Scottish Parliament, 29 June 2006

272 contributions from 73 members. The official report.

Official Report 29 June 2006

Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4612, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on the general principles of the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Good morning, Presiding Officer.

Just over two years ago, the promotion and development of Scottish tourism was carried out by 15 organisations: the Scottish Tourist Board and 14 area tourist boards. In March 2004, following a period of widespread consultation, the then Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport announced that that structure was no longer working well for Scotland and that we needed an integrated tourism network that would work across the whole country. Just over a year later, on 1 April 2005, those 15 organisations—including their staff, resources, systems, commitments and liabilities—were merged into one integrated organisation. Today, a further year on, VisitScotland's integrated tourism network is going from strength to strength. The purpose of the bill is to put the new organisational structure on a proper legal footing.

The Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994 requires that there must be area tourist boards. Therefore, in 2004, secondary legislation was used as an interim measure to create two area tourist boards—know as network tourist boards—into which the 14 area tourist boards could be merged. The network tourist boards are under the control of VisitScotland. The Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill will repeal the 1994 act's requirement for area tourist boards and dissolve the two network tourist boards. It will mean that VisitScotland can become fully integrated and operate as a single legal entity. The bill also provides for the transfer of staff from the network tourist boards to VisitScotland.

As VisitScotland now has a broader role, the bill also provides for a larger VisitScotland board. The board's maximum size, which is set out in the Development of Tourism Act 1969, is currently set at seven. The bill will amend the 1969 act to allow the board to be increased to a maximum of 12.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

One of the few areas of what might, at a stretch, be called controversy is the nature of the board and the increase in its size. Having read the evidence, I am not 100 per cent clear why the requests from local authorities for designated places cannot be granted. Was the refusal to set aside places for local authority representatives based on a point of principle or on some other reason?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Actually, the reason is that we want to observe the guidance on the public appointments process. It dictates that board members should, in most circumstances, be appointed on the basis of their skills, talents and expertise rather than because they represent a particular set of people or a particular organisation. Exceptions can be made, but only in very extreme circumstances. For example, if being an advocate is a requirement for a particular role, it might make sense to reserve a seat for a member of the Faculty of Advocates. However, in this circumstance, it is not necessary to do that.

If it is recognised, as it currently is, that VisitScotland needs local authority expertise, the appointments round will recognise that and ensure that someone with that expertise is appointed to the board. The existing board already has a representative of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities who is a local authority councillor. I believe that the current mechanism has served us well and will continue to do so, while allowing us to observe the recommendations on the public appointments process.

In the short term, it is likely that we will increase the board's size by two members, to a total of nine. However, allowing for a maximum of 12 members provides the flexibility to increase the board at a later stage, if that seems appropriate, without reverting to primary legislation.

The bill will change the organisation's legal name from "the Scottish Tourist Board" to "VisitScotland". Although the organisation has been known as VisitScotland for some time now and it could continue to use that as its trading name while continuing legally to be called the Scottish Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board name belongs in the past and the bill provides a good opportunity to change it. The VisitScotland name emphasises the way forward for tourism in Scotland. The brand is already established and it is easily recognised and trusted by visitors and businesses alike.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The minister suggested that the term STB is something from the past. As tourism in Scotland has grown over the years, surely not all was bad about STB and its name.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I was not implying that there was anything intrinsically bad about the Scottish Tourist Board or its name; I was simply reflecting on the fact that changes happen and that styles and current usages change too. The change of name very much reflects that. However, it is important to recognise that VisitScotland is in the process of obtaining the trademark "Scottish Tourist Board" to ensure that the name cannot be used by anyone else.

The bill consolidates the integration process that has already taken place and puts the integrated network on a proper legal footing. It does not change how the integrated tourism network works. The integrated network is working well and I am confident that it will continue to bring benefits to Scottish tourism.

The tourism industry did not feel the need to give evidence on the bill to the Enterprise and Culture Committee. That is testament to the success of the integrated network so far and to the relationships that VisitScotland has built up with tourism businesses and other partners and stakeholders. Indeed, VisitScotland's recent stakeholder survey shows that 95 per cent of stakeholders agree that the work of VisitScotland makes a positive impact on Scotland's economic development. The majority of stakeholders associated VisitScotland with being excellent, efficient, inspiring and innovative. The proportion of stakeholders who now see VisitScotland as dynamic and highly reputable has increased since 2005.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

In paying tribute to the work that was done in the past, will the minister agree that much of the confidence that now exists is due to the hard work of those who worked in the tourist boards and to the networks that they built up among local providers?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

That is absolutely fair. One of the good things about the way in which the integration has been taken forward is that VisitScotland has not thrown the baby out with the bath water; it has learned from the experiences of the Scottish Tourist Board and the area tourist boards and taken the very best of what they had to offer. A lot of good had been happening, but VisitScotland has taken it forward into a new century and, frankly, into a new and much more competitive tourism world.

Although VisitScotland is no longer a membership organisation, businesses continue to have access to the full range of services that were previously available through the area tourist boards, but more flexibility is now offered in the products that businesses can select. As a result, many businesses have seen cost reductions for equivalent service. Local areas are also now able to benefit more than ever before from VisitScotland's world class marketing campaigns, which promote Scotland as a national dish with local flavours.

Seventeen area tourism partnerships have been set up across Scotland to involve tourism businesses, VisitScotland, all 32 local authorities and other public sector interests. The excellent relationship between VisitScotland and local authorities has been strengthened by the creation of the VisitScotland chairs committee. Its membership is drawn from the local authority community. The annual national tourism convention also brings VisitScotland and COSLA together to discuss joint strategy. In addition, as I mentioned in response to Mr Adam's question, the COSLA spokesperson for economic development and planning is on the VisitScotland board.

I believe that the VisitScotland integrated tourism network is going from strength to strength and bringing benefits across the whole of Scotland. This is the right time to put that new network on a proper legal footing.

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

I will return to this point in my speech. The minister refers to co-ordination with the chairs and with COSLA. Does she see that as a mechanism for further integrating the provision of tourism information, perhaps via local authority service points and council offices?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

VisitScotland has been conducting a review of tourist information centres. One of the review's recommendations is likely to be that there should be co-ordination. It is not necessary for the information centres to be stand-alone entities. They could be part of their local community in a much more meaningful way, perhaps by being associated with a local town hall or another civic amenity. In that way, they might attract even more people to use their services.

The Enterprise and Culture Committee has asked me for reassurance on a number of issues. The committee refers to the apparently differing views that have been expressed by the Executive and VisitScotland on a number of issues and asks for reassurance that those views have been reconciled. I am pleased to say that the Executive and VisitScotland have been co-operating closely on the issues. In relation to VAT and pensions, the figures that were provided by VisitScotland were very much worst-case scenarios. My officials are working with VisitScotland on a number of different options, and we are all confident that far less costly solutions will be found in both cases.

We agree with VisitScotland that local authorities continued to fund VisitScotland last year at the same level as in the previous year. Any confusion around the figures was due to a change in the way in which funding was allocated for business tourism in Edinburgh and Glasgow and to project funding coming to an end. The committee also asked for reassurance that the reserves that were held by the former area tourist boards will be ring fenced for use in the areas in which they were accrued. I am happy to give that reassurance, as I have done in the chamber before.

I confirm that the final figure for the transitional costs associated with the planning and development of the VisitScotland network stands at £7.4 million, which has been paid to VisitScotland. No more funding will be provided for that purpose. Should any further costs emerge, they will be minimal and will be absorbed by VisitScotland's budget.

I am pleased also to confirm that VisitScotland's business plan shows a balanced budget this year, one year ahead of schedule. Members will recall that the integrated network took on a large operating deficit from the area tourist boards, but efficiency savings mean that the deficit has now been cleared. Efficiency savings have been made already, in VisitScotland's first year of operation, demonstrating its commitment to making the best use of public funds. I believe that it is time to put the organisation on a proper legal footing.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

The bill is very much a tidying-up measure. A wider debate about tourism may be needed, but that is not necessarily for today. In particular, the evidence from COSLA made the important point that expenditure on tourism generally in Scotland is fairly modest and that, out of a £35 million tourism budget in Edinburgh, only £620,000 goes to VisitScotland. That highlights one of the weaknesses in our approach to tourism in Scotland today—we have separated the marketing function from the rest of tourism.

I imagine that the bulk of the £35 million that Edinburgh spends on tourism is spent on the provision and maintenance of visitor attractions, such as the free museums service. It may also be spent on other services, but we need to consider whether the tourism business should be separated from its marketing in the longer term and whether that marketing should be in only one place. It would be interesting to hear whether one member on the Labour back benches who must have considerable experience of the matter in Glasgow shares that view.

Presumably the figure for Glasgow will be much the same as that for Edinburgh. Glasgow is spending a lot on tourism and has transformed itself into a visitor destination. Scottish Enterprise is responsible, as part of a wider remit, for supporting the development of attractions. In light of its current difficulties, perhaps we should consider whether that function sits comfortably with Scottish Enterprise and whether VisitScotland and general support for tourism from the public purse should be in a single entity, rather than spread across Scottish Enterprise, local authorities and VisitScotland. However, that is not a matter for today.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Does Brian Adam accept that much of what is done in economic development through infrastructure support and in local authorities could be described as supporting tourism, and that to seek to wrap that all together in one entity might mean artificially creating barriers rather than making agencies work together?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I accept that the issue that Christine May raises should be considered. I am trying to encourage a debate about precisely that point. Currently there is a debate about whether Scottish Enterprise's economic development function is being delivered successfully. Many people in local authorities would like that function, which was taken from them a number of years ago, to be returned to them. We should debate that point. I know that today's debate is about the marketing function and some very specific issues that relate to it, but when we look at tourism in general we should consider how we can best deliver tourism support and create partnerships that will produce not stresses and strains but co-operation in delivering a vibrant and successful tourism industry for our country.

Today, we are dealing with a number of fairly minor matters. We have primary legislation to deliver a name change. I should not have thought that that was the highest of priorities, although I accept that it is not the only reason the bill has been introduced. I was glad that, in their evidence, department officials indicated that primary legislation would not be required if a name change were made in the future. When she winds up on behalf of the Government, the minister could identify the provision in today's primary legislation that will allow a name change to be made in the future. That point is not spelled out in the Enterprise and Culture Committee's report.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

If, as the officials said, the name can be changed at almost any time, why do we need to legislate at this point to change it? We can call the organisation VisitScotland and be quite happy about that.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

That is the point to which I am alluding. However, to be generous to the Government—which is not my normal position—it took the opportunity that was afforded by the change from three legal entities to one to change the name legally. I want to ensure that if there is another rebranding exercise—there will undoubtedly be one, because that is what happens in life—we do not have to go through the process again and that we all know exactly which provisions in primary legislation will make that unnecessary.

I intervened on the minister to comment on designated places for COSLA on the VisitScotland board. In its submission to the inquiry, COSLA gave examples of seats being reserved on the boards of local bodies, such as national park authorities, for local authority representatives. I do not think that board members are required to be advocates or anything like that. The benefits of local authority representation can be seen on the boards of organisations such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Communities Scotland, on which elected members sit.

I am happy that the Government should make a decision not to designate places on the VisitScotland board. I tried in my intervention to get the minister to clarify whether that was on a point of principle or whether the Government was hiding behind the public appointments legislation. However, I have to accept what she said.

One of the great things about the bill is that, after a long period of uncertainty, staff will know precisely where they stand because they will now be employed by VisitScotland. Removing that uncertainty is undoubtedly a good thing.

I was intrigued by schedule 2 to the bill. It amends a series of acts of the Westminster Parliament. Perhaps the minister will tell us what progress she is making in discussions with her Westminster colleagues about whether they are willing to accept the schedule 2 amendments. I was particularly intrigued by the fact that the schedule appears to give us powers to promote ourselves overseas—I presume that that will be almost independently. Perhaps the minister will say a few words about that in her summing-up speech.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It is something of an irony that we have before us today a bill entitled the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill the central purpose of which is to abolish area tourist boards and wholly absorb what remains into VisitScotland. As we ponder that outcome today, it is only right that we take a moment to acknowledge the outstanding contribution that area tourist boards have made to the success of the Scottish tourism industry since their establishment in 1995.

Many members have enjoyed close relations with their local boards and will want to join me in paying tribute to the work that they did. The Executive might also wish to reflect for a moment on the frankly shabby treatment that was dished out to the ATBs during the early days of the restructuring. There is no need for me to repeat the strongly felt concerns that were raised by the ATBs during the Enterprise and Culture Committee's inquiry because they are adequately dealt with in that committee's report from last year, but it is only right that as the Executive fires home the final nail in the ATB coffin in the form of the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill, it does so with some humility and perhaps a little repentance.

Notwithstanding the undoubted strengths of the ATB model of the past decade, I fully accept that the time had come for some changes to be made—indeed, I have sympathy with much of what the minister said in that regard. Although I agree that fragmentation was a problem, I disagree that the new structure is the right one. There were weaknesses in the ATB model and it is right that we address them, but there were also strengths that are being unnecessarily forfeited under the new plans.

My chief concern about the hubs model relates to a loss of local knowledge and, more precisely, a loss of local industry leadership. That point was made strongly by the committee, which said in its report:

"the current local area tourist boards are a repository of a significant amount of skills and knowledge. It will be important that in any new structure for tourism in Scotland, VisitScotland does not lose this local expertise in its drive for increasing professionalism in the sector."

I know that VisitScotland plans to retain its offices in the former ATB areas, but I detect a fear in the industry that those offices will be mere satellites of the mother ship rather than genuine local bodies.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Does Mr McGrigor accept that VisitScotland has not just local offices, but local partnerships with businesses, local authorities and other interested stakeholders in the area to develop that very expertise and allow things to be done in a new way?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

For example, I quote Douglas Logan, the managing director of Speciality Scotland Travel in Edinburgh, who said in The Scotsman in August last year:

"Since the demise of the area tourist boards, there has been nobody to speak up for small businesses ... To my mind VisitScotland's local offices are just clones of the central organisation, representing a central big brother at a local level."

His views are not unique. Again and again I have received negative comments about the overcentralisation of the new model and the fear that local knowledge is being lost.

Indeed, I have carried out an extensive survey on the new structures among tourism businesses in my region, as have a number of my colleagues. We found a high level of discontent with the new model. I will quote from a number of responses to those surveys from throughout Scotland:

"The previous situation was far from perfect, but it's been taken away, with nothing to replace it." "We were not very happy with our previous ATB, but the current arrangement is worse, and it is not getting better." "We need local people 'selling' the local product. These hubs are too big and impersonal." "As a former director of Aberdeen & Grampian Tourist Board, I have to say a change was needed. My view, however, is that the new structure is too centralised ... I don't want a return to the former ATB, but can report a strong and growing feeling of being 'left out' by businesses. This may lead to breaking away and fragmentation—which is the worst model of all."

The Executive must heed that last point about the worst of all worlds. Although I agree with the minister that under the old model there was perhaps too much of a gulf between the ATBs and VisitScotland, there is a danger now that by pursuing a policy of total centralisation, more and more communities and businesses will feel isolated and disengaged from VisitScotland and will instead set up their own marketing bodies. That has already happened to an extent in areas such as Dumfries and Galloway. It would be ironic if the Executive's attempt to unify the industry served to perpetuate division.

I accept that, as far as they go, the new area tourism partnerships that the minister mentioned are doing an excellent job, but their influence has been overhyped by VisitScotland. They have no statutory or decision-making powers and they are a poor substitute for the former boards when it comes to genuine local control.

