are used in part 2 of the bill. We took that approach to achieve consistency. In light of that approach, however, two definitions in the bill are unnecessary and a reliance on the definition of some terms would not produce the right result. The amendments will therefore make the necessary adjustments.

I move amendment 1.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We move to group 2. Amendment 12, in the name of Maureen Watt, is grouped with amendments 13 to 15.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Amendments 12 to 15 would add consistency to the bill's provisions on the supply of explanatory documents. Although the bill provides for sufficient information in different formats to be available to people who vote in person in polling stations, it does not extend the provision of such information to postal voters.

As politicians know, there has been a marked increase in postal voting in recent years as political parties have realised that voters do not just dash to the polling station every time an election takes place. Many more people work away from home than used to and they understand the benefits of postal voting. All members should want to include as many people as possible in the democratic process but, currently, many of the most vulnerable and marginalised people feel excluded from the process to such an extent that they do not go to polling stations to vote.

My amendments would extend the provision of documents that assist in voting to people who opt to vote by post. I am sure that members agree that if more relevant supporting information were provided with ballot papers—which people could peruse at home, in their own time and at their own pace—the democratic process would be enhanced. Such an outcome could be achieved simply by adding to the application for a postal vote a box that people could tick if they want extra assistance. By enshrining such an approach in the bill, we would enhance the credibility of politicians and the political process.

I am pleased that the Electoral Commission has given its full backing to amendments 12 to 15. In the light of that, I hope that the minister will be encouraged to agree to them.

I move amendment 12.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Section 24(2) of the LEARS bill replicates provisions in the United Kingdom Electoral Administration Bill and provides for returning officers and their staff to display or give to voters election documents that are required by legislation. Documents may be provided in Braille, in languages other than English, through graphical or audio representations, or by other means.

The United Kingdom bill also amends parliamentary election rules to allow returning officers to issue, on request, alternative formats of the directions and guidance that are currently sent to postal voters with their ballot papers. The alternative formats are translations into languages other than English or versions in Braille, graphical or audio formats, and other formats. We propose to make equivalent changes to the Scottish local government election rules. As with other changes to the rules, they will be dealt with in secondary legislation rather than in the bill, to allow for flexibility in fine-tuning procedures.

Amendment 12 would not alter the fact that sections 24(2) and 24(2A) apply only to documents that are required or authorised under the 1983 act. Amendment 12 is an unnecessary clarification, as it would not apply to documents that are not already covered by those provisions. I therefore ask Maureen Watt, with the assurance that I have given her, to withdraw amendment 12.

We understand the purpose behind amendments 13 to 15 and we support ways of making the voting process easier and more accessible to a wider range of voters. However, in practice, amendment 13 would mean that all guidance that was given to postal voters—not just the direction and guidance that are required by statute—would have to be provided in alternative formats where necessary. That potentially would place a burden on individuals and groups that do not have the means to comply with such a requirement. In addition, it would mean inconsistent practice at elections in Scotland, as the requirement would apply to only local government elections.

The bill is concerned with the provision of information for voters that is required by statute rather than a wider range of information about local government elections, which may be provided to voters by a number of sources. We are already committed to providing the information that is required by statute in different formats for both postal voters and voters who cast their votes at polling stations. I hope that, with that reassurance, Maureen Watt will not move amendments 13 to 15.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for his remarks. Given that he has made it quite clear that the information will be in the supporting documentation, I seek to withdraw amendment 12.

Amendment 12, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 13 to 15 not moved.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 3 is on the power to make regulations as to the preparation of special lists and records and so on. Amendment 2, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The proposed new section provides a power to make regulations on the procedures for drawing up special lists and records in connection with the conduct of local government elections. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that ministers have a power to make provisions for the procedure to be followed in preparing special lists relating to absent voting. Regulations that are made under the power will be dealt with under the negative resolution procedure.

I move amendment 2.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 4 is on the content of orders under section 3(1) of the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004. Amendment 3, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Amendment 3 is a technical amendment that has been lodged as a consequence of comments that were made by the Subordinate Legislation Committee. Its purpose is to make it clear that not every order that is made under section 3(1) of the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 must include provisions of the kind that are set out in section 3(2) of the act, which deals with the calculation of votes using the single transferable vote system. If an order that is made under section 3(1) of the 2004 act does not include provisions for the calculation of votes, it will be subject to the negative procedure; if it does, it will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

I move amendment 3.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 5 is on the notice of registration events to third parties. Amendment 5, in the name of David McLetchie, is grouped with amendments 6 to 8.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The purpose of amendment 5 is to remove the provision dealing with the notification of registration events to third parties. Amendments 6 to 8 are consequential to amendment 5.

In its stage 1 report, the Local Government and Transport Committee stated that it was

"not persuaded that the private sector notification provisions in the Bill would add value for the customer using the service."

It invited further explanation from the minister in advance of stage 2. At that stage, it was suggested that the rationale for the provision was that it would provide a means for secure notification of an event, such as a death, by a registrar to a bank or insurance company, thereby reducing the possibilities of fraud and forgery. The Executive was asked to provide evidence as to the level of fraud or forgery arising from the falsification of death certificates and other certificates, but it conspicuously failed to do so.

This is another classic example of the Executive proposing a solution to a problem that does not exist. It is a bit like the ban on fur farming. Why does the Executive insist on solving problems that do not exist? Because it is a heck of a lot easier than solving problems that do exist.

We were told that the service would be of value in facilitating the administration of estates, especially in relation to bank accounts with relatively small credit balances and insurance policies from which the policy proceeds are relatively small, but that is simply not true. As I said in the debate on the same amendments at stage 2, that view arises from a confusion on the part of the Executive between, on the one hand, the process of notification of a death and, on the other hand, the establishment of entitlement on the part of the executors or beneficiaries of a deceased person's estate. The two are not one and the same.

Conventionally, an executor or next of kin—with or without the assistance of a solicitor—will notify a bank or insurance company of the deceased's death by providing an extract death certificate. At the same time, they will obtain from the bank or insurance company the appropriate claim forms for completion by those who are entitled—legally or beneficially—to the assets. In the case of very small estates, it may be possible to dispense with a grant of confirmation in favour of an executor; in the case of large estates, however, that will always be necessary. All of that requires direct correspondence and contact between the bank or insurance company and the executor or beneficiary. That will be required whether the bank or insurance company is notified of a death directly by the registrar or, as at present, by conventional means.

The proposed service will save nothing in time or administrative expense. It will be of little or no value for the simple reason that notification of itself establishes nothing. I speak from 30 years' experience of administering the estates of deceased persons in Scotland. Not all of them were Tories, although it sometimes feels like it.

Why, then, does the Executive insist on this singularly useless service being provided to members of the public at the expense of the public? The answer lies in another provision in the bill, which requires registrars to provide a free abbreviated death certificate to an applicant. At the moment, full extract death certificates are not provided free of charge: they cost £8.50 each. The provision of a free abbreviated version that can fulfil many of the same purposes will result in a loss of revenue to registrars—a concern that was expressed by several councils in their written submissions on the bill. However, the proposed third-party notification service is one for which a fee will be charged, which has yet to be specified. Accordingly, it is one means by which registrars could recoup the revenue that they will otherwise lose.

We should be mindful that members of the public who are not familiar with the processes that are required to establish entitlement to funds on a death will buy into the service believing that it will achieve far more than it will. In other words, the public will be conned into buying a service of dubious benefit to replace the loss of revenue to registrar services that councils run. We should not pass laws on that basis.

Nothing that the Executive said at stages 1 and 2 made a convincing case for the provision. I will be surprised if the minister's comments are any more enlightening or persuasive than they were at those earlier stages, but I await them with interest.

I move amendment 5.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am delighted that Mr McLetchie declared his interest of many years in the matter.

Amendments 5 to 8 revisit an issue that was discussed in detail at stages 1 and 2; it comes as no surprise that it should re-emerge at stage 3. The amendments seek to remove the provisions that would allow third parties to be notified of events electronically at the customer's request as an alternative to the use of paper extracts.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Will the minister please tell me where in the bill it says that it is mandatory for that notification to be made by electronic means?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I said that it was an alternative that the customer could use. I was clarifying that.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

No, no. Where does it say in the bill that the registrar must provide the service electronically?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am saying that the service—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

It does not.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order. Members must speak through the chair.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am saying that the service will be an alternative that the customer will have to request. That is clear. At stage 2, Mr McLetchie sought to make a similar amendment, for which there was no support. Indeed, when we consulted on the matter, the Law Society of Scotland agreed that the proposal would be useful. On the other hand, Mr McLetchie takes the view that the new optional service would serve no purpose in dealing with insurance companies because executors would still have to correspond with the deceased's insurance company. However, as I explained during the debate at stage 2, the executor is not always the family solicitor and the provision does not apply only to the insured.