I will touch briefly on the other provisions in the bill. I am not convinced of the necessity to change the name from the functional and descriptive Scottish Tourist Board to the hip and trendy VisitScotland.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am sorry, but I cannot. I am reminded by photographs from my youth that, like hairstyles, trends pass and the VisitScotland name could look outdated rapidly. I have no objection to using the name VisitScotland in the meantime, but if the trading name can be changed at any time, it seems ridiculous to abolish the tried and tested Scottish Tourist Board as the legal title. That plea for common sense to prevail has been made not only by the Scottish Conservative Party but by COSLA. I draw the minister's attention to its submission to the Enterprise and Culture Committee, in which it makes those arguments forcefully.

I have no concerns about the proposed increase in size of the VisitScotland board from seven to 12 members, although its effectiveness will depend entirely on the ability of the appointees, who I hope will be brilliant.

Presiding Officer, I hope that you will permit me in my closing minutes to touch briefly on two concerns that are not directly affected by the bill, but which are nonetheless of major concern to the tourism industry.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

You will have to be very fast because you are already 19 seconds over your limit.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The first concern is about visitscotland.com. People have written to us with the following comments about the site:

"Long-winded and complicated, difficult to find named property" "It is appalling" "A national disgrace" "Please highlight the website, it does more damage than all other aspects for self-catering".

The final comment is that

"It works very badly ... it has provided no business."

I have to stop now, unfortunately, but I hope that the minister will take on board those comments about VisitScotland.

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

As Brian Adam pointed out correctly, the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill is something of a tidying-up bill. I will make several points that arise from it.

The first flows from what Jamie McGrigor just said. I submit to colleagues that tourism providers at the sharp end—the bed and breakfast owners, for example—are not hugely bothered about the structure, make-up or size of VisitScotland's board, because such organisations come and go, but they are concerned about delivery at local level. My point arises from my intervention on the minister and is not so much about the provision of area offices, which we are not so fussed about, as about the provision of tourist information on the street corner to the tourist on behalf of the tourism product provider. That is crucial.

Unfortunately, everything has not been quite as rosy in the Highlands as Jamie McGrigor made out. Under HOST—the Highlands of Scotland Tourist Board—we saw the gradual closure of outlying tourist information centres, such as those in Helmsdale in Sutherland and in Wick. That was important because, at the end of the day, the general public, visitors and tourism providers want a real human face behind the desk—someone local who knows what they are talking about. One example that was well publicised in the local newspapers in my constituency was the fact that with the centralised call-centre approach to selling the tourist product, two years after the Caithness Glass factory in the area closed, tourists were still being told that they could visit it.

Local delivery is absolutely essential. If tourism providers are to feel that they are involved and being listened to, we need local delivery via tourist information centres. My appeal to the minister and the tourism industry in general is that, rather than close information centres, we must try to open them and work in that way. I welcome the minister's comments, in response to my intervention, about the idea of co-ordinating with the local authorities, which could lead to savings all round. Duplication is absolutely pointless.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I agree totally with Mr Stone's points about local control and the importance of tourist information centres. He mentioned a human face. Does he agree that visitscotland.com is somewhat less than a human face and more of a robot-like call centre?

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

I appreciate that the member has problems with visitscotland.com but, in my constituency postbag, I have not received letters about any such problems. I will highlight one problem. Members will not be surprised to hear me mention the publicity this week about the map at Edinburgh airport that had John o'Groats, one of the most famous tourism destinations in the British isles, 30 miles away from where it actually is. That was disgraceful, although VisitScotland has held up its hands and apologised. In this day and age, with Google and maps on the internet, how could a mistake of that nature be made? Such mistakes distress the tourism industry, so we must watch out for them.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I agree entirely with Mr Stone that that incident was not only regrettable, but reprehensible and should not have happened. I was pleased with VisitScotland's reaction and correction of the mistake. To make a point that is pertinent to the line of debate that Mr Stone is following, one of the saddest aspects of the incident with the map is that it overshadowed and detracted from VisitScotland's opening of an information centre at Edinburgh airport, which is an excellent centre that will give visitors an opportunity to find out as much as they can about the country.

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

I concur with the minister's remarks. The mistake was terribly unfortunate—such simple errors can be incredibly corrosive and damaging to tourism providers.

I have two final points. First, Scotland has a unique tourism product, the standard of which is recognised worldwide but, in marketing tourism, it is crucial that all departments of Government co-ordinate. We have had the introduction of subsidised air fares in the Highlands. We need to co-ordinate the marketing of the tourism product with our work on roads, air travel, transport and many other aspects of government. My second point is a plea. I always think of Scotland as being like a diamond—it is not one homogenised product, but a place with many facets, each of which is different. It is vive la différence. We need to sell the differences in Scotland to make it attractive in the world market. Caithness is completely different from Ross-shire, which is completely different from Ayrshire. We have ever-more intelligent and discerning tourists who appreciate the differences and who look for the different aspects of Scotland. I support the bill but, however we approach the matter, we must remind ourselves and VisitScotland that we need to sell Scotland's glorious differences, which we can bank for a long time to come.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I do not intend to take too long, because the Enterprise and Culture Committee and its predecessor have already produced three reports on tourism in the past four years. The first was in our guise as the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and the other two were by the Enterprise and Culture Committee, on the reorganisation that had taken place and on the bill. I recommend all three reports as good recess reading for members. On behalf of the committee, I thank the minister for her response to the points that the committee raised on the bill. If I may say so, she dealt with all of them satisfactorily in her response this morning.

Two fundamental structural changes are taking place. The first is the integration of what were the area tourist boards into the national organisation, VisitScotland, and the second is a reorganisation of VisitScotland's board. The committee supports the proposal to expand the board membership, because we see a need for more involvement not only of local authorities—which has proved difficult until now because of the restricted numbers—but of all the other sectors that need to be represented. On the appointment of the expanded board, I draw the minister's attention to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report, particularly the information from California, which Gordon Jackson and I had the pleasure of visiting to examine the structure of the California Travel and Tourism Commission.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

Somebody had to do it.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I do not believe all the stories about the member not doing his work in the Parliament.

The California Travel and Tourism Commission has an interesting structure that involves the private sector in a way that we have not been able to do. In a sense, there the private sector is responsible for appointing its members of the commission from four different sectors—accommodation, visitor attractions, transport and entertainment. I draw the minister's attention to the Californian example as a way of introducing a new and innovative way of working in creating the structure of VisitScotland's board to ensure wide representation from the key players in the industry. That would be well within the proposed legislative framework that we are discussing.

One point that has not been mentioned so far but which is raised in the Enterprise and Culture Committee's report on the review of area tourist boards is the strategic focus that is provided by VisitScotland's ambition to achieve a 50 per cent increase in visitor numbers by 2014. My belief—and, I think, the committee's belief—is that that target has helped to focus strategically the work of the board and the wider industry. The feedback that I have had from the Scottish Tourism Forum and others is that that central strategic objective has helped to focus everyone's minds on the job in hand.

We should compliment the current management of VisitScotland, in particular the chairman, Peter Lederer. The management inherited a difficult situation but has done a sterling job in promoting Scottish tourism. I hope that Peter Lederer will continue in his job, because he has set an example. It is not every day that I compliment public sector management, but I compliment VisitScotland's strongly. The organisation was in a precarious position when the current management took over, but it has stabilised the organisation and made it ready to progress and, I hope, achieve the 50 per cent target to which I referred.

I want to make a point about integration. The area tourist board network had some fantastic advantages, particularly the engagement with the private sector at local level. In the new structure, we must ensure that we do not lose the contribution and involvement of the local private sector and we must maintain the ethos that the industry should lead and dictate which needs the public sector agencies must meet. However, as the committee acknowledged, the downside of the previous system was the membership structure, which was undoubtedly a barrier to success in some areas. The key point is that the local partnerships that have now been established should be allowed to feed into the national network new ideas and thinking and to give feedback on what needs to be done to satisfy their requirements. Local input is extremely important, and the new integrated structure should be as much about building from the bottom up as about building from the top down. If the proper balance is maintained, we can get the benefits of both worlds.

There is no doubt that tourism is our number 1 industry, that it is extremely important for employment in Scotland and that VisitScotland, the local authorities and the private sector have an absolutely vital role to play. The committee's view is that we must ensure that the new structure works. Indeed, we said in our previous report that we will monitor from time to time success at the local level as well as at the national level and how well integration has progressed.

We recommend the bill to the Parliament and agree with its general principles. We hope that it will allow us to take the Scottish tourism industry forward so that it achieves what it can achieve and is the best small tourism industry in the world.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

As members would expect, I have nothing against the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill; indeed, it is hard to see how someone could have something against it. It is probably a good thing, and most people think that it is okay—as far as I can see, Jamie McGrigor is the exception.

I understand that the bill will simply put the existing reality on a statutory footing. As a result, there is not much to say about it, so I wondered what there was to discuss. There is probably nothing to say about its details, but the debate gives us a wee opportunity to think a little about our tourism industry.

Like most public or semi-public bodies, VisitScotland has worthy aims; I suspect that it has a mission statement somewhere. The importance of the tourism industry to Scotland and the need to do things properly can certainly not be overstated. Therefore, it is important—I am stating the obvious—that when we consider changes, we consider not only structural changes or simply rearranging the proverbial deckchairs. With structures, there is always the danger that all we will do is move everything around. Alex Neil said that the Enterprise and Culture Committee will continue to monitor the new structure. I know that it will do so and wish it well because it has a duty to ensure that the promised improvements are delivered and that structural change is not the only thing that happens. In that context, I will give a few random thoughts.

I read in a briefing paper the other day—I receive piles of such things—that the changes will make the tourism structure similar to the enterprise network model. I drew in my breath when I read that and thought that it was a bit worrying, bearing in mind what has happened recently. I am not trying to be facetious; I know what was meant. We are talking about an integrated network and a similar model, but I thought that it was a bad week in which to use such an analogy. Some of us in Glasgow have not been enamoured with that structure in the past week or so—my colleague Charlie Gordon would agree with me. The reality is that the structure has not at all been helpful locally in Glasgow. There has been a real move towards centralisation and stopping things working locally that have worked perfectly well locally until now. I appreciate the general structural analogy, but I hope that the tourism model will not work like the enterprise network model does.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

A business whose marketing is totally divorced from its general business is unusual. What does the member think about the idea that we should consider better integration of the marketing function of the tourism industry and the rest of the tourism industry? Having a marketing function on its own is unique.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

I am not being in the least bit sarcastic when I say that what the member said is way over my head. I know nothing whatever about marketing, but I suspect that he has made a good point, which the minister will probably want to deal with.

It is important that the structure engages in a better way locally—perhaps that answers the question a wee bit. I have listened to Mr McGrigor's strictures on the matter and do not want members to think that I agree with him, but I have heard the complaints that people in the industry—publicans and hoteliers, for example—have made. People often think that they are not well connected with the organisation. Knowing some of them, I get the feeling that it is sometimes their fault that they do not get involved, but there is sometimes a failure properly to bring local providers on board. That is what Jamie McGrigor said. Perhaps that is not right, but I sometimes hear that wee complaint.

The link with businesses and the private sector is important, and Alex Neil mentioned that we went to America to consider that matter. I will be serious. I hope that Alex Neil will not mind my saying that he is hardly known as being the greatest fan of the private sector in general and that he is critical of the private sector when it should be criticised, but we were equally struck by the way in which the main industry players had bought into—literally, as that is the American way—the whole structure in California and by the fact that there was absolutely no question of there being them and us. The effect of the genuine partnership that existed was obvious to us. I am not attributing blame to anyone, but I wonder whether we need a little bit more of that attitude in our tourism sector.

How local authority involvement is being tackled is encouraging. I like the emphasis on the link between local authorities and local service delivery, and the partnership agreement should make things accountable. I noticed somewhere that there was a fear that local authorities might miss out the new structure by deciding to fund local business tourism initiatives directly. I have no idea whether that was simply scaremongering or whether it is likely to happen, but the likelihood will only increase if the partners think that the structure is not working properly. It would be bad if that happened. I welcome the continued emphasis on working at a local level. It has been pointed out that more than 80 per cent of involvement with business is at that level.

Sometimes our tourism industry does daft things. In that context, I cannot resist mentioning the proposed glass ban in Glasgow, which struck me as daft, although, thankfully, it did not happen. Many able people work in the industry and lead the Scottish effort. All of us wish the industry well and hope that the changes will help it to progress.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

I, too, wondered whether there was something slightly contradictory about the title of the bill and whether a bill that will abolish the Scottish Tourist Board might have been better named the "VisitScotland Bill" or even the "VisitScotland (Scotland) Bill" rather than the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill. My colleague Mark Ballard and Murdo Fraser dissented from the majority view in the Enterprise and Culture Committee on the proposed name changes, but neither felt strongly enough to produce a minority report on the subject. Likewise, the Greens support the general principles of the bill, despite our reservations.

I opposed the handling of the merger, which appeared at the time to be far more of a centralised takeover than an agreed merger and which left staff feeling for a considerable time excluded from the process and anxious about the future of their jobs. We have heard that the process led to the formation of the Association of Dumfries and Galloway Accommodation Providers—ADGAP—which was set up to compete with VisitScotland to a certain degree. However, things have moved on and VisitScotland and ADGAP have started to work together. That there are alternative comings-together of accommodation providers is excellent and a great development, but I hope that VisitScotland and ADGAP move closer together and complement each other's work. It is important that local gatherings of tourism service providers work together to complement the work of VisitScotland.

In oral evidence to the committee, the minister said:

"We think that the Scottish Tourist Board name belongs in the past. The VisitScotland name emphasises the way forward for tourism in Scotland and the brand is already established as an easily recognisable and trusted brand by visitors and businesses alike."—[Official Report, Enterprise and Culture Committee, 16 May 2006; c 3081.]

Now that we have the name and it is established, we should certainly stick with it, but I hope that today's debate is not repeated in a few years' time as we are called on to approve another name change. I appreciate the logic of wanting the legal name to be the same as the marketing name, for the avoidance of confusion, but it is a concern that the bill, on the one hand, attempts to future proof by allowing for an increase in the size of the board without the need for primary legislation and, on the other hand, ties the organisation legally to a marketing brand that may change in five or 10 years' time.

The financial memorandum to the bill notes that the merger was supposed to cost £5 million but will now cost £7.4 million—an increase of 50 per cent. That is noteworthy as a sign that the merger did not go as planned. I hope that the minister will confirm that that is absolutely the final cost increase, particularly considering the question marks that still hang over the position of VAT and staff pensions in VisitScotland. At worst, the liability for pensions could see an extra £7 million added to that cost. I hope that, in summing up, the minister will provide us with a more concrete assurance than the Executive's previously stated position of being reasonably optimistic that there will be no further liability. I hope that she will also be able to give a copper-bottomed guarantee to VisitScotland's staff that their pensions will not be harmed and that payments will be made in full.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Much of the debate has been technical in nature. With your leave, Presiding Officer, I wish to make a more tangential speech about the significance of the tourism industry to the economy—especially the economy of the Scottish Borders. I note that VisitScotland's target is to grow tourism revenues by 50 per cent by 2015. If that can flow down to the Borders, it will be extremely important, given the significance of tourism over the past decade and the continuing decrease in the number of jobs in textiles and electronics.

Tourism brings £100 million into the Scottish Borders economy and employs more than 4,000 people—8 per cent of the population. More than 900 tourism businesses work together to form that tourism industry. Members have talked about local contributions. Scottish Borders Council provides £270,000 per annum to the VisitScotland Borders network office.

The topography of the Borders, which made the area ideal for wool production, is what makes it ideal for holidays. I am not going to do a big trailer for the Borders, but I mention the possibilities for walking, cycling and riding. Of special significance are the common ridings, such as the one that I attended recently at Selkirk, which offer the most moving experience. They are attended mainly by people who live in the Borders or who return to see them. The casting of the colours to commemorate the battle of Flodden—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will you relate this eulogy for the Borders to the motion, Ms Grahame?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I said that my speech would be slightly tangential. I will get back to the subject, but all of that is important in drawing people to the Borders.

I draw the minister's attention to the flaws in VisitScotland's website, which have been referred to. When I was researching for the debate, the latest figures that I could get for tourism in the Scottish Borders from the website were for 2002. A name change is one thing, but it is not much good if there is a flawed website behind it. According to those figures, the majority of visitors to the Borders are from the United Kingdom, mostly from England. That adds significance to the Waverley line that is now being developed—we hope. It is essential that, at some point, that line is continued all the way to Carlisle to draw tourists from England in greater numbers.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I really think that you should get on to the subject of the debate, Ms Grahame.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I was talking about the Scottish Borders Tourist Board.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Yes, but the Waverley line is not a central feature of the bill that we are discussing.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I am sure that the member listened to my interventions on both Gordon Jackson and the minister. How does she relate the separate marketing function—which is what VisitScotland is—to the overall tourism business? How does she think that we might best link those? Does she think that the current structure satisfies the needs of the tourism industry in the Borders or elsewhere?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

In response to Brian Adam's earlier intervention I was going to say that, notwithstanding the centralisation of VisitScotland, which has been referred to, there is still a significant role for local structures. That exists in the Borders in the Scottish Borders tourism business forum, which links into VisitScotland. It is more functional than the old area tourist board and is comprised of organisations such as Careers Scotland, Historic Scotland, Scottish Borders Council and others who feed into the system. That is extremely important.

As the debate is about a short bill that deals with a technical matter of tidying up what already exists, I have nothing further to add. I repeat my point to the minister that a name change is not sufficient; VisitScotland's website needs to be greatly improved or people will be deterred from using it.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

It will come as no surprise to members that I will focus on the impact that the bill will have locally in my part of Scotland.

I am not going to pretend that all was well with the old area tourist board system, although I acknowledge the contribution that many tourist board staff made, which other members have mentioned. All was not well, but if we are going to change something, we ought to change it for the better.

I remember months of frustration as we eagerly awaited the pronouncement of Lord Watson, who was then the minister, on the outcome of the Executive's lengthy deliberations on its consultation on the future of area tourist boards. At the end of that lengthy period, there was a sense of dismay at the announcement of the new structure that Parliament will, no doubt, legitimise today. However, it will not do so with the help of Conservative members, as we do not believe that this will be a change for the better locally. Nor do we believe that it will benefit local tourist businesses or, indeed, tourists in remote rural constituencies such as mine.

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

When I hosted in the Parliament the last meeting of the Scottish Borders Tourist Board under the old structure, many members were excited about the prospect of a local team, such as the one in Selkirk, doing excellent work not just for the Borders but in taking on national roles. Does the member have sympathy with the view that local officers in rural areas will be able to play a much greater role in promoting tourism throughout the country?

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I would have more sympathy with that if I had experienced it working in my part of Scotland. I am delighted that the structure is working well in the Borders; I am not convinced that it is working on my patch. I will come back to that point.

In areas such as Galloway, tourism-related businesses need to have a tangible sense of ownership of and involvement in the structure of their industry. One of the problems with the area tourist boards was that they were perceived to be too autocratic and to be dictating to local businesses rather than working in partnership with them. The situation was improving towards the end of their lives but, with the benefit of a year's experience of the hubs, we see that any sense of ownership and involvement seems to have disappeared off the radar screen. The principle reason for that seems to be that the local forums or partnerships—or whatever they are called—lack any real teeth, as Jamie McGrigor said. They have no decision-making power, therefore they are reduced largely to the role of a talking shop that gives the Executive the opportunity to tick the necessary boxes and say that local involvement is the watchword of the new structure, when that does not seem to be the case. As far as I can ascertain, the forums have no agreed structure, laid-down remit, term of office or constitution. Saddest of all, they seem to have little accountability.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I know that the member has returned to this theme on a number of occasions. Mr Purvis and Christine Grahame made a valid point about the role that can be played locally. Perhaps Mr Fergusson could provide some leadership locally and encourage things to happen in his area. He would do VisitScotland and local businesses a great service if he did.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will come back to that as well. My effort to provide such leadership, through the initiative that I tried to put forward, was rather thwarted.

In previous debates on the subject, I recall warning that the changes would encourage the formation of breakaway bodies of dissatisfied tourism operators, which is exactly what has happened in many areas. In my part of Scotland—Chris Ballance referred to this—the Association of Dumfries and Galloway Accommodation Providers was formed and now represents a substantial percentage of accommodation providers in the region. I am afraid that I do not recognise the picture that Chris Ballance painted. The association certainly did not make life easy for the area tourist board, nor is it making life particularly easy for its replacement. However, it wants to engage constructively with the forum as it has the best interests of local tourism at heart.

When the bed and breakfast representative on the forum resigned, ADGAP requested a place on the forum as the representative of a substantial local interest. I played an active role in trying to promote that engagement. It presented a golden opportunity to bring together the critic and the criticised under one roof, so that differences of opinion could be aired around the table rather than largely through the columns of local newspapers. However, ADGAP's request was rejected unanimously, which was a great pity, because it simply reinforced the perception that the new local structure is a puppet of the centre, that local ownership is a myth and that there is even less accountability with this structure than there was with the one that it replaced.

Tourism is desperately important to the economy of my part of Scotland, which has to fight its own corner in the tourist world, given that tourists tend to come up the M6 and carry on up the M74 to the central belt and onwards to the Highlands and Islands. I am happy that the decision to keep Dumfries and Galloway as a hub on its own acknowledges the struggle that we face. We fight a constant battle to get some of the tourist traffic to turn left at Carlisle and savour the real beauty of the south-west of Scotland in general and Galloway in particular. To achieve that, we need local leadership, under local control, that is capable of disseminating local knowledge to those who come to the area.

Under the bill, it seems that we will have an ever more centralised structure, operating through a somewhat anonymous call centre, which often displays such a lack of local knowledge that it is almost insulting to the inquirer. That is the exact opposite of the direction in which we should be going. I am afraid that, in all conscience, I cannot support the bill.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Tourism is about more than civic pride or cultural education, important though those are; it is a key industry, which employs 9 per cent of Scotland's workforce and generates £4.5 billion annually for the Scottish economy. Tourism development is an integral part of our drive for economic growth.

Scotland is a strong brand that needs a better distribution network. The key ways to improve the distribution of Scotland as a brand are through transport links such as air route development, good surface links, such as rail links to airports, and understandable local transport for visitors who, with the best will in the world, do not have local knowledge. The other key component is marketing information about Scotland more effectively to potential customers—by and large to people who have never been to Scotland.

Today's bill formalises the abolition of the past structure for marketing Scotland. I acknowledge that, in many respects, those past structures served Scotland well. I will focus on how new, tailored partnership structures are already delivering improvements in differentiated markets within the overall Scottish strategy.

Glasgow City Marketing Bureau was established in April 2005 with ministerial consent. The sole member of the company is Glasgow City Council, which is the company's main funder, to the tune of more than £2 million per annum. The main objectives of the bureau are the delivery throughout key national and international markets of a brand strategy for Glasgow that positions the city competitively; the development of initiatives that increase the contribution of discretionary business tourism and event tourism to Glasgow's economy; and the delivery of the excellent city destination website for the Glasgow metropolitan area, which is called seeglasgow.com.

VisitScotland's local network office in Glasgow leads on leisure tourism and has observer status on the board of the Glasgow City Marketing Bureau. The new partnership approach has already delivered impressive results in its first year. In the year to 31 March, the bureau attracted an additional 230,000 tourists to the city, generating additional revenue of £26.5 million. City hotel occupancy has increased year on year by 2 per cent from 70.7 per cent in 2004-05 to 72.7 per cent in 2005-06, despite an increase in the bed supply of more than 1,000 beds in the same year.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with civic pride in our local landscapes, architecture or visitor attractions, but we must move away from preaching mainly to the converted and focus on people who have not yet made the decision to come here.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The member referred to international and national marketing. As I understand it, the purpose of VisitScotland is to ensure international marketing of Scotland as a whole. What Charlie Gordon is referring to is, in effect, a degree of fragmentation, which is one of the major issues of concern to us in relation to the bill.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I am sorry, but I was reporting not fragmentation but effective partnership in differentiated markets. As I explained, leisure tourism and marketing is led by the local network of VisitScotland and the bureau concentrates on the three remits that it was given with ministerial consent. The whole adds up to more than the sum of the parts, as far as the Glasgow metropolitan area is concerned. If the rest of the country starts to look forward rather than mainly backward, it will learn from the good practice in Glasgow and the west of Scotland.

The bill formally tidies up the past processes. As I have said, many have already got down to the business of embracing and improving Scotland's tourism future. For Glasgow, opting out of that is not an option. In the Glasgow region, 50,000 jobs are reliant on tourism, which is more than there were in the Clyde shipyards in their heyday. We must all embrace that future to maximise Scotland's success.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

A number of members have said that the bill is very much a tidying-up bill that takes forward the strategy that Frank McAveety announced in March 2004. I declare an interest in that I represent a constituency where tourism makes a vital contribution to the local economy. It is estimated that Orkney receives 127,000 visitors per annum, which delivers £27 million a year to the economy. The Lonely Planet guide describes Orkney as:

"A glittering centrepiece in Scotland's treasure chest of attractions."

I could not put it better than that.

When the minister gave evidence to the Enterprise and Culture Committee, which dealt with the bill, she drew attention to the fact that VisitShetland and VisitOrkney had teamed up to take advantage of this year's national spring marketing campaign to promote the northern isles as an ideal place to visit. I am delighted to say that the minister practices what she preaches, as she was a visitor to Orkney earlier this month during the St Magnus festival. I hope that that experience will encourage her to come back.

The important point when trying to measure this bill is the question whether it helps to strengthen and support what is, in many parts of Scotland, an important and dynamic industry. I declare a further interest, because I was the chairman of the ministerial working group that looked at the tourism strategy for Scotland and led, ultimately, to the statement that Frank McAveety, who was then the minister with responsibility for tourism, made in 2004. It was not just a group of ministers sitting around a table. We took evidence from people in the industry. It would be wrong to say that there was unanimity, but a strong theme came through that, in a highly competitive global marketplace, considerable benefits flow from an integrated Scotland-wide network. That led to the bill that we have before us today.

We understood that the network would consist of local tourism hubs. I am told that the word "hub" is not the most popular word, but it is as good a word as any. Charlie Gordon said that it is important that we have an effective partnership at local level as well as ensuring that the hubs contribute to a national strategy. That is a recognition that there is diversity and that there has to be an ability to respond to local circumstances. When the structure was announced, the then chair of the ATB network said:

"It is vital that the new structure builds on, rather than erodes, the successful relationships which ATBs have nurtured at local level with our public agency partners and tourism businesses."

As Jamie McGrigor said, there is a huge reservoir of expertise, knowledge and ability at a local level, which we ignore at our peril. Therefore, it is important when we are dealing with this bill, which sets up a national structure, that we remember that the thrust was to have a national structure and an integrated network that built on local expertise. It would be welcome if the minister reaffirmed that.

It is important that we recognise that balance between a national network and the local dimension. That balance was buttressed by the service agreements that were built in with the local authorities. I understand from a recent meeting of the board of VisitScotland that it hopes to approach the Executive for additional grant in aid, which will allow for what it fears is a phasing out of local authority core funding, although it recognises that local authority funding has an important role to play in delivering specific local service agreements. The problem is to do with how we define core funding. We might say that staffing is a core matter but, in many parts of Scotland, a particular member of staff—say, one who deals with marketing—might be important to local delivery.

We have to ensure that the bill that we are promoting today does not have a centralising tendency. VisitScotland has good corporate communications, but that is not a substitute for good, local and effective marketing. We do not need to emphasise the issue about uniforms for tourist information centre staff if that is at the expense of a more locally focused approach. Diversity in tourism ought to be valued. We have to get the right balance between national and local.

One of the advantages that has flowed from the new structures is that there has been greater involvement of the private sector. Before, it was too easy for private sector businesses such as bed and breakfasts to pay their subscription to the ATB and think that they had done their bit. However, in Orkney, for instance, the Orkney tourism group is extremely lively. In February, it organised an important seminar on tourism. It recognises that not only are the obvious tourism-related industries, such as hotels, restaurants, bed and breakfasts and the main visitor attractions, important, but the food and drink industry and the craft industry are important as well. The new structures give an incentive for the private sector to engage more actively than it has done in the past.

Another important part of the package that was announced relates to training and skills. Charlie Gordon mentioned the fact that around 9 per cent of Scotland's workforce is engaged in tourism. We are all aware that a large part of the tourism industry is made up of people who are seasonally employed, such as students—in that regard, I declare an interest, as my daughter has been working as a waitress in an Orkney hotel for the past four or five weeks. It is important that people identify tourism as an industry that can offer career opportunities. Certainly, the ministerial group that I chaired identified the importance of addressing the skills gap. There is a need to ensure that skills are promoted in the tourism industry. When the minister replies, it would be useful if she could say what is being done to address that important issue.

The bill delivers a formal structure. However, as we are all aware as a result of the many pieces of legislation that we have passed, formal structures take us only so far. What happens on the ground is vital. There are benefits from national marketing, but we will ensure that value is added to an important industry by being sensitive to the importance of local delivery.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I came into the chamber this morning recognising that, while there are differences between us on the bill, we would have a relatively balanced debate. Many good points have been made by many members. However, I suffered some consternation when Jamie Stone said that this was a tidying-up bill. The last time that something was so described was when Peter Hain and Peter Mandelson suggested that the European constitution was merely a tidying-up exercise. On that basis, I had another quick look at the bill to see where the bugs are. Happily, however, I do not see too many, and my opinions have not changed too much during the debate.

Tourism is a major earner for Scotland. The figures that Charlie Gordon gave with regard to Glasgow were particularly interesting. The fact that more people in Glasgow work in tourism than worked in shipbuilding in the old days says it all about the importance of tourism to Scotland. On that basis, we must ensure that, whatever Government does with regard to the tourism industry, we support rather than harm and ensure that the industry can go forward with minimum regulation by and involvement of the Government.

I congratulate the minister on the way in which the Executive has promoted Scotland in a number of ways. Scotland has a lot going for it, not least in the field of sport. In music and in food, we have a distinct brand. Our agriculture and food industries work well to provide considerable material for whatever body markets Scotland. As Christine Grahame said, we have a wonderful natural environment—we have the water, the hills and the landscape. We have to protect those things so that the marketing bodies can market them. In that regard, I will make one quick point on a familiar theme: let us not spoil our landscape by covering it with too many wind turbines. We must use a modicum of sense in developing wind power.

I recognise that VisitScotland's central role relates to global marketing, but I am concerned about the effect that that has at a local level. I note what the minister said about the desire to encourage partnerships between the public and private sectors but, as Alex Fergusson said, such partnerships lack teeth. I am concerned about the fact that there will be a feeling of isolation in some localities. Alex Fergusson highlighted the situation in Dumfries and Galloway. It is unfortunate that a dissenting voice was not welcomed on to the forum. There should be a balance. We can all stand a bit of dissention in whichever forum we work. It is unfortunate that the ADGAP representative was not backed in that situation.