We should remember that the less well-off who have to deal with family bereavement and the winding up of small estates are likely to benefit from the provisions. The proposals provide for a new, optional service that is expected to be convenient for the customer, significantly cheaper for the customer than acquiring the paper extract and beneficial for businesses that want to move away from expensive, labour-intensive paper-based systems. It will be for the customer to decide whether the service is of use to them, and we should not deny them that choice. It seems strange that Mr McLetchie and his party say that we should seek to deny customers the choice of what type of system to use and how they correspond on the matter, so I ask that Mr McLetchie withdraw amendment 5 and not move amendments 6 to 8.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I asked the minister twice where in the bill it states that notification that a registrar gives must be made by electronic means but, on both occasions, he declined to answer. The reason for that is that the bill does not require the registrar to provide the service by electronic means, as there is nothing to do with electronic communication in the bill.

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

Proposed new section 39A(6) of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 states:

"For the purpose of subsection (1) above",

which is the provision with which we are concerned,

"notice shall be given—

(a) in such form as may be prescribed".

Is it not entirely possible that the Executive might prescribe on the issue of the electronic format?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Of course it is, but the minister makes great play of the idea that the bill will, of itself, provide for electronic communication of the information. I am simply pointing out that that is not mandatory but a possibility. That goes to the heart of the matter.

The minister said in his reply that the provisions will benefit the less well-off. That is complete and utter nonsense that betrays a total lack of understanding of the administration of estates. It also ignores the fact that, as has been said many times in the Parliament on debates on new technology, the less well-off have the least access to modern means of electronic communication. It is a curious inversion that that is now called upon in aid of the bill's provisions.

We are not debating whether we are for or against electronic communication. We are not debating the less well-off and the better-off. Nor are we debating whether people should administer estates by going to the bank or insurance company themselves or by consulting a solicitor and using their services to do so. We are debating whether there is utility in a single, tiny aspect of the administration process being communicated directly by the registrar for a fee as opposed to being done as part of a package of administrative measures by the applicant, a family member or the solicitor whom they have engaged.

We must bear in mind the fact that, if somebody is to establish entitlement to funds or assets, not only will they have to certify that a person is dead, but they will have to complete a claim form to establish beneficial or legal entitlement and, for larger estates, that will have to be accompanied by a certificate of confirmation. At present, none of those claim forms or confirmation documents can be transmitted electronically from one place to the other. That is the fact of the matter. We are introducing a step that will be of no avail to people who administer estates and will save them no money at all because it is only a tiny part of a process that the Scottish Executive clearly fails to understand.

We are told that the provision will lead to efficiency gains for insurance companies and banks. It will not, because, before an insurance company that is told electronically that Mr X is dead will pay out the policy proceeds, it will still have to get the claim forms and confirmation certificates from the deceased person's executors and relatives. Those documents have to be matched up before a bank or insurance company makes any payment to the person who is entitled to it, so there will be no efficiency gain at all.

I have no doubt in predicting that, when people in a distressed state go to a registrar's office to register the death of a family member, they will be told that the registrar can notify the banks and advise the insurance companies and that it will save them time and money, but they will be sadly disappointed. Those people will not understand the processes of ingathering and administering an estate—not unnaturally, because of the emotional situation in which they find themselves—and they will be conned into buying something that they do not need. If the whole process—applying for and exhibiting confirmation, completing claim forms and paying proceeds directly to bank accounts— could be conducted electronically and that was feasible for the commissary service, the insurance companies and all the banks, the proposal would make sense. However, standing on its own, it certainly does not.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I do not want to take on Mr McLetchie on all the legal aspects that he is going into, but does he accept that the first certificate allows the body to be released so that relatives can bury the person? All the other things that he is talking about to do with winding up estates can be done later. There are situations in which people do not have any money to hand to get the death certificate in the first place.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Maureen Watt is rather confusing the situation. The process of obtaining a death certificate for the purposes of conducting a funeral service is completely different from the measure that is under discussion. The process for dealing with a funeral is that, having registered a death, the relative gets a medical certificate from the registrar, obtains a doctor's certificate and takes those to the undertaker. There is no suggestion in any of the measures that the minister has proposed that there will be electronic communication of that, so we are talking about two completely different processes.

Today, we heard from the minister no more sensible explanation of the justification for the provision than we heard at stages 1 and 2. The Executive has been scratching around to find a justification for the measure but, one by one, its justifications have been knocked down at stages 1, 2 and 3.

I commend my amendment 5 to the Parliament.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division. As I intimated earlier, there will be a five-minute suspension while the division bell is sounded.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We will now proceed with the division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 22, Against 62, Abstentions 18.

Amendment 5 disagreed to.

Amendments 6 and 7 not moved.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

That ends consideration of amendments.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

To ask the Scottish Executive what average percentage contribution it makes to the cost of flood-alleviation schemes that it funds and whether the rules for grant eligibility are available in writing. (S2O-10258)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

From 1 April 2004, the rate of grant was increased from 50 per cent to 80 per cent of the grant-eligible expenditure incurred by local authorities. The rules on grant-eligible expenditure are available in writing.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am sure that the minister will appreciate that, even when 80 per cent of the cost of a scheme is funded by central Government, local authorities still face enormous financial challenges. That is especially true in Moray. The prospect of receiving only 70 per cent—as happens in other schemes elsewhere in the country—has set alarm bells ringing. If that happened, the financial hole left in Moray would be even bigger.

Will the minister issue up-to-date guidance to Moray Council on what expenditure is eligible, and what is not eligible for central Government funding? Will she review the eligibility of many of the expenses that local authorities incur when putting flood alleviation schemes together? Is she aware that this is just one of many issues for which her co-operation will be required to ensure that thousands of my constituents never again have to face the devastation of local flooding? I hope that she will discuss the issue with me and others.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I want to make it clear that grants of 80 per cent are available for grant-eligible expenditure. The issue then arises of how to define grant-eligible expenditure. In some cases, it has been difficult to identify which costs are grant-eligible expenditure.

I understand that, on 12 June, officials had a useful meeting with Moray Council regarding the eligible fees for the recently completed Lhanbryde scheme. If the council can provide appropriate documentation in support of claims for grant for certain special studies, that will be allowed. This is a complex matter. Moray Council is a relatively small council with huge challenges in terms of flood alleviation.

A summary guide is available. We are also in the process of producing more detailed guidance for local authorities. We would be happy to meet Richard Lochhead in his capacity as the new MSP for Moray, in order to go over some of these complex issues.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am grateful that the minister met Scottish Borders Council, which is another small council with severe flooding difficulties. Is the minister saying that it is better to find out what expenditure is eligible for grant before undertaking that expenditure, or is she saying that it is better to seek reimbursement of expenditure that has already been undertaken? Which is preferable?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The best advice that I can give is for the council to work closely with Executive officials. This is a complex matter and we are in the process of updating guidance.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it is making on the development of a strategy, in partnership with Aberdeen City Council, to address congestion at the Haudagain roundabout. (S2O-10284)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The Haudagain roundabout traffic study, which was completed in August 2005, is now subject to the Scottish transport appraisal guidance process. The work is closely linked to the regeneration of Middlefield and local consultation will take place later in the summer. We will continue to work closely with the north-east Scotland transport partnership and Aberdeen City Council to complete this work.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the minister agree that an integrated approach is required in order to tackle congestion in Aberdeen, and that improvements are urgently required at the Haudagain roundabout? The roundabout is a key pinchpoint for congestion. Will the minister assure me that the plans for improvement that he has outlined will be put in place expeditiously?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I accept Richard Baker's point that this particular roundabout is causing congestion in Aberdeen. I understand that it runs at about 25 per cent over capacity at peak times. That clearly creates difficulties for the movement of traffic around the city.