I get the feeling that the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill is a bill for big players such as the larger companies and the global enterprises that have moved into tourism. I want to ensure that the local voice is heard and recognised as an important feature of tourism throughout Scotland. If we consider Charlie Gordon's figures and the impact on employment in Scotland, we find that small businesses provide the bulk of the opportunities for employment and earning. Whatever happens, we must ensure that their voice is not diminished.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Does Mr Gallie recognise that local businesses are assisted not just by our commitment to tourism per se but by our commitment to a number of other strategies? For example, our international and regional events strategy encourages local events to go into local tourism areas so that the local market can benefit. We have the views, concerns and viability of local businesses at heart.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I hear what the minister says and I hope that that turns out to be the case. I take the opportunity to say that EventScotland has been highly successful. I give credit to the Scottish Executive for that, and I also gave it credit when I spoke about its input to sport. However, we need more than just the Government giving opportunities. We need to ensure that local voices are heard. Local areas have their own perceptions and reasons for putting forward their views. It is not enough for them simply to express those views; they have to be heard and, somewhere along the line, acted upon. Concern has been voiced about that, not only by Conservative members but by others in the debate.

Finally, I refer to the Scottish Tourist Board's change of name. The minister said that she has reserved the name to ensure that it cannot be used elsewhere. I think that the change of name is irrelevant, to be honest. VisitScotland is an appropriate name but, as one of the officials told the Enterprise and Culture Committee, it could be changed at any time in the future. That being the case, why not just leave the name as it is and retain the name Scottish Tourist Board, given that it can rebrand itself in any way it wishes?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

This has been a wide-ranging debate. It is on a narrow issue, but one that is part of a wider generic topic. Many members gave credit to the industry and put that on the record. As we approach the recess and people, including me, prepare to depart on their travels, we sometimes forget what we have in Scotland. We have the unparalleled beauty and the amenities that many members mentioned, but we also have remarkably good service.

As many members said, the Scottish tourism industry has improved remarkably. There is a self-deprecating aspect to the Scottish character that can be charming and endearing, but sometimes it can go too far. We often hear apocryphal tales about bad service, such as somebody being refused tea at 7.30 pm in Aviemore or wherever. In fact, whether in a chip shop in Gourock or a five-star establishment in Edinburgh or Glasgow, remarkably good service is the norm. There are instances of poor service, but they happen worldwide. We should praise the industry, not just for what it contributes to the Scottish economy, but for the fact that it has improved remarkably and is still improving.

Jim Wallace's comments were appropriate. There are career opportunities and career paths in tourism. There has to be a change of attitude in Scotland that service is not servility. Whether that is being changed by the attitudes of those in the industry or by Aussie backpackers working in bars here, who have created a sense of glamour and a sense that such careers are things that people can go into and enjoy, things have changed remarkably and we should pay tribute to that.

It could be argued that today's debate is almost a debate on subordinate legislation, but we understand why primary legislation is required. The changes that are made by the bill might be part of a tidying-up process, as my colleague Brian Adam said, but they have to be made. Not all debates in the chamber can be on strategic matters; some have to deal with the minutiae and address structural matters. We are happy to support the bill.

There was considerable delay with the ATBs going through. We sometimes look back at the halcyon days, but let us not delude ourselves. Many ATBs worked remarkably well—we in Edinburgh and the Lothians were well served—but other ATBs had difficulties that were not simply financial and they did not manage to achieve everything that they needed to. There were difficulties with getting people to sign up for what they perceived to be a state responsibility, and I had a great deal of sympathy with that. There were also difficulties when we expected people—whether they were electricians or hoteliers—to join together. There was not necessarily a configuration of interests. It is important that we tidy things up.

To some extent, the question of the name is a tautological matter. I have never been particularly sold on the name "VisitScotland", but it is the name that we have and I see no point in seeking to rebrand the body. I have debated that point with others in my party. Whether the body is called "VisitScotland", "Welcome to Scotland" or "Come to Scotland", what matters is what it does.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Does Mr MacAskill agree that the customer is important? We have perhaps not focused on that in this morning's debate. Without increasing numbers of customers, wherever they come from, we will not get the growth in tourism that we seek.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Absolutely. The tourism industry in Scotland needs to be supported and assisted in how it trains staff and provides services, but it is doing a remarkably good job itself and the private sector is delivering those things, aided and abetted by colleges, the Executive and the civil service at both national and local level. Fundamentally, we have to make Scotland affordable and accessible. To give credit where it is due, the work on opening up new air links has been appropriate. We have a problem with the exchange rate, which makes this country outrageously expensive for most tourists from other countries. Until that can be addressed, we will have a problem, although concentrating on niche markets is important.

We must remember that it is not VisitScotland's role to compete within Scotland. It is up to individual areas to sell their wares as they can, whether it is Christine Grahame promoting the outdoor facilities that are available in the Borders or Charlie Gordon orating the benefits of the city of Glasgow, with its marvellous architecture. At the end of the day, VisitScotland's job is to get people to come to Scotland. Where they go thereafter depends on the attempts to persuade them of the benefits of each area and on what type of holiday they want. We live in a globalised world, so we have to tailor things to suit people. We cannot simply say, "Come to Edinburgh because of its wonderful castle." People can pick and choose from a variety of castles throughout the world, including those in the Czech Republic and the Baltic states. We have to give people a specific reason to go to the destination.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I do not recognise the member's comment that Scotland is expensive. One of the benefits that we in Ayrshire have gained from the new air routes is that we now attract many visitors from Scandinavia, in particular. That is because Scotland offers good value, rather than the high costs that Kenny MacAskill mentioned.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Scotland offers good value for many of the golfers who come here and I welcome the fact that they come in on the Ryanair flights and other new flights. However, we remain a remarkably high-cost destination, whether that is due to the high pound, high VAT or high fuel costs. The cost of a hotel room in the city of Edinburgh—and indeed in Ayrshire—is significantly higher than one would pay in the United States or mainland Europe. That factor is beyond our control, but it impinges on Scottish tourism. Mr Gallie shakes his head, but if he speaks to those in the sector, they will tell him that they have to try to sell a high-cost product. They are selling it well and, correctly, they are going up-market to try to make sure that they get the best value, but the cost is an impediment. People can get the same product in some areas in Ireland at a considerably lower cost. As I say, that is beyond our control but the issue must be addressed.

An element of local accountability is required—other members, including Mr Gallie, have touched on that—but the nature of the beast is that some centralisation is also required if we want VisitScotland to sell Scotland in the international market. However, we must take cognisance of individuals' views and of the relationships and rapport that existed with many local tourist boards. VisitScotland must do better at that; in the areas in which I am involved, the rapport that existed with the then Edinburgh and Lothians Tourist Board has not been created with VisitScotland's regional office in the city of Edinburgh. That may be down to personalities, but it must be addressed.

As for niche markets, it might not have been best for some tourist boards to take responsibility for cruise liners and others to take responsibility for teaching English as a foreign language, which is important in Edinburgh, but we must ensure that those markets are picked up, although it is accepted that they are non-core. VisitScotland has a responsibility to promote Scotland as a cruise-liner destination and as a place in which to learn the English language, because those features add value to simply targeting the core market in the low countries, France, Germany and North America. That must be addressed. Perhaps that is being done, although I am not aware that it is and elements of the sector have complained to me about that. The issue can be overcome.

As I and others have said, we in this country too often see the glass as half empty rather than half full. We have a fantastic product and our industry is doing well and can do better, despite the difficulties with matters that are beyond its control. However, as I said, this debate is about tidying up that must be done. Wider-ranging debates are for the future.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I call Patricia Ferguson to wind up the debate. Officially, you are due 10 minutes, but a couple of minutes are in hand if you require them.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I listened with great interest to the debate and I genuinely thank my parliamentary colleagues for their speeches. I am particularly heartened that, like me, they believe that tourism is everybody's business.

It is good to hear that, on the whole, Parliament agrees that Scotland and VisitScotland are making good progress. I thank the Enterprise and Culture Committee for its consideration of the bill and I am pleased that it supported the general principles. However, it is clear that the committee and members who are present require reassurance on several issues. I will attempt to answer as many queries as I can; if I do not manage them all, I will write to the members concerned after the debate.

In opening for the Scottish National Party, Brian Adam made several points to which I should respond. Through interventions, too, he pursued a theme about marketing having been separated out. We have debated that already; that is how we reached where we are. We have worked hard to develop a single brand for Scotland, which it is important to have, for the reasons that Kenny MacAskill outlined. It is fair to say that the campaigns on the single brand are giving a very strong return on investment. For example, the return on investment for the welcome to our life campaign was £23 for every £1 that was spent. That approach has worked well.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

rose—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I will not give way as I have a lot to get through.

Brian Adam asked whether Westminster was content with our changing legislation. We are discussing with Whitehall an order under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, but the United Kingdom Government has agreed in principle that we should proceed in that way.

Brian Adam talked about the power to promote Scotland overseas. VisitScotland promotes Scotland to developed markets. In new and developing markets, it works closely with VisitBritain. Much progress has been made on that.

Jamie McGrigor talked about the shabby treatment of members of the previous area tourist boards. VisitScotland and I have acknowledged the work that was done. If things are as bad as Mr McGrigor thinks, I am surprised that none of the people or organisations to which he referred chose to give evidence on the bill to the Enterprise and Culture Committee.

The name "VisitScotland" is an example of an industry standard of using the word "visit" and the name of a country, so we are bringing our system and our enterprise up to date.

I know that visitscotland.com receives much criticism on many matters, but a significant number of tourists nowadays choose to book online when arranging to visit a country. Through visitscotland.com, £45 million of business has been arranged for accommodation providers, which shows that the website is at least heading in the right direction. I accept that not everything in the visitscotland.com garden is rosy, but it has moved on significantly and will continue to do so.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Tourism people heap praise on the tourist information centres. I have asked the minister in the past whether those centres will be kept. Will she give me a concrete assurance that they will be kept?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

When I make comments in the chamber, I sometimes wonder whether I should repeat them there and then. In response to an intervention by Mr Stone, I spoke about the review of tourist information centres that VisitScotland undertook. I understand that that is complete and that VisitScotland is to produce its plans. I cannot give a cast-iron guarantee—nor should I—that every information centre in the country will be kept open, because some are in the wrong places or operate in the wrong ways. Such matters must be reviewed over time. The centres have an important role to play, on which we can improve. They are a valuable part of the network.

Alex Neil said that the committee's various reports were excellent recess reading and I agree. He was correct to say that the board and the management of VisitScotland do a good job. However, I take issue a little with him and with Gordon Jackson about the initiatives that they saw in California, because we now have a model that is the envy of many parts of the world, which are considering copying the VisitScotland integrated structure and which are asking VisitScotland how that was achieved. Of course, we are always open to new ideas and we know that we must continue to innovate.

Gordon Jackson was right to say that the debate is not just about the structure, but about the culture of the organisation and of tourism in Scotland and about the value that we—and everyone outside the chamber—collectively place on tourism. He said that it is important for the sector to be involved. The fact that the 50 per cent target that Alex Neil and Christine Grahame mentioned is an industry target that we in the Government support shows the buy-in from the industry.

Chris Ballance and Alex Fergusson spoke about the problems that ADGAP perceives that it has in Dumfries and Galloway. I hope that Chris Ballance is correct that working methods have changed and that there have been positive developments between VisitScotland and ADGAP. However, we need to be clear that ADGAP is not just an association of accommodation providers; it provides a rival website and booking service and is a commercial organisation that competes with visitscotland.com. I understand that ADGAP's application to the area tourism partnership was rejected not by VisitScotland, but by the entire partnership unanimously, as Alex Fergusson said. It is worth putting that on record and into context, but I am perfectly happy to look into that further if that would help.

Christine Grahame made the valid point that many visitors to the Borders come from England. That is why the UK domestic market is important. We know that 45 per cent of English people have never been to Scotland, so we have a big untapped market on our doorstep. If we could get them to deviate into Dumfries and Galloway, that would be all the better. Of course, it would be entirely possible for us to do that. I am sure that other members will put in bids for places those people should visit.

Charlie Gordon was right to emphasise the importance of the Glasgow City Marketing Bureau, and I know that the Edinburgh bureau is having a similar benefit. However, we should acknowledge that the City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council not only have worked well in partnership with VisitScotland but have made substantial investment, because they understand the importance of tourism to their areas and want their strategies to be successful.

Several members, particularly Jim Wallace, rightly raised the issue of skills and the importance of making careers in the tourism industry viable and attractive to people. That is an important part of our work and the issue certainly poses a constant challenge, but the influx of people from other parts of the world is helping significantly to push up the standards of the indigenous workforce. For example, three weeks ago, I launched a project at Dunfermline high school to encourage young people in schools to learn online about training opportunities in the hospitality, catering and tourism sectors. Moreover, Sector Skills Alliance Scotland has launched a DVD that highlights the workplace training at the St Andrews Bay hotel as an example of good practice. The hotel has won awards for its training and stands as a good example of how the tourism industry can get things right.

Presiding Officer, I am not sure whether I am running out of time.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The debate has to finish by 11 o'clock, so you have almost three minutes left.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Thank you. I can now wax lyrical about tourism, which, along with sport and culture, is one of my favourite subjects.

In my intervention on Mr Gallie, I mentioned the regional events strategy. The fact that that is an important aspect of the work of EventScotland—which, of course, is an adjunct of VisitScotland—shows the synergy of tourism, culture and sport. We cannot underestimate the value of sporting and cultural tourism to our country.

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

Mr Gallie mentioned food in his speech. Will the minister consider further promoting food as a tourism product through food fairs and so on? I should perhaps declare an interest in that respect, Presiding Officer.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

As Mr Stone is sitting next to me and I am aware of his interest in the subject, I was just about to mention the importance of food to tourism. In that respect, I am pleased to support the EatScotland scheme, which I think has a great deal of merit. The wonderful thing about it is that it concentrates not only on five-star restaurants, but on the good practice in small local tearooms and fish and chip shops and recognises the value of and the international interest in good, fresh Scottish produce.

I hope that Parliament has been reassured that the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill is doing the right things. The industry has set itself the ambitious and important target of growing tourism revenues by 50 per cent by 2015. However, I draw the attention of members—particularly those who might be spending some time in Scotland during the summer recess—to our green tourism business scheme. We have to take care of the country that everyone we know wants to visit and maintain the scenery and wildlife that members have referred to. The green tourism business scheme is a way of meeting that aim and I ask members who are holidaying in Scotland this summer to look out for providers who are members of that scheme. There are many, and their work is of very high quality.

The bill will put the VisitScotland integrated tourism network on a proper legal footing and allow it to continue its world-class work towards achieving our ambition of making Scotland one of the world's foremost tourist destinations by 2015. I urge the chamber, including Mr Fergusson and his colleagues, to support it.

Compensation Bill

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4634, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on the Compensation Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I hope that this debate will show the Parliament's commitment to taking swift and decisive action to secure changes in the law when confronted with a pressing human need. In this case, the subject matter could not be more serious.

Mesothelioma is a terrible disease. A rare form of cancer that attacks the inner lining of internal organs, it is almost always caused by exposure to asbestos. It takes an average 20 years to develop and, once it has developed, it kills fast. Victims rarely live longer than 18 months after diagnosis and often die within just a few months. There is no known cure for the disease and victims spend their final months in considerable pain and suffering. Many of those victims develop mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos at work; indeed, the highest incidence of it is in the construction and shipbuilding industries.

A particular problem for mesothelioma sufferers and their families is that, at the moment, the law prevents relatives from making a claim for compensation for their own grief and suffering if the sufferer has settled his or her own claim before death. As payments can be higher if the executor and relatives claim after the sufferer's death, most sufferers do not claim compensation to ensure that they do not disadvantage their families.