Working with NESTRANS and Aberdeen City Council, I will ensure that we make speedy progress on the study and on the next stage of the STAG process—which I am sure that Mr Baker would expect us to undertake in relation to the expenditure of public money.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Haudagain roundabout is on a trunk road. We appreciate that we will have the Aberdeen western peripheral route, which will be funded mostly by the Executive, but the roundabout is still an Executive responsibility. Will the minister give an assurance that the Scottish Executive will fund the major part of the works on the roundabout once a decision has been made?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

As I said in response to Richard Baker, we will consider the matter closely with Aberdeen City Council and NESTRANS, which is chaired by Councillor Alison McInnes from Aberdeenshire Council. We will ensure that, once we have completed the STAG process, those issues are addressed properly. I assure Mr Davidson and Parliament that the matters are under active consideration.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many acts of vandalism have been detected in the Glasgow Springburn constituency in the last three years. (S2O-10300)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The Scottish Executive does not collect information centrally on incidents of vandalism at constituency level. In the city of Glasgow as a whole, in the three-year period 2002-03 to 2004-05, there were 45,790 recorded incidents of vandalism, reckless damage and malicious mischief.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Perhaps the Executive could consider collecting statistics at a constituency level. Does the minister agree that it is appalling that vandalism costs Glasgow more than £10 million a year and that we need a more creative approach to detecting and successfully prosecuting vandalism through the use of closed-circuit television systems and covert operations? Does he agree that vandalism is as important as crimes such as drugs incidents and that the police should treat it seriously?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

It is not for me to tell chief constables how they should deploy staff operationally—the chief constable in an area decides on relative priorities. I know that Paul Martin is not trying to do this, but I do not want to minimise the significance of the damage that is caused by drug dealing. However, Paul Martin is right to highlight the insidious way in which vandalism affects a community's morale, brings down the look of a place and destroys the fabric of life in a local area. He is therefore right that vandalism needs to be tackled.

We have increased fixed CCTV capacity in Glasgow, with contributions from Glasgow City Council and the Executive, and we have increased the number of mobile units. I have seen such units in operation, so I know that they are successful and can contribute to tackling vandalism. Glasgow City Council has rapid response units to tackle the consequences of vandalism in certain areas. If we can maintain the fabric in an area, we can keep up morale and, I hope, deter further vandalism. Paul Martin is right that everybody must take seriously the need to tackle vandalism head-on and to ensure that the perpetrators are caught and that they pay a relevant price, including being made to reverse some of the damage that they have caused.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Duncan McNeil is not present to ask question 4.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to extend access to broadband. (S2O-10262)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

We have already supported a £16.5 million contract that has extended broadband access to 378 remote and rural telephone exchange areas. In doing so, we have fulfilled our commitment to bring broadband coverage to every Scottish community. We are currently working with independent technical advisers to examine remaining broadband access problems and any possible solutions. We will define our approach to that later this year.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The minister will be aware that I have raised on several occasions with the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning the difficulties that are faced by residents in my constituency who live significant distances from exchanges that have been enabled for broadband. To ensure that all households have reasonable access to broadband, will the minister agree to investigate the schemes in Northern Ireland and some remote areas of England through which the Government supports the installation of satellite equipment as a joint venture with local communities? We should ensure that that technology is used appropriately to expand access in geographically challenging locations.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I give John Swinney the commitment that we will continue to work with those communities and with our technical advisers to extend the reach of broadband. As the member knows, we have been enormously successful in fulfilling our commitments on the matter. It is important to consider developments elsewhere.

The member mentioned a project in Northern Ireland, which we would be pleased to consider. However, it is important to differentiate the problems that exist here from those in Northern Ireland. We have 378 non-commercial broadband exchanges, while Northern Ireland has only two. Provision has been made for local enterprise companies to facilitate access to broadband through satellite for businesses that have difficulty with that. It would be an important extension of that if we could do the same for the households that are currently beyond reach. As I said, we will define our propositions on that later this year, in accordance with our timetable.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister may be aware that in some areas in the Highlands that are not considered to be remote, such as the Black Isle, Strathpeffer and Ardross, people have difficulty accessing broadband. I believe that Executive civil servants have been considering that issue with a view to providing broadband. We expected to have word on that this spring but, so far, nothing has happened and I am once again receiving letters from constituents asking what progress has been made.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

As I explained to Mr Swinney, we will define our approach shortly. As promised, a technical report has been produced and we are actively discussing its findings. However, the issue is complex and technical and we must take into account all the relevant considerations, including the scope for BT to resolve a few of the network issues that currently inhibit broadband access. Those technical issues are under consideration. As I said, we will define our proposals later this year.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what investment has been made in primary care services in the Linlithgow constituency. (S2O-10310)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

In Linlithgow, NHS Lothian provides funding in support of two general practitioner practices—one single-handed GP and an eight-doctor practice—three high street opticians, four dental practices and two community pharmacies. Those services received funding in excess of £4 million in 2005-06. Between 2004-05 and 2005-06, the funding increased by 36 per cent for the GP practices and, for dental and ophthalmic services, by 6 per cent and 25 per cent respectively. Funding for the community pharmacy dispensing services remained stable at approximately £2 million each year.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I thank the minister for those figures. I know that he shares my interest in the delivery of primary care services. Yesterday, I met several community psychiatric nurses in my constituency who deliver invaluable services to people with dementia. Those nurses have concerns about the age profile of their profession. How is the Executive addressing the recruitment and retention of primary care staff, be they health visitors, district nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists or CPNs, so that people can receive the services that they need when appropriate in the community?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

In addition to the services that I outlined, I am sure that the member is aware that the local community health partnership has a team of six district nurses, three health visitors, three treatment room nurses, a nursing auxiliary, a phlebotomist and two administrative and clerical staff, all of whom are dedicated to the Linlithgow area. That shows the physical emphasis on the localisation of care. It is also my understanding that services that are currently provided at St John's hospital, such as physiotherapy, fall prevention, speech and language therapy and dentistry, are being considered actively with the aim of driving them closer to communities.

On the question of staff, I can reassure Mary Mulligan that we are now much more engaged in workforce planning in our national health service. Regional and local plans have been received that allow us to envisage the service of the future, as we have done through "Delivering for Health", and to align resources, not just for nurses and doctors but for all health care professionals, at university and in training. In that way, we can ensure that we support those in training and those qualifying for the jobs that will be needed. The workforce plan includes taking account of the age profile of the current workforce, so that we can predict the future workforce requirements of the health service.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it supports community health projects and community health initiatives across Scotland. (S2O-10278)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We provide core funding to NHS boards, which includes support for health promotion and health improvement initiatives, and their health improvement targets are scrutinised as part of the boards' annual reviews. Funding for community health projects is made available by NHS boards, along with local authorities and other partners, in the context of community joint health improvement plans, allowing local community partnerships to agree on local priorities and on the delivery of appropriate services.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Is the minister aware of the situation on the ground for community health projects? The six Glasgow projects in the west of Scotland community health network are currently experiencing cuts in funding to the extent that they are facing closure, and funding to support voluntary sector participation in the health improvement initiative in Fife will disappear in six months' time. Does he recognise the growing crisis faced by community health initiatives in the whole of Scotland, and will he consider examining the financial situation of those organisations in his discussions with NHS boards?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I do not recognise Mr Ballard's description of a national crisis, but I do recognise that it is appropriate for local authorities, local health boards and other local partners to make decisions about priorities, about where they make investment and about where that investment can make the greatest difference. If Mr Ballard takes a different view from that taken by the organisations that are responsible for those decisions in his community, it is to those organisations that he should make his views known.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Is the minister aware that I have written to Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board asking it to emulate Glasgow City Council by grant funding Castlemilk health project, which does excellent health promotion work in the community, especially among children? Will he encourage a positive response from that health board?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I am aware of the good work that is done in Castlemilk in promoting better health in the community. Mr Gordon has taken the right course in raising his views with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and I encourage him to continue to do that. All health boards have to make decisions on the basis of the evidence that is before them, and I would expect them to take into account evidence of a successful and effective project.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Does the minister agree that, given the differing views on the crisis in community health partnership funding, he should, at the very least, order a review? Like Charlie Gordon, I have written to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde about the withdrawal of funds for such things as the community hospital transport project in Castlemilk. It is clear that such projects make a real and tangible difference to people on the ground, but it is also clear that there is a crisis in the funding of those projects. Will the minister agree to order a review?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I do not accept the characterisation of crisis put forward by Mr Sheridan and Mr Ballard, although I recognise that there are issues to be addressed. As Charlie Gordon has said, some community health projects have made an enormous difference over the years and will no doubt make their bids for future funding on that basis. It is right that those decisions are taken at local level. That is the nature of the arrangements that we have in place, and I think that that is the right way for such decisions to be made.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will provide a progress report on the commitment to upgrade the A82 Tarbet to Inverness trunk road. (S2O-10259)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Since I announced a number of initiatives on the A82 following the completion of the A82 route action plan review, progress has been made on the more immediate schemes. Consultants have been commissioned to take forward the design of a new western bypass for Crianlarich. We are also in the process of appointing consultants for the pulpit rock improvement on Loch Lomondside. Orders have been issued to Scotland TranServ to review the sites identified by the route action plan relating to accident-prevention sites, the lay-by and picnic areas and local carriageway restrictions. A detailed report on the issues that implementation raises for each site should be submitted to Transport Scotland at the end of July.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The minister will be fully aware of my particular concern about the section of the road from Tarbet to Inverarnan. Bearing in mind the extensive consultation over the past 20-odd years, does the minister agree that an early start—within the next two years—is perfectly feasible? Does he further agree that, in the spirit of fitness for all, cycleways should be included?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I agree on the latter point. We endeavour to invest in cycleways, which is why this week we announced additional funding for Sustrans, the cycling promotion body, in relation to Loch Lomondside and other areas of Scotland. In relation to the process of the schemes themselves, we will certainly develop them as quickly as we can, given the road orders and other measures that have to be taken into account, as with all projects of this scale.