That is completely unacceptable. It means additional worry for families at an exceptionally difficult and distressing time and we intend to take action to address that problem in a bill that will be introduced in the coming year. At this point, I wish to record my appreciation of the actions of a number of MSPs, in particular Des McNulty, who have raised this issue and have given a voice and hope to those affected. I also pay tribute to the support groups and their advisers for their tireless work in bringing the matter to public and political attention. We have listened to their voices, and we will act.

While considering the problem, we were faced with another serious issue when the House of Lords ruled in the case of Barker v Corus. Victims must be able to claim compensation from employers who, in the past, wrongfully exposed them to asbestos. However, because of the limits of science, in many cases it is impossible to establish precisely which employer's wrongful exposure led the victim to develop the disease. Sometimes employers or their insurers have become insolvent or are simply untraceable. However, victims should not have to be concerned about that. Justice demands that they receive full compensation, no matter where they contracted the disease through wrongful exposure.

Unsurprisingly, victims and their families were left extremely concerned about the House of Lords decision in early May in the case of Barker v Corus. The Law Lords were called on to decide several cases in which workers had more than one employer, each of which had wrongfully exposed the worker to asbestos. In none of the cases could the scientific evidence prove which exposure had caused the onset of mesothelioma. The Law Lords decided that an employer's liability to pay compensation should be assessed in proportion to the period of time that the employer exposed the victim to the risk of contracting the disease.

The decision dealt with issues that were left unresolved in the Fairchild case in 2002, in which the House of Lords decided that a worker who contracted mesothelioma after wrongful exposure to asbestos at different times by more than one employer could sue any of them, even if the worker could not prove which employer had caused the disease. However, the case did not resolve the precise nature of the employers' liability and whether they should be held jointly and severally liable or whether liability should be apportioned among them.

The decision in the Barker case, which came down in favour of apportioning liability, can be expected to have two main effects. First, because the process of bringing an action will in many cases be significantly delayed by the need to trace all liable parties, or will lead to multiple claims, legal costs are expected to increase significantly.

Secondly, victims will get less compensation if some of the liable parties are insolvent or untraceable. Victims would therefore, effectively, be expected to bear the risk of employers or their insurers going out of business. That is an unacceptable situation in an area where the primary concern of the law ought to be to provide full compensation to victims who are wrongfully exposed to deadly asbestos.

Although the Barker case was English, it has repercussions for Scotland. It is highly likely that the Scottish courts would be persuaded by it in cases brought here, particularly as it is a House of Lords decision and as the development of Scots and English law in this area has been identical to date. On 20 June, the United Kingdom Government announced its intention to legislate to reverse the effect of the Barker judgment for England and Wales. The Government has said that it intends to do that as quickly as possible, by introducing an amendment to the Compensation Bill, which was introduced to the House of Lords, on 2 November 2005 and has just completed its committee stage in the Commons.

I thank our colleagues in the UK Government, who have pulled out all the stops to ensure that we can debate the motion with a draft of the proposed amendment to the Compensation Bill before us. I make it clear to members that the amendment before them is a draft and that, although the UK Government has announced its intention to legislate in that way, there is a possibility that the drafting may change before it is tabled in the House of Commons.

The effect of subsections (1) and (2) of the clause that the draft amendment will insert in the bill is to provide, in mesothelioma cases, that negligent persons are held jointly and severally liable for the damage caused by the disease. That means that the position will be as it was before the Barker ruling, and that claimants can claim for all damages from one liable party. Subsection (3) affirms the current position relating to contributions from other liable parties and to contributory negligence. The defender against whom damages are awarded can claim contributions from other liable parties as determined by the court. In considering the award of damages, the court may take any contributory negligence by the claimant into account. As I said, that provision is a reflection of the current position and does not change the law in those areas.

The extent to which those provisions should have retrospective effect is still under discussion in light of European convention on human rights considerations. If the amendment that is tabled to the Compensation Bill goes further in its purpose or effect than the draft that is before us this morning, the consent that I hope this Parliament will grant will fall. We would then have to address the problem through our own damages bill.

I am sure that members will agree that it is vital to ensure that victims in Scotland are left no worse off than their counterparts in England and Wales when it comes to compensation for mesothelioma. Bearing in mind the speed with which mesothelioma can kill and the urgency of ensuring that sufferers gain full compensation, we need to seek the quickest way of reversing the effect of the Barker judgment. Had it been the case that the damages bill that we propose would have offered a speedier solution and would not have left a gap between sufferers in Scotland and those in the rest of the United Kingdom, we would have used our own legislation. However, introducing a bill to the Scottish Parliament and its receiving royal assent would mean a delay, and we believe that it is appropriate to use the speediest possible solution to resolve a tragic set of circumstances. I believe that what we are proposing today can achieve that.

Today's motion gives us the chance to legislate without delay, and in agreeing to the motion Parliament will ensure that action is taken on the Barker judgment quickly and compassionately. It is the right thing to do, and we owe it to the victims of mesothelioma to use the procedures available to us to best effect. I was encouraged by the support of members on all sides for the Minister for Parliamentary Business's statement on 22 June, when she announced that we would introduce legislation to reverse the effect of the Barker decision in Scotland.

As I said, we plan to go further than that to support the victims of mesothelioma. Today's debate is only the first step in that direction, but it is a vital one. I hope that members will consider today's motion in the same supportive spirit as was articulated last week.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the UK Parliament should consider those provisions of the Compensation Bill, introduced in the House of Lords on 2 November 2005, which will legislate in the devolved area of damages law in respect of joint and several liability, as laid out in LCM(S2) 8.1.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am grateful to the minister for outlining matters fully. He can rest assured that the Scottish National Party will give him full support in seeking to address the manifest injustice that has arisen. We are grateful for the Executive's prompt and speedy actions.

It sometimes baffles members of the public that law is not necessarily justice. In the main, we hope that our law serves justice but, unfortunately, there are instances when the law is simply the interpretation of rules and the implementation of decisions and manifest injustices arise. In those instances, it is necessary for the legislator to change the law to ensure that justice is served. I believe that the decision in Barker v Corus was a wrong judgment. The argument over a supreme court is a matter for another day, but I note that the Scottish law lord took a distinctive view. However, the Barker decision was wrong and that has to be addressed by legislating. In these circumstances, we will fully support the Executive in whatever action is easiest, whether it is through Westminster or through a special damages bill. What matters is that we remedy the wrong.

The number of people affected is not substantial, which is something to be thankful for. However, what they are afflicted with is, as the minister said, a dreadful, life-taking disease. Those who suffer from the disease face an invidious choice. Should they seek to obtain some quick recompense so that they can enjoy the last part of their shortened lives, or should they await death restricted in their ability to work and to earn income, so that their families can obtain greater benefit when they have passed? That is an invidious and dreadful choice and we must ensure that that situation is addressed.

The minister also mentioned the difficulties of pursuing compensation. Although many of the situations that caused the disease arose through ignorance rather than any wilful act on the part of an employer, it is quite clear that some companies were, frankly, at it. Anybody who has been involved in compensation claims, as I was when I practised many years ago, will know how difficult it is to pursue companies for compensation. A company called Cape Contracts, for example, used various nomenclatures, such as Cape Contracts Ltd and Cape Contracts (UK) Ltd. Those companies knew what they were doing. They were deliberately trying to avoid the liabilities that they knew were being garnered. It may be that the instances of asbestosis that arose were not deliberately created, but the companies knew later that liability was going to befall them and, whether on the advice of their lawyers, their accountants or their company secretaries, they took steps to try to ensure that they would not have to meet their lawful obligations.

It is important that we, as the legislature in Scotland, ensure not only that sufferers do not face the invidious choice whether to claim compensation to benefit them in their last days or to wait so that their families will get a greater benefit when they have passed on, but that we address the issue of companies that are liable and of insurers that were happy to take the premiums when they were being paid but thereafter sought to avoid the consequent liabilities.

SNP members are grateful to the minister and to the UK Government; we recognise its actions and we do not care who sorts it out as long as it is sorted. We are also grateful to those who have pursued the matter with tenacity: Clydeside Action on Asbestos; Frank Maguire and all at Thompsons Solicitors; Des McNulty, who picked up the matter when the difficulty arose; and the minister and his colleagues, who have acted speedily and effectively.

I know that other members who have been involved with the issue will want to speak about local matters, so I will not say anything further, other than that we are grateful that the Executive has dealt with the matter with due alacrity and that the minister can rest assured that he has our full support.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I declare a financial interest in respect of my former occupation in the insurance industry. I am a potential beneficiary of the AGF Insurance pension fund.

If the motion is not passed today, it would be a manifest injustice. We cannot possibly have a situation whereby those suffering from mesothelioma in Scotland are disadvantaged as compared with those down south. It is clearly the unanimous wish of the Parliament that the matter be dealt with as fairly and as equitably as possible.

The Barker v Corus judgment, although passed in the rarefied atmosphere of the House of Lords, was not perhaps wrong in itself, because the commonsense view is that those who have contributed towards a liability should be held responsible for it. However, that does not help the mesothelioma sufferers. The gazetteer of insurance companies now bears little or no resemblance to what existed 20 years ago, as some companies have gone bust and others have merged. It is sometimes impossible to find the insurer that held a particular employer's liability policy during the period in the 1970s or even earlier when the victim contracted mesothelioma.

Hugh Henry was right to point out the position that exists in many of these tragic cases. Mesothelioma sufferers should not have to jump through hoops to try to establish who the insurers were at the relevant time. In the insurance industry, there is a well-known system of contribution in respect of property damage claims: insurers would contribute to the loss in proportion to their own liability. Barker v Corus suggests that that is the case and there is nothing wrong with that. However, where the judgment goes terribly wrong is in the onus that it places on the pursuer in the case to carry out the investigation. That is clearly not acceptable.

Personal injury claims are a difficult issue, but the usual problems that arise do not occur in this instance. We know that asbestos causes asbestosis and, in extreme cases, mesothelioma. The liability is absolute and someone should pay. When the person's life expectancy is so terribly limited, he is not particularly concerned about who pays but he is entitled to receive adequate compensation in respect of his greatly shortened expectation of life. We would be failing in our duty were we not to pass the motion on the legislation today.

I look forward to debating other issues with regard to personal injury claims once the damages bill is introduced. There may not be the same degree of consensus on some of those matters, but today we have an opportunity to put right a wrong. I do not think that members of the Parliament will fail to recognise what their duty is.

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

I was going to start by saying that it is a little regrettable that we are not debating the issue fully and widely in the Parliament today, but the minister made very welcome comments about the fact that this is the start of a process. His sincerity and that of colleagues in the Parliament about wanting to take the debate forward should be welcomed.

I also support the member who had secured time for a members' business debate on the subject. That would have been a fascinating legal and public policy debate, but it is one that the Parliament will still have, after the recess. It is a matter that is owed careful consideration.

Expediency for the people who are adversely affected requires us to support the fastest legislative route to change the law to allow the people who deserve compensation to receive it; in many cases, those people are the widows of the workers involved. That is why the Liberal Democrats support the legislative consent motion this morning.

The debate has two main aspects. One is how we seek fairly to address the situation of workers who, through no fault of their own, have contracted malignant mesothelioma, primarily because of exposure to asbestos dust. Companies, mainly but not exclusively in the private sector, have breached their duty to protect their workers.

The issue is not an historical one. Last week I was in correspondence with Scottish Borders Council about asbestos in public buildings, especially primary schools, in my constituency. Asbestos exists today in those buildings. I was encouraged by the thorough reply concerning the procedures that are in place if the asbestos becomes exposed. The discussion about reforming the law to allow for compensation is salutary and reminds us that this is not just an historical concern.

The Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd case in 2002 established what the minister referred to as the Fairchild exception. Its purpose is

"to provide a cause of action against a defendant who has materially increased the risk that the claimant will suffer damage and may have caused that damage, but cannot be proved to have done so because it is impossible to show, on a balance of probability, that some other exposure to the same risk may not have caused it instead. For this purpose, it should be irrelevant whether the other exposure was tortious or non-tortious, by natural causes or human agency or by the claimant himself. These distinctions may be relevant to whether and to whom responsibility can also be attributed, but from the point of view of satisfying the requirement of a sufficient causal link between the defendant's conduct and the claimant's injury, they should not matter."

In the appeal against the compensation awards to widows, insurers sought to limit an employer's liability to pay damages in cases where a worker may have been employed by several firms, none of which can specifically be blamed for the onset of fatal illness. They argued that an employer's liability should be a proportion of the total compensation that reflects the extent to which it contributed to an employee's exposure to asbestos.

That appeal was upheld by the law lords by four to one. As Kenny MacAskill said, it is interesting to note that the Scottish law lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, disagreed with the majority of their lordships and would have dismissed the appeal on the question of apportionment. He would have held the employers liable on the basis of the Fairchild exception. I hope that if we give further consideration to the matter in Scots law, we will consider closely whether the Parliament intends to uphold the Fairchild exception in our law.

I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom Government signalled its intention to legislate in effect to overturn the Lords' ruling. We have the draft amendment before us, but I seek clarification from the Deputy Minister for Justice on a matter that is not addressed in the amendment but may well be included in other amendments that the UK Government will bring forward. It relates to an application clause. I am concerned that, as the bill stands, this would apply only to English cases concerning Scottish companies and we may have a difficulty without an application clause that states that the clauses apply to devolved law in Scotland.

I welcome the fact that, as the minister said, this is the start of a valid debate that the Parliament will have. I have a constituent who worked in a tyre factory in Ireland who desperately deserves compensation. I am concerned that we do not limit this only to asbestos but look in the round at compensation in Scotland for people who have been failed by their employers and have found it nigh on impossible to seek redress.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I thank the 54 signatories to my members' business motion on the House of Lords judgment. The motion was due to be debated this evening but I very much welcome the fact that we are having this debate now, because it will produce a practical effect in changing the law. The 54 members are a majority of those who are eligible to sign members' motions. It was a clear demonstration of the Parliament's intention that the House of Lords judgment should be reversed.

I thank the portfolio ministers, Cathy Jamieson and Hugh Henry. Hugh Henry's speech was excellent in that it highlighted the facts and indicated the Executive's commitment and his personal commitment to deal with the issue. His responsiveness, both on this issue and on the damages issue, has been outstanding. I also thank Margaret Curran, the Minister for Parliamentary Business, who has been instrumental in getting us to this stage in the face of tight deadlines. It is highly commendable that she has ensured that we can take the matter forward before the recess.

The people whom I would like to thank most are the asbestos campaigners: the people from Clydebank who are in the public gallery; Clydeside Action on Asbestos; the trade unions and, in particular, the Scottish Trades Union Congress; West Dunbartonshire Council, which has done an outstanding job in taking forward the asbestos cases; and all the other organisations throughout Scotland that have identified the injustice and demanded that something be done to overturn it.

The reputation of the Parliament depends on whether we do the right thing. To take the side of the victims of asbestos-related disease and, in particular, of those suffering from mesothelioma is overwhelmingly the right thing to do. Over the years, those people have experienced the insurance companies and those who have liabilities trying every legal trick in the book to dodge their responsibilities and dodge making payments. Those companies have made it difficult and have used every contrivance of legality to avoid making payments and owning up to their responsibilities. That has often been to the severe detriment of the victims and their families.

It is our duty in the legislature to ensure justice for the victims of asbestos, particularly those who are on the verge of death from the terrible terminal disease of mesothelioma. Anyone who has seen somebody who has mesothelioma will know that it is a horrific disease. It is our duty to ensure that those people are given the justice and compensation to which they are entitled and that the insurance companies do not retain the justice and compensation for their own purposes and for those of their shareholders or anybody else.