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-2373)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

This is a welcoming country, in which violent crime has been reducing and in which our football fans are a source of pride rather than embarrassment. It is entirely unacceptable for any individual, of any nationality, to be attacked in this country because of the football shirt that they are wearing. The Parliament sends out that clear message today.

The next meeting of the Cabinet will of course discuss issues that are important to Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I join the First Minister in condemning the despicable actions of a minority in this country. Their behaviour should not be allowed to reflect on the reputation of the vast majority of decent people in Scotland.

I draw the First Minister's attention to the concordat agreed between Scottish ministers and the Secretary of State for Defence, which requires Scottish ministers

"to consider any proposals for ... the exercise of powers by the UK Government that may have an impact on ... Scotland."

I am sure that we would all agree that a decision to site a new generation of Trident nuclear weapons on the River Clyde would have an impact on Scotland. Is the First Minister for or against replacing Trident?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The easy answer in these situations would, as ever, be yes or no, but the issue requires a considered opinion. It is no secret to the chamber that in the late 1970s and early 1980s, I enthusiastically supported unilateral action by the United Kingdom to reduce its nuclear deterrent, in order to bring about improvements in an international situation that was at best worrying and at worst terrifying, as the cold war continued. As the Reagan and Gorbachev years took effect and as the international movement for nuclear disarmament had an impact, we saw a reduction in the nuclear stockpile internationally. I believe that that was the right time to change and to take the approach that it was right to take part in international negotiations.

I see a very important decision facing the United Kingdom in the year or two ahead. I agree absolutely that people in Scotland should have an opinion on that issue and I welcome the UK

Government's commitment to a debate on the issue. I hope that that debate is informed and sensible—on the one hand, without committing ourselves automatically to a new generation of nuclear weapons but, on the other, without taking unilateral actions, in advance of the international situation and our analysis of it, that would remove the UK from international negotiations and reduce our influence at a time of potentially increasing tension on the nuclear issue worldwide.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Sometimes it is right, on issues of great moral importance, for a leader to say yes or no—to say which side he is on. I remind the First Minister that last night Gordon Brown made it clear which side he is on. He supports the replacement of Trident nuclear weapons on the Clyde. We know that a decision will be taken over the next few months about whether to spend up to £25 billion of taxpayers' money on a new generation of nuclear weapons. There should and will be a massive public debate about this issue. I ask the First Minister which side of that debate he starts from. Does he agree with Gordon Brown that we need new nuclear weapons or, like many in his party, will he oppose new weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am on the side of the people of Scotland and good security for our country. If we are exchanging views on policies here, I am happy to point out that that is not the side taken by the Scottish National Party, whose policy of withdrawing from NATO and from the United Kingdom armed forces and reducing the number of bases and support for the armed forces in Scotland would have a devastating impact on our country's security. The people of Scotland are well aware of that.

On the specific issue of nuclear weapons, I agree that there should be a debate—that is the UK Government's official position. I will certainly take part in that debate.

We do not know whether it will be confirmed during the next six months that the Iranian Government is preparing to move towards having its own nuclear weapons or deterrent. We also do not know whether the North Korean Government will test nuclear missiles during the months ahead. However, we know that the UK faces a decision on replacing its nuclear deterrent. That decision must be made in view of the international circumstances at the time. I do not have a preconceived view of what that decision should be, but it should be made in the interests of the security of the UK and Scotland and to give us the maximum impact that we can have in international negotiations to reduce the worldwide stockpile of nuclear weapons and their proliferation in new or emerging states.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Would we not be much more credible in preaching non-proliferation to Iran and North Korea if we were not deciding to upgrade our own nuclear weapons? Has the First Minister not dodged the question again? I remind him of the recent newspaper interview where he said that the First Minister of Scotland must speak up on issues for which the Scottish Parliament is not responsible but which have implications for Scotland. He said:

"I will ... not hold back."

Will the First Minister live up to his promises? Will he come off the fence and tell us where he stands on this very important issue? Does he think that Trident mark II will be a good use of £25 billion of taxpayers' money or does he, like me, think that that money would be much better spent on schools, hospitals and pensions?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I stand for the security of Scotland within the United Kingdom, and for a proper response from and the participation of the United Kingdom in international negotiations to reduce the proliferation and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. Ms Sturgeon might take the easy route of withdrawing from having any influence or participation in those discussions, but Scotland, through the United Kingdom, has an important role to play in those international negotiations. The way in which the decision is made might just have an impact on nuclear proliferation and on our ability to control it and to ensure that the world is in a better situation rather than a worse one. That is why we should make a considered judgment.

I will speak out on this issue, but I will do so with the full facts at my disposal, in view of the international situation and the analysis of how it might develop. I have mentioned two uncertainties that exist in the world right now, and Ms Sturgeon should take account of them. The SNP's policy of withdrawing from NATO and ensuring that Scotland is no longer part of the British armed forces and loses personnel, bases, power and influence would threaten the security of Scotland. That policy should be under examination here, just as the right decision should be properly examined by politicians in this Parliament, by the people of Scotland and the rest of the UK and by the British Government.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I will take no lectures from a party that has axed more than 2,000 Ministry of Defence jobs in Scotland since it came to power. Is it not the reality that while the First Minister waits and prevaricates, Gordon Brown and the debate are moving on? Is it not also the case that most people in Scotland, including many of his own Labour colleagues, believe that there is no moral, economic, military or legal case to be made in the modern world for putting new Trident missiles on the Clyde? Is it not a shame that we do not have a First Minister who has the courage to stand up and say that? Is it not a shame that we do not have a First Minister who is prepared to speak out for Scotland and Scotland's interests?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I hope that the people of Scotland are reassured that they have a First Minister who takes the issue seriously, who is prepared to examine the evidence, who wants to influence international negotiations and who wants to make the right decision rather than one who gets a cheap headline on day one of the debate. I intend to take the issue seriously. If Ms Sturgeon thinks that putting under threat MOD jobs in Scotland—6,000 jobs are dependent on MOD contracts and 25,000 people in Scotland are directly employed by the MOD—and the £1.5 billion that is spent on defence in this country is the right thing to do for the security of Scotland, she is wrong and the Scottish National Party is wrong, as has been proved time after time by the people of Scotland in elections.

Let me be clear on the specific issue that Ms Sturgeon raises: I do not believe that the conclusion to the issue that is under debate is clear at this stage. I believe strongly that it is important to assess the international situation, to examine the threats that are posed to that situation and to make a decision on whether to proceed with a new generation of British nuclear weapons on the basis of an analysis of how it would be best to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the size of the nuclear stockpile. The decision should be made on that basis and, in my view, on that basis alone. That is my sole criterion. When I express a view on the matter, I will so with only that objective in mind.

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-2374)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have no plans to talk to the Prime Minister over the next week, but if I do, one of the issues that we will discuss will be the United Kingdom's positive attempts to deal with the impact of the Barker judgment, which was discussed in this morning's statement on the legislative programme. I take the opportunity to thank both main Opposition parties and others for indicating that they will help us to take action on behalf of people in Scotland who are suffering from the impact of exposure to asbestos.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I hope that when the First Minister meets the Prime Minister, he will pass on to Mr Blair Scotland's condemnation of the shameful, mindless and brutish acts of thuggery that were committed when two vulnerable individuals were attacked simply for supporting the England football team. I hope that the First Minister will tell the Prime Minister that the overwhelming majority of Scots are tolerant, kindly and open-minded people who are horrified and nauseated by such appalling incidents. Will the First Minister update us on what is being done to track down the perpetrators of those crimes to ensure that they are properly dealt with through the criminal justice system?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As ever, it is difficult for me to talk about individual cases, but I can be clear about a number of things. First, I will certainly pass on Annabel Goldie's view—which I am sure is the unanimous view of everyone in the Parliament—that the acts to which she refers are disgraceful and should be condemned and that they should be acted on by our forces of law and order. I believe that if it can be proved that the acts were racially motivated, that should be the basis on which any charge is applied, but it would wrong of me to comment on the specific circumstances until they have been properly investigated and the culprits have been identified and—we hope—eventually charged.

We would all want to back the police force and ultimately—I hope—the procurators fiscal in the areas concerned to ensure that they send out a clear signal in Scotland and elsewhere that those individual acts run against the trend of a reduction in violent crime in Scotland, the positive atmosphere that surrounds our football supporters and the enjoyment that everyone is taking in the world cup, regardless of their perspective. We want it to be emphasised that over recent years Scotland has been a welcoming country, not just to people from elsewhere in the world but to people from England in particular. Today we send out a clear message that many more English people will be welcomed. The increase in our population is largely due to the fact that people have come here from elsewhere in the UK. They are welcome here and they will be for years to come.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for his response and was glad to hear it.

The attacks in question bring shame on Scotland, create a negative image and are a sad illustration of the attitude of a minority of the population. The fact that a grown man was able to attack a seven-year-old boy in a park in the middle of the afternoon without fear of apprehension is a sad indictment of our justice system. Does the First Minister accept that that is another indication of the crisis in our justice system, in which only 145 police are on the beat at any one time and three out of four crimes are not even reported to the police? Will he say what action he is taking to increase the police presence on our streets and in our parks and communities?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

First, I express regret that Annabel Goldie's subsequent question may have divided the unity in the chamber on the issue. That said, I am happy to join the debate.

Of course, the figures that Annabel Goldie quotes are largely wrong and there are far more police officers on the beat in Scotland than she says there are. As everybody knows, there are also increasing numbers of police officers in the community in Scotland and, in many areas, those officers are backed up by community wardens. There are officers who are working very creatively to maximise their presence in their local community. They are doing so not only by being on the beat and by having the support of community wardens but by using new transport methods such as bicycles. Following her activities of yesterday, I understand that Miss Goldie may have an interest in bicycles.

In taking the actions that we have taken over the past three years to reform our criminal justice system, the Government has done more than almost any Government before us to ensure that more police officers in Scotland are focused on tackling crime and that our justice and prosecution service is more able to ensure that those who are caught are properly dealt with. There has been a huge improvement in the efficiency of our courts. That can be seen in the reduction in the time that is wasted not only by witnesses and victims but by individual police officers; the time wasted by police officers has reduced massively. They used to have to sit around courtrooms waiting for cases to be heard when they could have been out on the beat—that is where they are now. There has been a huge increase in the number of support staff, who were put in place to take away from police officers all the bureaucracy and administration that they had to do. Officers are now available to go out and do the job that they signed up to do, and to be effective with it.

Those are significant measures and they are making a difference. The strongest message that we can send out is not that we will put an individual police officer in every individual park in Scotland on the off-chance that one day an individual might attack a seven-year-old boy, however despicable that act might be. The real action that we need to take is to ensure that we change the culture of our society. That is why the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 is so important. At its core, it tackles that culture of disrespect and intolerance. The Tories should be ashamed of having fought it all the way.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

That is a downright lie.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Not for the first time, I have to bring the First Minister to book, because my party supported the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill in the Parliament.

In fact, the figure of 145 police on the beat to which I referred is extracted from an Executive document, "Narrowing The Gap—Police visibility and public reassurance—Managing public expectation and demand". Although, as the First Minister said, there may be more recruited police officers in Scotland, wherever they are, they are not walking the streets.

As the First Minister knows, operational policing matters are decisions for chief constables and politicians should not interfere in them. However, does the he accept that the current policing policies that are favoured by chief constables are in conflict with the public's demand for more police on our streets and on the beat? Does he further accept that it is only by making the police more accountable to the public, regularly publishing community crime statistics and directly electing the conveners of police boards that policing will begin to reflect the needs and demands of the public?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Even if Miss Goldie does not remember it, all members on the Executive benches remember the opposition that she, Mr McLetchie and others put up to our drive to tackle antisocial behaviour in Scotland. I remember Conservative members queuing up to say that I was exaggerating the problem and that not only were the measures that we were proposing not required but they were over the top and inappropriate. The Conservatives said that all we required was more police on the beat. The reality is that we have delivered more police on the beat and delivered the laws that allow them to do their job in tackling antisocial behaviour and crime in our local communities.

Alongside the raft of measures to modernise and change our criminal justice system, in which reform in the High Court has been followed by reform in the sheriff court, and many other changes, we have the new laws to tackle antisocial behaviour and a record number of police officers—no longer just a record 15,500 but now more than 16,000 police officers. If Miss Goldie's alternative is simply to turn the conveners of local police boards in the eight police authorities in Scotland into political footballs, by creating elections for their positions, she is kidding herself, her party and the people of Scotland.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister what representations the Scottish Executive has made to the Department of Trade and Industry about the impact on low-paid workers of the withdrawal of funding for the Scottish national minimum wage helpline. (S2F-2386)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The decision on the helpline's funding is a matter for the United Kingdom Government, but the Scottish Government continues to engage with and support organisations such as Citizens Advice Scotland to ensure that money advice is available to people in Scotland.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

The First Minister is aware that Scotland's dedicated national minimum wage helpline faces the axe, although there are no plans to close the helplines in Northern Ireland or England. Every year, the Scottish helpline sends 80,000 pieces of literature to some of the most exploited workers in the country, who depend on that lifeline. The helpline has helped some 3,500 people since its launch in 2003.

Does the First Minister accept that there is a continuing need to combat the scourge of low pay in Scotland? If he does, given that the helpline's running costs are just £36,000, will he act to ensure that that vital service can continue?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

How the service is provided is entirely a matter for the UK Government, which provided a clear and persuasive explanation for its decision and questioned the statistics that Colin Fox has just given.

The Scottish Parliament has a proud record of supporting money advice services for citizens in Scotland, primarily through local authorities, through which our initiatives and legislation are making a big difference to families by ensuring that they receive the advice that they need and are led away from debt problems—in a world in which debt is an increasing problem for poor families.

We also support national projects. I mention just two such projects: the Scotland-wide young Scot moneyline initiative, which makes a big difference to young people who might find themselves in financial difficulty; and the Citizens Advice Scotland financial education project, which is trialling approaches to financial education, to ensure that the next generation of young Scots will be less in debt than were their mothers and fathers.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

The Scottish helpline operates as a partnership between the Scottish Low Pay Unit, Citizens Advice Scotland and HM Revenue and Customs. The Scottish Executive has been asked to help, too.

I am disappointed by the First Minister's reply because, according to the Scottish Low Pay Unit, more than 10,000 workers in Scotland are being paid less than the national minimum wage. The First Minister appears to be abandoning those workers to their fate. Is he saying that we cannot afford to spend £36,000 to ensure that workers who are exploited by unscrupulous employers are informed of their rights and afforded the full protection of the law? Are not the Executive's priorities all to pot if £36,000 cannot be found to fund a successful lifeline, when £50 million was recently doled out willy-nilly to Scottish Enterprise—a company worth £450 million? Does the First Minister accept that if he does not act to save the helpline, people will conclude that the Executive is not doing enough to protect vulnerable low-paid workers, who have a right to be paid the national minimum wage?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is not the job of the Executive or the Parliament to move in every time the UK Government makes a decision about a project's funding and to replace withdrawn UK funding with Scottish funding. Nor is it my job to defend the UK Government.