What is most striking is not so much the victims but their families—people such as Joan Baird and Margaret Lilley, whose husbands died of this dreadful disease. Such people are filled with a burning sense of injustice. It is not a demand for money; it is a sense that they have been deeply wronged by people who knew what they were doing. The employers knew what was going to happen to those women's husbands and loved ones. The families feel that that wrong deserves to be righted.

I welcome the fact that the Scottish Parliament is acting today to right that wrong. It would have given me great pleasure to introduce a member's bill on damages—I suppose that it is one of the peaks of a parliamentary career to introduce a bill—but it is even better that the Executive has taken a damages bill on board, because that will eliminate any uncertainty and ensure that the bill goes through speedily. The people who count in all this are the victims and their families. The Parliament is to be commended for what has been done today and for what will be done before next May.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

This debate is about justice. We should pay tribute to the Clydeside workers and their campaign groups and to all workers who have campaigned on the issue. Justice must be fair, timely and swift, and the law should serve justice, so I thank the Executive for lodging the motion. We agree with the vehicle by which we are taking the issue forward.

I want to touch on why the issue is important. There is a cairn in Bathgate that is dedicated to those who lost their lives when working. On the cairn are the words:

"We fight for the living and we mourn the dead."

Today, what we are doing is fighting for the living. We can do it by legislative process and compensation, but the fight on asbestos is not just a past fight; it is a current fight. Those of us from West Lothian are conscious of the work of workers from Golden Wonder's former factory in Broxburn, and of the work of Alex Horne and others in that regard. The fight on asbestos continues and I would like to draw the minister's attention to a particular issue to do with asbestos.

We have planning laws for new build, but we have very weak planning laws for demolition. One of the issues that I am dealing with concerns the Motherwell Bridge Ltd site in Uphall. The situation is that the Health and Safety Executive is responsible for the health and safety of workers during a demolition; the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is responsible after demolition when asbestos-polluted materials are on the ground; there are general competencies for councils; and demolition contractors are responsible for the method statement of how demolition happens. However, the new build on brownfield sites, particularly across the Lothians, raises a real issue with public health because there is currently no law in this country to protect the public from demolitions that involve asbestos pollutants. I hope that the Planning etc (Scotland)

Bill, to which I plan to lodge an amendment, will address that issue.

On the campaign for compensation in relation to asbestos, I say that just because asbestos is out of sight, that does not mean that it is out of mind, and just because the cause of harm was yesterday, that does not mean that we forget it today. Our message to asbestos sufferers is that the Scottish Parliament and all its political parties will stand by them and their families today, because we mourn the dead and fight for the living.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Here we go again—we have had a speech from Des McNulty and there are campaigners in the gallery. I think that the Scottish Parliament has a good record of recognising the plight of asbestos workers and their campaign for justice, which has been ably supported by many members in the chamber, but particularly by my colleague Des McNulty.

In November 2000, we had a members' business debate in my name that focused on the actions of the insurance companies on the asbestos issue. There was a long struggle in days gone by during which they made no apology. They delayed and delayed until a person died, in order to avoid paying compensation. Of course, we changed that situation, but the insurance companies then changed their tactics to one of blanket denial—justice delayed became justice denied. They drew out procedures for months and years to deny the paying of compensation. Victims were denied their very existence. For example, they were asked to prove that they had served their time and worked in a shipyard. They were also asked to prove, for example, that the Queen Elizabeth II was built in John Brown's shipyard. That was all done to deny the victims the justice that they deserved. What an insult and what an injury, on top of having a terminal disease and facing death, to be questioned about their very existence.

We have had other crises along the way. We had the collapse of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd, which bankrupted itself to avoid paying compensation, while paying its top bosses million-pound bonuses. Thankfully, some possible consequences of that situation for victims were avoided. Again, however, victims facing death were worried about whether they would receive a penny in compensation. We have also had other recent setbacks, including the most recent legal decision, which brings us here today, by which 90 per cent of the compensation that victims deserve was put under threat.

The insurance companies' tactics have been ruthless and consistent. They have used all methods possible to frustrate and deny justice for the victims. We should remind ourselves of what we are talking about, as others have said during the debate. We are talking about people who are cancer victims. It is a very aggressive cancer that takes their lives away in very difficult circumstances in around 18 months or two years. Given such circumstances, we as a Parliament, both politicians and law officers, have faced up to the situation and focused on the needs of the victims rather than on the will of the insurance companies.

It is great news today for people whom I know in my constituency that we are making these decisions. We have had the intervention in the Chester Street crisis and, thankfully, we have had justice fast tracked for victims in Scotland. Pauline McNeill, who sends apologies for not being present, did a lot of work to make that happen. Of course, we are also having today the reversal of the law lords ruling that would have denied the victims justice, and we can expect a forthcoming bill that will address the issue of the victims' families.

It is sweet justice indeed when a situation has been created whereby the insurance companies and the employers will have to sue one another rather than the victims of asbestos—hear, hear, and well done! [Applause.] If the Scottish Parliament means anything, it is about addressing wrongs in our society quickly, as Des McNulty said. We are doing that speedily for the benefit of the asbestos victims and their families. We are showing that the Scottish Parliament can work for the benefit of people in Scotland—this debate is a classic example of that.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

The legal ramifications of the Compensation Bill are reasonably obvious. The biggest and most expensive unelected quango in the UK, known as the House of Lords, has pontificated on the asbestos problem that causes mesothelioma. In reaching its conclusions, it has brought increasing misery to those poor souls who are terminally ill due to asbestos, to say nothing of the added distress that that abstract, distant and ill-considered decision has caused the relatives of the sufferers.

Although the bill will rectify the negligent blunder by the House of Lords, it will not redress the sad fact that all too many good people who suffer from asbestosis will have died before their rightful claim for compensation has been met. We should insist that an interim payment is made to all mesothelioma sufferers as soon as possible, with the balance of their compensation being paid out after the legal people have duly milked the legal process.

In 2006, the word "asbestos" strikes panic among the general public, but for an indentured apprentice 60 years ago that was not the case—I should explain to members that after slavery was done away with in the mid-19th century indentured apprenticeship took its place. I handled asbestos with supreme indifference, because at that time no one knew that mesothelioma had an incubation period of up to 50 years and more. Youthful asbestos laggers who insulated ship engine rooms and refrigerated areas regularly had snowball fights with monkey dung—as they called the raw asbestos—not knowing that many unfortunates might just as well have been throwing hand grenades that had a delayed time action. At the end of the shift, we all carried a liberal dusting of asbestos. Wives and mothers washed overalls and often contracted asbestosis as a result.

The Compensation Bill is great. We should end procrastination and compensate sufferers now. The abolition of the House of Lords can be left for another day.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I am grateful for the cross-party support for action. Des McNulty, who has worked tirelessly to promote the issue, as have a number of members, says that taking action on the matter is about doing the right thing. Today, parliamentarians are doing the right thing and in doing so we are reflecting the efforts of the campaign groups that have been mentioned. We should remember that the members of those groups are not just people who believe passionately in justice on the issue—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Minister, please raise your microphone. It seems to have disappeared.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Sorry.

Campaigners are suffering from the effects of asbestos. They have a terrible disease and they are determined to do the right thing, not just for themselves but for other people and for future sufferers, given the time lag in the onset of the disease, which John Swinburne mentioned. It is therefore a privilege for the Parliament to be able to do the right thing.

The trade unions gave phenomenal support to the campaign by providing advice and resources. The campaign's advisers worked diligently to help to progress Des McNulty's proposal for a bill on improved compensation for asbestos victims and to provide off-line briefings, which added clarity and were appreciated.

Jeremy Purvis asked whether the Compensation Bill should contain an application clause. I assure him and other members that we will provide any clarification that is needed to ensure that the provisions apply to the law of damages in Scotland, so that there will be no disadvantage to litigants in Scotland.

Duncan McNeil made a passionate speech, in which he reminded us of the history of the issue and the tragedies that have happened. He talked about the prevarication and delays caused by people who considered profit margins rather than human suffering. It is right that members of the Scottish Parliament and colleagues at Westminster have been able to make a small contribution.

Duncan McNeil also mentioned the action that had to be taken in relation to Chester Street Insurance Holdings and rightly reminded us of the Coulsfield procedure for fast tracking claims, which was introduced in Scotland. We will reverse the House of Lords decision and introduce a bill on damages, so our action today represents only a small contribution to a much bigger issue.

Kenny MacAskill was right to point out that although a relatively small number of people have been affected by asbestos, the issue has had profound implications for them and for their families. It is moving to meet people who have suffered from the effects of asbestos and who are determined to secure justice. I cannot begin to understand the efforts and the suffering of those people and their families. As I said, it is a privilege for me and for the Parliament to be able to do the right thing.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive how community safety can be enhanced through the deployment of police officers. (S2O-10370)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

One of the key pillars of our justice strategy is to create communities in which people can live together in safety and mutual respect. The Scottish ministers have backed the police, to ensure that record numbers of police officers in Scotland are preventing and detecting crime. Backed by much-needed reforms that allow officers to spend more time on front-line duties, the police, alongside a range of other agencies, play a vital role in delivering safer communities.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The minister knows that I appreciate schemes such as the community warden scheme and I look forward to the Minister for Justice's meeting next week with wardens in Blackburn and Boghall in my constituency. I hope that the minister also appreciates that four or five officers can be an insufficient number in a police station such as the one in Whitburn in my constituency, which covers not just the town but five villages. Will he build on the Executive's excellent record and recruit more police officers? Will he also ensure that work patterns are such that officers can spend more time in the community?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

We have demonstrated our commitment by providing a record number of police officers. In a sense, we have gone further, because other initiatives that we have supported, on escorting duties for example, have allowed up to 300 additional police officers to be deployed on front-line duties. We have supported other initiatives that have taken some of the back-room, administrative work away from officers so that more front-line police officers can be deployed.

It is for chief constables to account to police boards for how they use the record number of police officers and the additional resources that have been freed up by our other initiatives. We need to demonstrate to the public not just that we are employing more police officers but that we are employing officers strategically and effectively, so that the public can see the benefits of having a record number of officers.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Community wardens are no substitute for a police presence in detecting, deterring and dealing with violent and other crimes. Will the minister say how much more it costs to recruit a police officer than it costs to employ a community warden?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I do not have those figures to hand, but they can easily be supplied if Margaret Mitchell writes to request them. All that I can do is to repeat what I said about there being a record number of police officers. In 1997, when there was a change of Government, we inherited a specific number of police officers from the Conservatives. Since 1999, when we set out our partnership agreement, we have added to that number. Unlike the party of Margaret Mitchell and her colleagues, we have recognised the need for more police officers on the beat in Scotland and we have demonstrated our commitment.

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

Notwithstanding the operational independence of chief constables, does the minister share the concerns of my constituents in Penicuik that community police officers are often called away on a shift-by-shift basis to other divisions in Lothian and Borders police and sometimes to road traffic accidents? What power does he have to stress to police boards that if community officers are to be effective in communities, they must police those communities?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Jeremy Purvis raises issues of operational independence. A number of points must be considered. First, having had discussions with the police in my own area, I know that they are considering shift patterns with the aim of deploying officers at the times when they are needed. They recognise that there are many times when a substantial number of police are on duty but there is very little activity or crime. We would wish to support that trend of applying resources when they are most needed.

Secondly, Jeremy Purvis touches on the key issue of accountability. The councillors who represent their councils on police boards need to engage in dialogue with chief constables about how resources are used. If there is to be proper accountability, if police boards are to continue to have a future, and if people think that the present structure is appropriate and effective and that we should continue with it, we need to ask those who are responsible—those who sit on the police boards—how they are carrying out their functions and duties and how chief constables are accounting to police boards for what is done in each area.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

To ask the Scottish Executive how much has been paid in public subsidies to bus companies in the last three years. (S2O-10360)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

This devolved Government provides substantial resources, directly and indirectly, to support bus services in Scotland. The bus service operator grant is paid directly to bus operators to help to reduce fares. In effect, the grant reimburses operators for about 80 per cent of the excise duty that is paid on the diesel fuel consumed. The total that is paid out is about £55 million per year. In addition, the Executive makes resources available to transport authorities through a number of schemes that support the bus industry. Those include grant-aided expenditure for socially necessary services, the bus route development grant, the public transport fund and the rural transport fund.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

May I helpfully provide the collective figure from information that I have received from the Scottish Parliament information centre? Over the past three years, £530 million has been paid to bus companies from public funds. Does the minister accept what has been constructively amplified in the Evening Times , which is that people in Glasgow and throughout Scotland are not receiving best value from that £530 million? Will he join me and others in considering the possibility of some form of regulation to ensure that local people get an effective service? Will he consider the possibility of getting local transport associations to deliver transport locally where bus companies clearly do not give consideration to doing so?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I certainly respect the Evening Times campaign that Paul Martin brings to the attention of the Parliament today, which has the aim of ensuring that services meet the needs of people in the Glasgow area. As Mr Martin will know, we are currently consulting on the development of the national transport strategy, and specifically on the best mechanisms for the appropriate regulation of the bus industry, so that we achieve the outcomes that I am sure members broadly share in respect of the public money that is used for bus services.

Mr Martin makes an important point with regard to local services. There are many good community transport and bus projects across the country, including in Glasgow. One of the challenges of policy development is to spread the principles of good practice more widely.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

With the greatest respect, I think that the minister has avoided answering the question that Paul Martin asked him. Five hundred and thirty million pounds has been given in public subsidy over three years to run the buses in Scotland, including in Glasgow. Paul Martin was arguing, as are the people of Glasgow, that that does not represent value for money. Will the minister give us a categorical assurance that he will seek better value for that level of public expenditure? Does he agree that that will be delivered only when there is regulation of bus services throughout Scotland, including Glasgow—and, even better, if they were publicly owned, as they are in the Lothians, in which case we could all get the good value for money that the citizens of the Lothians get?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Mr Sheridan can make all the ideological arguments that he likes, but the important point is to ensure that the use of public money is targeted through a number of mechanisms to achieve different solutions for different parts of Scotland, where clear needs are identified and where different models of regulation are appropriate in meeting those needs. In that context, it is extremely important to ensure that we use the national transport strategy to consider the models that are available to us and that we examine carefully our experience of those elements of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 that relate to the bus industry. That is what we have said we will do, and that is what we will do.

Jean Turner (Independent, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will monitor local authorities to ensure that they continue to resource supported bus services. (S2O-10336)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The Executive provides substantial resources through the local government finance settlement to enable transport authorities to support socially necessary bus services. The Executive monitors what authorities spend on supported services as part of its overall monitoring of bus issues. It is of course for local authorities to decide their own priorities and to provide the support that is needed in their areas.

Jean Turner (Independent, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I thank the minister for his reply on this important subject. What specific action will he take to ensure the protection of socially essential bus routes in places such as Westerton and Twechar, in my constituency, which have become more isolated as a result of the axing of local bus services because of a lack of profit?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

We have a number of options through the mechanisms that I outlined in reply to Paul Martin and through our continuing work with local authorities—and indeed through the mechanisms that are available for all local authorities to use in providing such services. I judge that it is for local authorities to make the most appropriate decisions, given their understanding of the services that are needed locally. I suspect that that is the way in which we would wish policy to develop.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive how many of its employees work some or all of the time from home and how many work on flexible arrangements by which they can choose when they travel to their workplace. (S2O-10327)

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

All Executive employees can apply to work from home on a formal basis, and they will have their requests properly considered. Many staff take advantage of the Executive's flexible working hours scheme, which allows them to choose their hours of work, and thus their time of travel, between 7 am and 7 pm. We do not currently have an exact number for the staff who take advantage of either of those schemes, as we have only recently moved to a new human resources monitoring system to capture the full range of our flexible working arrangements.