Of the Scots who contacted various helplines because they had difficulties in relation to the national minimum wage, more Scots were helped by the UK helpline than were helped by the Scottish helpline. Such statistics led the UK Government to make its decision. As I said, the decision was entirely a matter for the UK Government.

Our job in Scotland is to use our powers to ensure that through education and money advice that is provided by local authorities and the voluntary sector we help to deal with debt in communities. We have been doing that increasingly successfully as a result of the Parliament's many initiatives—many of which were cross-party initiatives—and I hope that we will continue to do that.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has any concerns about the imposition of VAT on Scotland's transport infrastructure projects, such as the Aberdeen western peripheral route. (S2F-2377)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We are aware of the issue and are working closely with the local authorities that are affected to reach a solution.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I am a committed supporter of the Aberdeen western peripheral route. The Minister for Transport, Mr Scott, has been quoted as saying that the project has no VAT liability. However, on the basis of advice from the Treasury, Aberdeen MPs are certain not only that VAT is due but that ministers should have known that. Which of them has got it right—the Minister for Transport or the Labour MPs? If the Labour MPs are right, who will pay the VAT—the Executive or council tax payers?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not recognise the comments that Brian Adam quotes. In dealing with this important, if technical, issue, it is important that we deal in facts rather than misrepresentations.

I believe that the issue requires to be addressed. The correct way to address it is for us to work with the local authorities and for them to appeal the ruling that has led to this situation. The previous practice of ensuring that VAT was recoverable on local authority-led projects was one on which we based our current transport programme. That has been changed, over the past few months, by rulings at a United Kingdom level that are either being challenged or going to be challenged by the local authorities that are affected. We hope that those challenges are successful.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

To ask the First Minister what impact the takeover of BAA is likely to have on the development of the Glasgow and Edinburgh airport rail links. (S2F-2385)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Our Government is working closely with airport operators and scheme promoters to ensure the successful delivery of those projects, and we will work with any new partners should that be necessary.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The First Minister will accept that the takeover of BAA by Ferrovial may put at risk the private sector airport infrastructure investment in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen airports. Will he guarantee that the public sector investments relating to the development of the Glasgow airport rail link will go ahead—in particular, the investment in increasing the track capacity between Glasgow Central station and Paisley Gilmour Street station, which is vital to the economic growth of Ayrshire?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I welcome the vote that was taken in Parliament yesterday afternoon to make further progress on the Glasgow airport rail link. As I have said before, it is a national disgrace that we do not have a rail link between our two major cities and the two airports that are closest to them. It is time for us to rectify that situation. The investment is very important and I am certain that we will be able to work with whoever owns the airports to secure their participation and partnership in the delivery of those projects.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The First Minister will be aware that the Royal Highland show, which opens today in my constituency, is a Scottish success story. However, the Royal Highland Agricultural Society has now waited for more than two and a half years for the publication of BAA's master plan. Delays have resulted from the recent takeover talks and we await clarification of exactly why BAA needs the 300-acre site. Will the First Minister give us an assurance that the Executive will push for early publication of the master plan following the show and that ministers will meet the new owners of BAA to discuss the way forward for the master plan, in order to end the uncertainty, as well as the whole issue of the rail link to Edinburgh airport?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The importance of investment in Scotland's airports must not be underestimated. There has been considerable growth and expansion in our airports over recent years, which has been good for Scotland. We want that to continue, although we recognise that the environmental impacts of air traffic need to be addressed.

Passenger traffic at both Glasgow airport and Edinburgh airport is likely to increase. At Glasgow airport, it is likely to rise from 7.2 million passengers in 2001 to, potentially, more than 17 million passengers in 2030; at Edinburgh airport, it is likely to rise from 6 million passengers in 2001 to, potentially, 24 million passengers in 2030. Those are huge increases, so continued investment in our airports is vital to make them as effective and efficient as possible. I have no doubt that the Minister for Transport will seek an urgent meeting with any new owners of Scotland's airports should the takeover take place and that, if these issues remain unresolved, he will want to raise them at that meeting.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

To ask the First Minister what plans are being considered to introduce a tourism green tax in Scotland. (S2F-2381)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

There are no plans to introduce a tourism green tax in Scotland.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I thank the First Minister for that straightforward and unambiguous response, which will be welcomed by all who are involved in tourism. I know that he is aware of the phenomenal success of the air discount scheme, which entitles residents of Scottish islands to a 40 per cent reduction in the cost of travelling by air to the Scottish mainland. Given the success of that scheme, I urge the First Minister and the Executive to consider a ferry discount scheme, which would allow islanders such as the pupils from Loch's school in Lewis who are in the gallery today to travel by sea to the mainland at a reduced cost.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I join Alasdair Morrison in welcoming the pupils from Loch's school, which I opened a few years ago and which sets very high standards. The pupils have been working hard all year and deserve their visit to the Scottish Parliament. They are welcome here.

We have no current plans for a ferry discount scheme similar to the air discount scheme, but I am sure that we will listen to any representations that Alasdair Morrison makes on the issue.

Points of Order

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. We moved to question 4 at 12.25 and 2 seconds this afternoon. Will you reflect on the powers that are available to you to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of question time among all members of the Parliament?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Yes, I reflect on that all the time. In some weeks, there is a wider distribution than in others, but I take your remarks to heart.

There is a further point of order from Susan Deacon.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

This morning, the convener of the Enterprise and Culture Committee was interviewed on national radio regarding the committee's report on Scottish Enterprise, which was published today. Many of his comments did not reflect the report's tone or aspects of its content. Indeed, throughout the committee's deliberations on the matter, the convener has regularly and publicly expressed strong personal opinions, many of which have not found their way into the conclusions and recommendations of the report that was published today but which the press and public have often perceived as the Enterprise and Culture Committee's view.

Although I recognise that every member of the Parliament has a right to express personal opinions, do you agree that committee conveners have a special responsibility to work to promote and convey their committees' collective views? Will you reflect on what steps might be taken to assist conveners in that task, perhaps by drawing on the good practice of most of the members who have performed such roles over the years? Do you also agree that such matters of practice and conduct are important if we are to build and maintain the reputation of the Parliament and its members' work?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

For the record, I say that I had advance notice of that point of order. All I have to say is that we work away in the Parliament and in committee through debate and divergent views to reach agreed majority conclusions. All members have a right to personal opinions, but we should exercise care and discretion in diverging from the collective view of committees on which we sit.

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Would it not show respect to other members if complaints of that nature were also notified in advance to the member who is the subject of the complaint?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Ms Deacon was making a general point of relevance to all committees.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Finance and Public Services and Communities

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to ensure that local authorities operate their common good funds in accordance with the law and that the community benefits from such funds. (S2O-10265)

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Councils already have a duty to administer property held as part of the common good fund for the benefit of those in the area to which the common good relates. It is, of course, for councils themselves, as independent corporate bodies, to ensure that they act lawfully in their day-to-day business.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

The minister is doubtless aware of the recent research that paints a horrifying picture of how some councils have been ignoring the legal restraints on the common good fund and have merely appropriated the fund into their ordinary accounts. Will he consider ways of making councils use the common good fund better, for the benefit of the community that the fund was set up to serve, rather than rolling it all into the council accounts?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

As I have said, councils are obliged, as independent corporate bodies, to act lawfully in their business. They are also fairly well audited annually, and there is a considerable amount of scrutiny of the work that they do. In the final analysis, however, the real arbiters of how a council is conducting itself, in relation to common good or to other matters, are the electors who put the council there in the first place. It is obviously inappropriate for me to comment on individual aspects of a specific report, but I believe that most councils would be prepared to put forward an alternative view. Most councils operate on the basis that they are there to serve the best interests of their communities. If any do not do so, there is a variety of mechanisms for picking that up.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Moving away from sheer money to the other assets that councils have inherited from their predecessor bodies, such as chains of office from former royal burghs, how can we hope to monitor whether councils are actually following the law by keeping an inventory of all their property and looking after it properly? Does the minister accept that it is quite difficult for the electorate, who should be passing judgment on councils, to know whether or not such things are being done in accordance with the law?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

The electorate clearly have their lives to live, and I do not think that too many people are obsessed with the minutiae of which chain is where. Although it is an important matter—it is something to which people in local communities attach importance—it must be kept in its proper perspective. We employ a number of highly paid professional officers, and it is their duty to ensure that councils act appropriately and preserve the heritage of local communities across Scotland.