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

It is disappointing that the Executive does not know how many of its staff work under flexible arrangements. By contrast, we know that BT, with 100,000 employees, has 71,000 staff on flexitime. Should not this devolved institution devolve to people some element of control over how they work? If that happened, would not there be immense benefits, not only for employees but for the environment, through the reduction in congestion that would result from a great many cars being removed from our roads?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I should perhaps clarify this for Mr Ewing's benefit. I have said that flexible working is available to all our staff. We currently do not know how many of them actually take advantage of what is available to them.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question 5 was not lodged.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made on the Aberdeen western peripheral route. (S2O-10322)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Following the announcement of the preferred alignment last month, the project design team is now working towards publication of draft orders by the end of the year.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I understand that the minister has been in discussions with the local councils with regard to funding arrangements. Can he tell us whether he and the councils have reached an agreement about the Executive bearing the additional cost of moving from the Murtle route to the Milltimber Brae route? Will he consider capping the contribution that is made by each council, rather than leaving it at 9.5 per cent of what is an ever escalating figure?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

As I understand it, and as Mr Adam will be aware, Aberdeen City Council recently agreed to contribute 9.5 per cent towards the cost of the bypass element, to be spread over the 30 years of the capital project. The council is seeking further clarification of some details; we have yet to receive that request, but we will of course respond to it in due course. Those are important issues to get right, and we will take as much time as we need to, working with both Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council to ensure that we get them right.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Although all MSPs from all parties representing Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire support the Aberdeen western peripheral route, there are concerns, as Brian Adam mentioned, about the higher cost of the scheme. Would the minister consider building a smaller spur road from the A90 to join the bypass, rather than building a 9-mile Stonehaven spur road through north Kincardineshire?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

As Mr Rumbles knows, we have announced the alignment of the road and the issue is now moving through the processes that I described in answer to Brian Adam some moments ago. We have no plans to revisit the alignment. As Mr Rumbles will also know, the alignment that has been chosen provides 20 per cent higher user benefits and will reduce congestion on the A90 south of Aberdeen and in Stonehaven. Those are solid arguments for the chosen route, on which we hope to continue to make progress through the process that I have outlined.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am grateful that the minister is beginning to produce some clarity on the road, such as the confirmation that the fast link will be funded separately. Now that he has divided the routes into two distinct packages, will he consider actually meeting the population who will be affected by the fast-link proposals so that he can at least pretend to be involved in consultation with the local people?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Yes—I am glad that we are coming to the summer recess.

As Mr Davidson knows all too well, the routes are not separate but are part of the entire AWPR. I do not accept in any way the premise of his question, as I have met a number of residents who will be affected by the process.

Mr Davidson also knows that the consultation on the route has been extensive and lengthy and that the options were consulted on in their entirety. Indeed, the routes chosen include a number of elements that came from the public consultation. The consultation process is important, but it is also important to recognise that the likely local public inquiry on the route will rightly give many people an opportunity robustly to interrogate the process that has been undertaken.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give an assurance that a cap will be set for all spending on the road, or will he have no alternative but to accept cost rises as the project progresses?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

As with every part of our capital transport programme, we endeavour to ensure that, as I told Parliament in my statement on the entire programme on 16 March, we set out not only the timescales for all our capital projects but the budget that attaches to those projects. The Aberdeen western peripheral route is no different from any other project.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to tackle rural exclusion in relation to access to public transport. (S2O-10374)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

We are taking a wide range of measures. The rural transport fund provides grants to local authorities to help them to introduce new and improved public transport services in rural areas. It also supports community transport projects in rural areas where no public transport services are available or where such services are very limited. In addition, the Scotland-wide free bus scheme for older and disabled people, which was introduced on 1 April 2006, provides benefits to residents in rural areas. Also, residents of peripheral and remote communities in the Highlands and Islands have had access to discounted air fares under the Executive's air discount scheme since 18 May.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Does the minister agree that, in assessing the Scottish Executive's transport priorities, consideration should be given to ensuring that any investment that is made maximises public access to the transport network? For that reason, does he agree that the Executive's investment in the reopening of the Airdrie to Bathgate railway line should ensure that the villages of Plains and Blackridge are given stations so that people there can access the line?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The principle that Karen Whitefield has articulated is important in the context of transport policy generally and will certainly be raised during the consultation on the national transport strategy. Indeed, I am sure that she will want to comment on the strategy.

I will be happy to consider the particular issue that she has highlighted and raise it with the promoter, which is Network Rail.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans there are to reform the Scottish transport appraisal guidance system, in particular in respect of long-distance rail routes, to meet Government commitments in respect of sustainability and strategic environmental assessment. (S2O-10326)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

As STAG is an objective-led, multimodal transport appraisal framework, it does not need to be altered specifically to assess long-distance rail routes. Part of the STAG process involves the national policy context that applies to the particular transport issue being considered. That includes an assessment of sustainability. STAG was updated in November 2005 to incorporate strategic environmental assessment requirements. The national transport strategy consultation, which closes on 13 July, was the first Government publication to be accompanied by a strategic environmental assessment.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am looking for the guarantee that is needed to rural-proof rail investment, as there has been a lack of investment for decades on the rural routes into and out of the Highland network. Can the minister guarantee that the response to the inquiry will do that job?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Mr Gibson should take some comfort from the fact that, properly, the strategic projects review on which we are embarking as part of the national transport strategy will allow for a corridor-by-corridor assessment throughout the country. That assessment will certainly include the areas in which he is interested. As part of the review, the relationship between road and rail will be carefully considered in the context of STAG, which allows that to happen.

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am sure that all members will want to condemn the disgraceful anti-Scottish abuse that has been directed at Andy Murray by a minority of mindless individuals and to take the opportunity to wish him all the best in his match at Wimbledon later today.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2393)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

In the past couple of weeks, a steady stream of commentators and politicians have queued up to tell us that Scotland is subsidised—that we get more out of the United Kingdom Treasury than we put into it. Will the First Minister join me today in telling them that they are wrong and that we in Scotland more than pay our way?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish National Party may deny this, but we know that every proper independent survey of Scotland's finances and of its relationship with the rest of the UK shows that, quite correctly, Scotland benefits from its membership of the United Kingdom, because of its needs and the way in which they are assessed. For our budget in Scotland, those needs are determined and paid for using a formula that has stood the test of time and which we should defend. I find it incredible that in recent days John Swinney, at least, and perhaps other SNP members, have defended the formula when the SNP's whole purpose as a party and organisation is to end it and to reduce Scotland's financing from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I did not ask the First Minister whether he supports the Barnett formula. I also did not ask whether he thinks that public spending levels in Scotland are justified, although it is a bit rich to hear the First Minister talk about needs when he has just salted away in a war chest £800 million that should have been spent on schools and hospitals. I asked the First Minister whether he agrees with those who think that we are subsidised—that we get more out of the Treasury than we put into it and that, in the words of that right-wing Tory Michael Portillo, we exist "on English handouts"—or whether, like me, he thinks that when we count the £1 billion of Scottish oil revenues that flows from the North sea to the Treasury every month, we are not only paying our way but contributing a very healthy surplus. What side of that fence is the First Minister on?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Perhaps this is the first time that Nicola Sturgeon has heard the slogan, so the "It's Scotland's oil" campaign may be more exciting for her than it is for the rest of us. The rest of us heard it in the 1970s, when it failed for the SNP. It will fail again at the start of the 21 st century. We cannot base an economic policy for Scotland for the 21 st century on a slogan from the 1970s and a calculation from the 1980s. The reality is that money is properly disbursed across the United Kingdom and that Scotland receives more from the United Kingdom than it currently pays in taxes. However, the economic strategy for Scotland in the 21 st century must be to grow Scotland's economy and the amount of tax that is raised in Scotland by growing the number of jobs and successful businesses and turning Scotland into the enterprising economy that it once was and can be again.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Now we know that the First Minister thinks that Scotland is subsidised. Let me tell him why that matters. Does he not understand that those who claim that we are subsidised have a clear agenda—to cut the budget that the Parliament has to spend on schools and hospitals? How can anyone trust the First Minister to fight Scotland's corner when he accepts the premise of that argument and has bought into the subsidy lie?

I remind the First Minister that even George Robertson, who is not known for his nationalism, said when he was shadow secretary of state for Scotland that he did not accept for a moment that Scotland was subsidised. Why cannot the First Minister also stand up for Scotland and challenge firmly all those who want to do us down?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Those of us who genuinely believe in and stand up for Scotland do not use the word "subsidy" for the precise reason that it has all sorts of meanings that we do not want to associate with Scotland.

It is absolutely right that Scotland's needs are identified in the United Kingdom financial settlement and that Scotland's geography, our population range, the age of our population and our social needs are recognised by the United Kingdom, and therefore that we receive more per head of population than many other areas do. That is absolutely right and I will defend it inside the United Kingdom. I will not use the Scottish National Party solution, which would mean that we were not even involved in the discussion. Not only would the money not come to Scotland, it would not even be there in the first place because the SNP would have taken Scotland out of the United Kingdom and brought about the end of that route to ensuring good public services throughout Scotland, and in rural Scotland in particular.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The First Minister misses the fact that we more than pay for what we get. I know that the First Minister is a bit of a beginner when it comes to standing up for Scotland, so I offer him some advice: there is a lot more to standing up for Scotland than not supporting England in the world cup; challenging anyone who says that Scotland is subsidised would be a far better place to start.

I suggest to the First Minister that the best way for the subsidy argument to be settled once and for all would be for Scotland to take responsibility for its own finances to prove that if independent, we would be not only the best, but one of the wealthiest small countries in the world. If the First Minister were really interested in standing up for Scotland, he would argue that too.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Even if the case for independence deserved any scrutiny whatsoever, we know that, under the SNP, Scotland would have all kinds of promises of increased spending at the same time as promises of reduced taxation, and therefore a budget that would never balance, a country that would be full of economic insecurity and jobs that would be lost. Scotland would be in a worse position than it is today.

The priorities of this Parliament and devolved Government remain as they should be—to improve Scotland's schools, to deliver improved health, more jobs and a stronger economy, and to ensure that we tackle crime.

Although the SNP would build new embassies in places such as the Seychelles, we build schools in Scotland. Although the SNP would build border patrols, we ensure that we put more police on the beat. Those are the choices in Scotland, and next year, the people of Scotland will make the right choice—this devolved Government, its record and its plans for the future.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2394)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of immediate importance to the people of Scotland at that time.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Does the First Minister agree with Professor Kerr, who said to the Parliament's Health Committee on 20 September:

"we have said as often and as rationally as possible that we would prefer to treat patients as close to home as possible."—[Official Report, Health Committee, 20 September 2005; c 2169.]

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Of course.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

That was an unexpected and encouraging answer. Bearing in mind the sentiment that was expressed by Professor Kerr and the importance that the public place on local access to health care, in particular to accident and emergency services, does the First Minister think that Professor Kerr's view is reflected in Lanarkshire NHS Board's decision to close the A and E department at Monklands hospital?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I cannot comment in detail on the recommendations from Lanarkshire NHS Board, first, because ministers must follow a due process before announcing any decision to allow the proposals to go ahead or otherwise and, secondly, because the Minister for Health and Community Care and I have very direct constituency interests in the proposals. Therefore, rightly, the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care will have sole responsibility for making a decision on the proposals. I hope that members will agree that that is right.

It is essential that we do two things throughout Scotland in relation to the critical treatment in our hospitals. First, we must ensure that people can receive the highest quality specialist care and treatment in locations in each geographical area in Scotland. That is the strategy as outlined by Professor Kerr and the one that has been adopted by the health ministers, the devolved Government and local health boards. Secondly, it is equally important that, in each area of Scotland, we upgrade the other services to ensure that more people can be treated in their local area and that more people can be treated on the spot. One of the most significant changes in our health service in recent years has been in the ability of paramedics and ambulance staff to deal with people on the spot, before they are taken to an accident and emergency unit. Through that process, we will save more lives and treat people more quickly. The investment in front-line services must be seen alongside the need to centralise and specialise the more acute treatment in a way that retains the top-quality surgeons and consultants to work with those who need their skills.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Quite simply, the very direct interests to which the First Minister refers are that the accident and emergency facilities in Mr Kerr's constituency and those in the First Minister's constituency are safe. Those are indeed very direct interests.

I remind the First Minister that, regardless of what he said about health boards, ultimately, the buck stops with him and his Labour-Lib Dem Executive, which is responsible for the overall health service. Something just does not add up. Since 1999, annual Health Department spending has increased by a massive £4 billion, which is a huge cash injection. The spending for this year alone is £9 billion. Will the First Minister therefore explain why, over that same period, we have seen a troubling pattern of numerous hospitals being closed down, downgraded or placed under threat? To name but a few, the hospitals affected have included Stobhill hospital, the Vale of Leven hospital, Perth royal infirmary, St John's hospital, Ayr hospital and the cottage hospitals in Jedburgh and Coldstream. More and more health care is being centralised. The Scottish public have paid the tax and the First Minister claims to have increased spending hugely, so why are many vital local services under threat?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is important to look forward rather than back, but it is also important to remember that the Conservatives have absolutely no right to talk about the state of the health service in Scotland, given the damage that they did to it during their 18 years in power. Until they apologise for that damage and their appalling performance in Government, they will not be listened to in the Parliament. The reality is that we are now seeing improvements in the delivery of services. The reorganisation of health services has led to the delivery of more care and treatment closer to people in their communities and to the delivery of treatment on the spot by paramedics, rather than after paramedics have driven people to hospital in ambulances. That immediate treatment in the community and on the spot, when people are ill or require treatment, is a vital part of our new national health service.

Alongside that, we have the results, such as the lowest waiting times ever. We set targets that both main Opposition parties said would never be met. They had no confidence in the health service staff and they could not even congratulate them when the targets were achieved. The targets ensured that waiting times for out-patients and in-patients first went down to six months and have now reduced even further. There have also been reductions in the waiting lists, not only in the list of those who are waiting for treatment as designated by medical staff, but also in the number of people whom medical staff have asked to wait. Those dramatic improvements in our health service are a result not only of investment, but of reorganisation and reform. We must ensure that Professor Kerr's principles, which all members in the Parliament welcomed, are implemented properly in every part of Scotland.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Does the First Minister agree that NHS Lanarkshire displayed an arrogant and shameful aloofness in failing to respond to any of the concerns that were raised by me or my colleagues, or any of the 45,000 people who signed our petition demanding that we retain accident and emergency services at Monklands hospital? Does he further agree that the failure seriously to consider and respond to the case for Monklands, which cares for some of the sickest and poorest people in Lanarkshire, proves that the so-called consultation exercise was actually a deceitful sham and that that disastrous decision will be detrimental to my constituents? Finally, and most important, will he respond to my request for an independent review of the decision?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have made it clear that it would be inappropriate for me to comment in detail on that for two reasons: first, because of the constituency interest; secondly, because of the fact that the ministers have to go through a proper process before making a decision on that recommendation from Lanarkshire NHS Board. It is important to note that Lanarkshire NHS Board held its meeting in public on Tuesday and that it debated the issue for four hours; the process is therefore far more transparent and open than it was in the past.

I can confirm that Lewis Macdonald will consider all the representations that are made to him before he makes a decision. This morning, he held a meeting with Cathie Craigie, Elaine Smith and Karen Whitefield. I have no doubt that they made strong representations to him—as they have done throughout the process—and will continue to do so. He will consider those representations before coming to a decision.

Brian Monteith (Independent, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I shall take a less hard-boiled approach.