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

I hope that the minister will be aware of the response of the communities that I represent to the proposal by the Conservative convener of Scottish Borders Council to take an element of the chains away from the honorary provosts. That should be a salutary lesson to anyone who wishes to touch the chains.

Does the minister accept that a case could be made for some assets that are currently held by common good funds to be passed to community development trusts? Not only would that be an excellent way of allowing accountability and transparency in the operation of common good funds, but it would mean that assets could be used more creatively in work in local communities.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I was well aware that the Conservatives had a reputation for selling the family silver, but I was not aware that they are now selling the gold as well.

My mind is open to the suggestions that have been made. We should always keep the arrangements under review, and if people apply their minds to the matter they might well find better ways in which to use those funds.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to support new affordable housing in Edinburgh. (S2O-10285)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Edinburgh is sharing in the substantial overall increase in the funding that we are making available for affordable housing investment across Scotland. In the current year we plan to invest £36 million to support affordable housing developments in the city. That represents a doubling of the budget compared with 2004-05. Working in partnership with the City of Edinburgh Council, we are committed to making substantial and lasting inroads into dealing with affordable housing issues in the city.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I welcome the commitment that the minister has made, but although we need 11,000 affordable houses over the next decade, the council has plans to provide 3,500 houses. Will the minister accept that that gap of 7,500 houses represents a huge problem in relation to social disadvantage and access to the housing market? Given that, on average, there are 50 applications for every house that becomes available through the council's letting system—in popular areas such as my own, there are up to 300 applications for vacant properties—will he acknowledge that there is a crisis? Will he address the issue through the strategic housing investment framework and ensure that it reflects the massive demand that exists in Edinburgh, which we must meet to enable people to live and work here?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

There is no doubt that there are substantial supply shortages in social rented housing in Edinburgh. We will certainly take that into account when we come to make our conclusions on the strategic housing investment framework.

The issue is also being covered by Professor Bramley's work. Professor Bramley carried out an analysis of supply shortages for the previous spending review and is updating it for this spending review. His analysis for the previous spending review indicated that Edinburgh was by far the largest contributor in respect of supply shortages in Scotland. Based on his preliminary findings this time, I have no reason to believe that the situation will have changed. Edinburgh clearly has a great need in relation to the supply of houses and we will take account of that when we make future investment decisions.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Question 4 was to be asked by Mr Andrew Arbuckle, but he is not in the chamber.

Kate Maclean (Labour, Dundee West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans are in place to ensure that services currently funded through its temporary funding initiatives, and which are beginning to have a positive impact in the most deprived communities, continue to receive its financial support. (S2O-10298)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The impact of, and future support for, existing funding initiatives in the most deprived communities will be considered as part of the spending review process. The community regeneration fund is the principal funding programme for the most deprived communities. Funding from the community regeneration fund is provided to community planning partnerships for a three-year period to support their approved regeneration outcome agreements, but in many cases that involves the funding of good projects that were previously supported by other funding programmes.

Kate Maclean (Labour, Dundee West)

Is the minister aware that, in Dundee, funding that amounts to more than £15 million for—among others—quality of life funding, community regeneration funding and the cities growth fund will all end on 31 March 2008? Does he recognise the need to move away from temporary funding of that nature? What assurances can the Scottish Executive give on the longer-term sustainability of crucial services that currently rely on temporary funding?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Some of the amounts are even more than Kate Maclean suggested. The figure for the community regeneration fund, which I referred to in my initial answer, is £17.3 million. In a sense, the situation is unavoidable because spending reviews are for three-year periods but, as I indicated in my initial answer, the community regeneration fund picks up many excellent projects that were funded in previous spending review periods. We have no reason to believe that there will not be a similar carryover this time round.

It is clear that the best projects must be identified. The Scottish Executive cannot keep funding for ever the same local projects; otherwise, it will not be possible to bring new projects on stream. In many cases it is up to local agencies, particularly the community planning partnerships, to ensure that they prioritise and continue to support good local projects.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Is the minister aware that unmet needs funding for a number of projects, including the excellent Dundee mental health and well-being counselling service, is about to end next week? I am told that that is due to the Scottish Executive's priorities changing to prevention 2010. I am sure that, along with the Minister for Health and Community Care, the Minister for Communities has a great interest in tackling health inequalities. Will he therefore agree to review, along with the Minister for Health and Communities Care, the decision to withdraw funding from the service? Surely what matters is what works in reducing health inequalities, which should not be dependent on the Scottish Executive constantly chopping and changing funding streams.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

That is properly a question for the Minister for Health and Community Care, so I better not tread too far into the territory—although the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform and I have a great interest in the subject because of our previous involvement with the portfolio.

In general, in the Health Department and across the Executive, there is a strong commitment to funding work in deprived areas. The new programme to which Shona Robison referred came out of the David Kerr report and is an excellent initiative. I hope that she welcomes the emphasis on anticipatory care, which is ground-breaking work for the United Kingdom and probably further afield.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

The minister must be aware of the Executive's habit of funding things for three years. Only one year of decent work ever comes out of that approach, so it is very poor value for money. It leaves the community worse off than it was before good activities started in a deprived area—just when everyone is getting up to speed, they are told that they have to stop and go away because there is no more money. Does the minister accept that the Executive must continue to fund such things? He argues that if the Executive continues to fund them, it would not be able to find money for new things, but it is much more important to keep good existing things going than to invent something new.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

In my previous answers, I certainly supported keeping good existing things—as Donald Gorrie calls them—going. However, there is something unavoidable about spending review periods, and it is quite right that we should evaluate projects rather than keep them going automatically. The system of three-year funding is significant progress on the system that used to pertain. Indeed, the commitment to three-year funding was part of the strategic funding review that was done in partnership with the voluntary sector. We have made progress. Obviously, there is an issue about keeping good projects going. As I said, I certainly support doing so, but I do not think that there is any simple answer. At the end of the day, we have finite, albeit increasing, sums of money and we have to make decisions about continuing to fund the best strategic projects.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to review the funding structure for local authorities to meet its commitment on free personal care, in light of the Health Committee's care inquiry report. (S2O-10245)

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Funding for those services is in line with the recommendations of the joint Scottish local authorities management centre and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities report, which the Scottish Executive accepted and fully funded. A review is currently taking place of the mechanism for funding local authorities to support people who live in care homes and receive free personal and nursing care. In line with that, the examination of current expenditure practices will be extensive.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The minister will be aware of the Health Committee's disappointment that he did not appear before it, given the nature of the financial questions that were in front of the committee. Can he give us a commitment today that he will very much involve himself in the committee's recommendations? I refer in particular to the lack of inflationary increase—such an increase was not built into the legislation—which should be addressed and to the review of funding, which should take account of the collective and individual finance that is provided to local authorities for free personal care.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

First of all, I am aware of the opinions expressed by some committee members, who ignored the practices that we employ to ensure that a single minister gives a comprehensive answer on behalf of the Scottish Executive within their own policy remit.

Clearly, the issue is of some concern; the Scottish Executive is equally concerned. The general public would expect us to be concerned when we receive an independent report, which we fully funded, and then we hear different authorities in some parts of Scotland saying that they do not have enough money.

I repeat what I said at the end of my first answer: the examination of current expenditure practices will be extensive.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it expects to receive and publish the report of the independent local government finance review committee. (S2O-10304)

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

The local government finance review committee expects to report by the end of October 2006. We expect to receive the report shortly before it is published by the committee.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Does the minister welcome, as I do, the fact that the drive towards introducing a local income tax has been put into reverse gear by the Liberal Democrats? Has there been an updated assessment of the level at which local income tax would have to be levied by our local authorities if it were to be introduced?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

My Liberal Democrat colleagues in the coalition update me on many matters but we have not yet found time to discuss this matter in great detail. I accept absolutely the point that, irrespective of where we are on the political spectrum, such matters need to be approached with considerable care. I am sure that no party—whether mine or any other—would want to put across the message that they are interested in increasing the tax burden on people in Scotland. Now, although I think that that applies to most parties, I have looked closely at some of the statements that the Scottish National Party has made, which cast a bit of doubt over my optimism, but I will try my best to remain an optimist.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Without wishing in any way to undermine the minister's optimism, I say to him that if the Liberal Democrat members do not take the opportunity to argue in favour of a local income tax today in Parliament, perhaps I will do so on their behalf—although they are welcome to make their contribution.

Does the minister accept that one of the reasons why many people are concerned about the council tax—and why we hope that the independent review of local government finance will determine that the council tax is unfair, unjust and an excessive burden on people on fixed and low incomes in our country—is the fact that 44 per cent of pensioners in Scotland who are eligible for council tax benefit do not claim it? Is that not an indictment of the failed council tax and does it not show why the minister must support enthusiastically a fair local income tax?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Mr Swinney has dented my optimism before and, sadly, he has done so again with his question; however, I think that I will manage to struggle on. How people should consider the council tax will be reflected in the outcome of the independent committee's work. It is important that we allow an independent committee to come to its own conclusions and that we allow its recommendations to shape the debate and policy options that different parties adopt thereafter.

It is worth putting in perspective the statistics on pensioners and benefits in Scotland. Anyone who has dealt with these matters—which I did in a previous life—knows that there are a complex range of reasons why people apply or do not apply for benefits.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

As the Scottish Liberal Democrat spokesman on local government, I will update the minister on our position: we are in favour of axing the unfair council tax and replacing it with a local income tax. Does the minister agree that it is important that political parties' views on these matters are not misrepresented in this Parliament?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

That is important—it applies to everyone who speaks in this Parliament; however, perhaps that is a matter for my other colleagues in the coalition. Some people might have decided to pre-determine their views on local taxation in advance of being informed by the studious work of the independent committee. I would rather await the outcomes of that work and allow my future judgments to be guided by it.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Will the minister visit the Milngavie and Bearsden part of my constituency to ensure that the Liberal Democrat proposals are not misrepresented and that the Executive's position is depicted accurately, which does not always happen?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I would be delighted to visit that part of the member's constituency to address those matters and any others to convince people that there should be a reasonable way forward in local taxation and to allow them to form their own opinions about which party is most likely to deliver that.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in reaching agreement with the Law Society of Scotland on the issue of standard missives in relation to the purchase of residential property. (S2O-10289)

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

In line with the recommendations of the housing improvement task force, the Law Society of Scotland convened a working party with the Scottish Consumer Council and Homes for Scotland to consider the preparation of a voluntary code of practice to address a range of issues around the purchase of new-build housing and to develop a standard missive for use in such purchases. I understand that talks are suspended while Homes for Scotland undertakes wider consultation with its members. Justice Department officials have asked the Law Society for a full report on progress to date. We will consider that carefully before deciding on next steps.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Is the minister aware that the issue has been on-going for some four years and yet each time that we seem to make progress, we find that it is only a false dawn. Is she further aware of the particular concern across Scotland that some purchasers of new-build homes are experiencing delays with entry dates, with delays lasting anything from one to 18 months? When entry dates are misrepresented by developers, people experience horrendous costs, which they have to bear. Does she agree that there has been nothing but prevarication, procrastination and delay on the part of the Law Society of Scotland and many of the developers and that further delay can be caused by the public utility companies?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

First, I recognise the work that Helen Eadie has done in highlighting the issue over a long period of time, including during the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. We need to reflect on the difficulties of the issue and the importance of getting it resolved correctly. I cannot therefore concur with the comments that she made that the delays relate to wilful procrastination or whatever. Difficult issues are involved and the Executive is keen to address them in a way that enables people to unite around the actions that are taken.

That does not mean that it is not necessary for us to address over time the substance of the issue in the same way that we have addressed the critical issues of home ownership, the responsibilities of homeowners, the rights of people in making a home purchase and the broader issues of the quality the homes that are built and the way in which they are built. Some of those issues will, of course, be addressed through the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. I do not accept that there have been false dawns, although I hope that what Helen Eadie said concentrates minds and encourages people to come to a conclusion in order to take the matter forward.

Education and Young People, Tourism, Culture and Sport

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to extend and promote cultural rights and to establish and deliver cultural entitlements for young people. (S2O-10313)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

As I announced to Parliament in January, we are preparing legislation to promote planning for cultural provision across the local authority sector. Together with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, we have also established a working group that includes local authority bodies and cultural agencies. The group will consider the best ways for local cultural entitlements to be delivered, including, importantly, their delivery to young people.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

I welcome the minister's answer and the commitment to cultural rights. How can young people learn about and participate in Scotland's traditional arts, including music, song, dance, storytelling and, indeed, the language?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Already, under proposals and projects that we are funding through the Scottish Arts Council, a number of initiatives allow young people to do that. The youth music initiative has an important traditional music role. It has been particularly important in the Highland Council area, where the Fèisean nan Gàidheal movement has been very much involved in delivering quality experiences of traditional music to young people. The traditional musicians in schools scheme has also given children all over Scotland the chance to join in with performances from some of Fèis Rois's best tutors. I understand that, in 2005 alone, its musicians delivered a staggering 210 traditional music workshops to more than 9,000 children. Projects and organisations such as those could play a key role in delivering our agenda for entitlements.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the new cultural entitlements legislation include a statutory duty on local authorities to deliver those entitlements? Can the minister confirm that the proposal will be cost neutral to local authorities?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

There is already a statutory duty on local authorities to provide adequate provision for such matters in their area. We believe that these matters can best be dealt with by local authorities working with local community groups through cultural planning and the community planning process. We will not make the entitlements a statutory requirement for local government; we will instead issue authorities with what we believe and hope will be helpful guidelines and examples of projects that they may wish to pursue.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to implement the recommendations contained in "Promoting Equal Opportunities in Education—Project Two: Guidance on Dealing with Homophobic Incidents". (S2O-10275)

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Any form of bullying in schools is completely unacceptable. That includes bullying on the basis of a pupil's sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation. We welcome the work of the research report to which Iain Smith referred. We will consult key stakeholders before deciding how to take matters forward.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

All bullying is wrong, but I am sure that the minister agrees that bullying that is based on prejudice is particularly destructive. Homophobic bullying can take many forms. It can be verbal, psychological and physical and the phrase "That's so gay" can be used as a general insult. Homophobic bullying can blight the school environment and be terrifying for victims.

The report states:

"The Scottish Executive Education Department (SEED), Education Authorities (EAs) and schools should explicitly make mention and mainstream homophobia into their Anti-Bullying ... policies."

Does the minister agree with that recommendation? Does he also agree that it is vital that teachers know how to recognise and deal with homophobic bullying? Will he give an assurance that the Scottish Executive will continue to work with LGBT Youth Scotland to develop phase 2 of the project?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I give Iain Smith the strongest assurance that ministers take homophobic bullying seriously—and any form of bullying. As he says, such bullying can and does blight young people's quality of life and educational progress.

We want to consult appropriate interest groups before we take forward the report's recommendations. A principal message that emerged from the research is that although more homophobic bullying is taking place in schools than comes to the attention of the authorities—partly because of pupils' lack of confidence in reporting incidents—teachers are reasonably confident about confronting and tackling such behaviour. However, teachers said that training and support through continuous professional development would be useful.

I assure Iain Smith that we want to address such matters in the context of not just the report but our broader policies for tackling bullying across the spectrum in schools.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

We seem to have reached a point at which most people in Scotland's public services think that doing homophobic things is not acceptable. However, there remains a widespread attitude that saying homophobic things—in schools or in public life—is just expressing an opinion. In light of that, I press the minister on the recommendation that anti-bullying policies should make specific reference to homophobic bullying. Does the Executive agree that it is unacceptable that, as the research found, the anti-bullying policies of 65 per cent of the schools—and all the denominational schools—that were surveyed made no reference to homophobia?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I accept Patrick Harvie's central point about the unacceptability of homophobic attitudes, whether they are expressed verbally or physically. We must tackle that central issue. Much good work is being doing in schools on bullying in general and on homophobic bullying but, as Patrick Harvie says, the report suggests that a distance remains to be travelled. We want to consult all interest groups—not least parents, who have an important part to play—on the way in which we will take the matter forward.