To ask the First Minister, in light of recent and on-going concerns over salmonella linked to Spanish egg imports, what action the Scottish Executive will take to ensure that outbreaks traced back to these imports do not undermine the Scottish egg industry. (S2F-2405)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The possibility of salmonella contamination from United Kingdom-produced eggs is very low. Were the Food Standards Agency to receive any evidence that infected eggs were being imported to the UK, we would expect it to consider appropriate action.

Brian Monteith (Independent, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the First Minister for his assurance, but I fear that it does not go far enough. The British lion quality mark or a similar standard is a guarantee against salmonella. Can the First Minister offer further assurance that no school, hospital or prison in Scotland is using Spanish imported eggs, which would put at risk the most vulnerable in society?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I cannot speak for every egg bought or boiled in Scotland. Our information is that the Spanish eggs to which Mr Monteith refers are not, to the knowledge of the Food Standards Agency, currently being imported into Scotland or the rest of the UK. If there was a suggestion that those eggs or other such eggs were coming into the UK, clearly the FSA would be the right authority to investigate it. I wish to assure people, particularly those who use the facilities that were mentioned by Mr Monteith, that the vast majority of eggs purchased in Scotland are Scottish. I would strongly encourage public bodies in Scotland, and families in Scotland, to buy Scottish eggs, in particular Scottish free-range eggs. I am certain that those eggs are the best in the business and that people will enjoy eating them.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

You could have another question.

Brian Monteith (Independent, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am unscrambled.

The most recent survey showed that there have been 6,000 cases of salmonella—indeed, there have been 16 deaths from salmonella—as a result of infected eggs in Britain, but that the countries that produce such eggs include Spain, which is one of the countries from which we import. Will the First Minister assure us that, even in the Parliament, eggs from Spain are not being used?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not know how long Brian Monteith was standing in the sun yesterday, but he is looking a bit fried today. As I said, my information is that there is no knowledge of Spanish imports to the UK, or to Scotland in particular. If there is any concern in the FSA about that matter, I am certain that it will look into it. People can have every confidence that the FSA does its job very well and that it will look into the matter properly.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive plans to challenge energy companies whose price rises risk jeopardising the Executive's action to address fuel poverty. (S2F-2398)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Minister for Communities has today written to energy companies seeking an urgent meeting to discuss what more can be done to protect the most vulnerable, especially the elderly, from the impact of energy price rises.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I have concerns regarding how support can be extended to those who are in receipt of a small occupational pension that puts them beyond the current benefits system. Will the First Minister undertake to ensure that the discussions with energy companies take account of that significant group? Will he further undertake to consider expanding the central heating and insulation programmes to ensure that we remain on target to eradicate fuel poverty?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Devolved Government in Scotland has had many considerable achievements, one of which has been the tackling of fuel poverty. The 63,000 central heating systems that have been installed, the 230,000 insulated homes and the nine out of 10 people who got those services and have lifted themselves out of fuel poverty in recent years are testament to the value of devolution and the actions that we have taken.

This year, we are in the process of expanding and extending those programmes. In particular, we are extending the service to replace broken central heating systems to those who have pension credit. That is a positive move. As we review annually the groups in most need, we will look to include other groups in the years to come. In the short term, the Minister for Communities will raise the matters that Margaret Jamieson has mentioned in his meetings with the energy companies.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

What steps will the First Minister take to ensure that all vulnerable senior citizens who are customers of Scottish Power are encouraged to register with Scottish Power, which will then guarantee that their power will not be cut off in the event of non-payment of their bill?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Parliament has taken measures to deal with the debt that can sometimes give rise to that situation. The new measures and the advice that goes alongside them are helping people in communities the length and breadth of Scotland. I am sure that additional issues will affect the way in which particular companies handle situations in which customers have difficulty in paying their bills. The Minister for Communities will be happy not only to raise the issue with the energy companies, but to discuss the matter with John Swinburne in advance of that.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what concerns the Scottish Executive has regarding increases in referrals to the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration on non-offence grounds and what the reasons are for these increases. (S2F-2401)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We have concerns about vulnerable children. The increase in referrals to the SCRA is potentially evidence of increasing confidence in the system and increased priority being given to the needs of vulnerable children by the agencies that make those referrals. The Deputy Minister for Education and Young People recently established a joint group to consider whether referrals are being used properly and how agencies can work more effectively together.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Why has the additional funding that was sought by the SCRA recently to help it to deal with the significant increase in the number of referrals not been granted? Does not the First Minister agree that, given that increase, now is not the time to postpone review of the children's hearings system? Is it not the case that the review has been postponed because only two of the Government's 4,400 civil servants have been working on the review of the children's hearings system, which is now seeing upwards of 54,000 referrals a year?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No, that is completely untrue. The children's hearings system is a significant priority for this devolved Government, and we have been improving it, over recent years, through increased investment, improved procedures and support for the children's panel members—in particular, the recruitment and training of new children's panel members. That work, which has been a significant priority, is delivering results for the SCRA and, more important, for the children and families who are affected by the work of the hearings system.

The children's hearings bill has been replaced in the legislative programme for one reason and one reason alone—the fact that the important recommendations of Bichard on the protection of children and vulnerable adults need to be implemented by the Parliament and we had to find a slot in the legislative timetable to do that. If the SNP is calling for us to drop the Bichard bill and replace it with a children's hearings bill, people in Scotland will be shocked by that announcement.

We in Scotland need to make the legislative changes that will protect vulnerable children and adults, but we also have to have an efficient, properly financed and effective children's hearings system as part of the wider child protection system, which needs reformed. Reforms are taking place to ensure that people consult one another properly and put the children first in our schools, doctors' surgeries and local child protection services. Those reforms are having an impact. Where they do not have an impact, we will take action against those who are responsible.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Does the First Minister agree that one of the concerns is that although the number of referrals to the reporters is rising substantially, most of those who are referred do not need compulsory measures of care and should therefore perhaps not have been referred to the system in the first place? Does he further agree that what is needed is better partnership working between the police, social services and the reporter service to ensure that the services that children in need require are delivered without those children having to be referred to the reporter service in the first place?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That is of course an important point, which was put constructively. The need to analyse the new referrals to the children's hearings administration is part of the responsible work of Government. Yes, we welcome the fact that more agencies are willing to report more cases to the children's hearings system, because they have more confidence in it than they perhaps had a few years ago. At the same time, it is likely that many of the referrals could be dealt with more effectively and more quickly in other ways. That is precisely why the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People has established the joint group to ensure that where children need attention and where their lives need repair, the agencies involved deal with that quickly, rather than passing the buck to anybody else.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does the First Minister agree—he seems to, given his earlier reply—that early intervention is vital when dealing with vulnerable youngsters, regardless of whether they are referred on offence or non-offence grounds? Does he accept that the Executive's failure to increase the range of disposals that are available to children's hearings, such as drug treatment and testing orders, and the lack of secure places mean that those young people are dealt with according to the resources that are available as opposed to according to their needs?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Of course it is important to have early intervention, particularly in cases that require care and the attention of different services. In order to secure that, it is important to ensure that those services work properly with one another. Far too many of the tragic cases that we have seen in Scotland and elsewhere have happened as a direct result of different agencies at local level—sometimes even at national level—not talking to one another to share information that could have saved a child's life or helped ensure that their life was repaired in advance of their adolescent years, when things can go seriously off the rails. That is an important principle.

Secondly, for those who require to be placed in secure accommodation because of the behaviour in which they have been involved, it is important that we have better and more secure accommodation. That is precisely why we have been investing in new secure accommodation. Some opened recently in Airdrie and there will be more over this next period. That secure accommodation is more effective in turning around those young lives than some of the secure accommodation that we have seen in the past.

The police and the councils need more disposals, too. I noticed that Margaret Mitchell said on Tuesday that we were wrong to introduce antisocial behaviour orders and other measures in our actions in this Parliament. It is precisely those measures that will help with the early intervention to stop young people committing the offences in the first place. I wish that those who occasionally show an interest in this topic would be consistent from one day to the next and support the measures that are required in all areas of care and protection and tackling youth offences.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister whether the forthcoming sentencing bill will be used to address the issue of hate crime. (S2F-2406)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As we set out in last week's legislative statement, measures on hate crime will not be included in the sentencing bill. However, this Government is committed to tackling prejudice in all its forms. We will look at that again once we receive the Sentencing Commission for Scotland report on this issue in August.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Last week's statement generated much confusion about the Executive's intentions on hate crime, given that clear commitments had been made that the proposed sentencing bill would contain new measures. Can the First Minister clear up the confusion now? If aggravated sentences are not the means by which the Executive wants to address the issue of hate crime, does the First Minister intend to abolish aggravated sentences for racist and sectarian crimes? If not—that is, if aggravated sentences are seen to be the correct mechanism in that regard—why has the sentencing bill suddenly become the wrong legislative vehicle?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The working group—whose work was supported by all sides in the chamber—never suggested that the only way in which to deal with hate crimes was to treat them as aggravated offences. As the Minister for Justice confirmed to members of that working group today, the other measures that were contained in the group's report will help to ensure that agencies respond properly to hate crime and that individuals are punished for hate crime in a way that is appropriate. At the same time, there is an issue about the need to ensure that we have a consistent approach to aggravated sentencing and other related matters. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for us to legislate on one issue in the sentencing bill and it would be far more appropriate for us to await the report of the Sentencing Commission, which will appear in August, and to respond thereafter.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Health and Community Care

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

To ask the Scottish Executive what contribution the Golden Jubilee national hospital in Clydebank is making to addressing waiting times and what plans it has for the hospital. (S2O-10367)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The Golden Jubilee national hospital is a very important resource to NHS Scotland and, indeed, to our citizens. It provides real benefits to patients by carrying out investigations and operations, thus helping to reduce waiting times, particularly for those who have waited longest.

We set out our plans for the hospital in "Fair to All, Personal to Each", published in December 2004. It has already delivered the annual activity target of 28,000 procedures set out in that document, two years ahead of schedule. Next year, it is planned that the hospital will be expanded to embrace the new west of Scotland regional heart and lung centre, which will increase activity to around 38,000 procedures annually.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

There is no doubt that the Golden Jubilee hospital has been a great success story. Is the minister aware that hundreds of potential patients for the cardio-thoracic centre were at the hospital on Monday to hear a presentation from doctors marking the start of building works associated with the opening of the fourth floor as the cardio-thoracic centre? Those works will involve eight new high-quality theatres and a large number of intensive care beds. That is a real step forward for the health service. Will the minister come to the hospital again in the near future?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

It is always a pleasure to visit the Golden Jubilee, an asset that is now part of our NHS. Not only do we have those new theatres, we have—as I have seen on all my visits to the hospital—very happy patients as a result of their interventions. We also have extremely happy staff. The hospital has the latest technology, equipment, training and skills and it provides an excellent service. The 2,000 cardiac surgery procedures, the 2,500 thoracic surgery procedures, the 15 heart transplants, the 1,700 angioplasties and the 3,700 angiographies will be a huge change in the way in which we deliver health care in Scotland. The hospital will deliver all of those interventions on behalf of patients and their families.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many dental practices in Fife deregistered patients from NHS lists in the last year for which figures are available. (S2O-10357)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

In the year to 31 March 2006, one dental practice in Fife ended the NHS registration of more than 2,500 patients and a further four practices deregistered between 100 and 1,000 patients.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

I take this opportunity to thank the minister for Fife's designated area status, which has helped to address this problem. I also thank him for opening our new dental access centre in Kirkcaldy. However, does the minister agree that those measures are not enough on their own to meet demand? Will he congratulate practices in my constituency—such as Templehall—that have recently increased their number of NHS patients? Does the minister believe that more practices can be encouraged to return to the NHS, thus helping to achieve the Executive's aim of improving oral health for everybody in our communities?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I am happy to acknowledge practices such as Templehall that have expanded their NHS lists and improved their premises with support from the Scottish dental access initiative. That is good use of public money that enables patients to improve their access to NHS services. If we are to achieve access for as many people as possible, we need independent high street dentists such as Templehall that are prepared to grow their NHS lists, and we need a salaried service such as the one to which Marilyn Livingstone referred, which is being provided at a number of places in her constituency and across Fife.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question 3 is not lodged.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what conclusions have been reached regarding the distribution of NHS board expenditure between different parts of Scotland. (S2O-10320)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

No conclusions have been reached.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

There has been some indication that ministers may wish to realign resources more closely to deprivation and need. I can sympathise with that wish, but in rural areas pockets of deprivation tend to be small, with the result that they are not caught by many of our statistical measurements—but they are very real nonetheless. Will the minister assure me that that factor will be taken into account in any conclusions?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The job of the group that was established in March 2005 is to improve and refine the current formula for the distribution of resources. I refer the member to the following quotation from Nicola Sturgeon:

"The Scottish Executive is considering diverting cash from some of the more affluent parts of Scotland to help Glasgow back to health ... I am 100% behind that. It'll cause uproar in some other Scots towns and cities, for sure, but that's tough".

The Executive's job is to ensure that we allocate our resources effectively to the communities that most require them. The overall budget for health has risen from £4.7 billion to nigh on £9.5 billion. As we go through our process of aligning resources with need, we will take account of the matters that the member mentioned and he can rest assured that the money will be well spent and well allocated.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Is the minister aware of the concerns that exist in Lanarkshire about the apparent Arbuthnott funding shortfall? Given that Lanarkshire NHS Board's recent disgraceful decision to downgrade Monklands hospital was based ultimately on cost and was arrived at through dubious financial considerations, which might even break Treasury guidelines, can the minister tell me whether the board has received fair and appropriate funding since 1999? If not, what can be done about the situation? My constituents and people right across the county cannot be expected to pay the health price of a downgraded accident and emergency service at Monklands simply because of a lack of funding.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am sure that the Parliament is aware of my unwillingness to enter into some of the details of that issue. It is appropriate that those matters have been strictly the responsibility of the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, so I am not prepared to go into the detail of the member's question.

As I have said, the health service's budget has grown from £4.7 billion in 1997 to £9.5 billion. On the Arbuthnott formula in general, it would have been irresponsible of any Government to adopt a new formula on day 1 of a new financial year and to redistribute resources immediately. I believe strongly that that would have had radical and detrimental effects on health elsewhere in the country. We are working to what we call the Arbuthnott floor, to ensure that we gradually close the gap between the allocation from the Arbuthnott formula and the resources that are received by individual health authorities. We are closing that gap.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the minister agree that although the campaign for the retention of services at Monklands hospital will and indeed should, continue, neither the health board nor the campaigners should suggest that there is any relationship at all between the distribution of services between Monklands and Wishaw and South Lanarkshire's retention of access to an accident and emergency service? Will he assure us that, regardless of what happens to Monklands, the management and staff at Hairmyres hospital can look forward to planning for the future in the confidence that East Kilbride and the surrounding area will have an accident and emergency service that is fit for purpose?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am sure that the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care will take all those matters into account.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I want to return to the original question. I am sure that I am not the only member who represents the north-east who has concerns that Grampian might be in line to be a loser under the new funding formula—the deputy minister might share some of my concerns. Given that the minister has previously acknowledged that there are areas of severe deprivation in Grampian, will he assure me that when the allocation of funding is considered, those areas will receive the same treatment as areas in central and west Scotland so that the health of the north-east does not suffer as a result of the financial redistribution?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Under Karen Facey, the resource allocation committee is examining how the distribution formula can be refined and developed; it is not throwing it out or rubbishing it. The principle behind the review is to ensure that we continue to make resources follow the need in our communities.

Additional and separate resources are being put into our health service to tackle deprivation in Scotland. For example, the prevention 2010 initiative will receive £25 million of funding on top of all the other resources that the Labour-led Administration is allocating to health. Those additional resources will make a difference. In my view, that approach fits well with the recommendations of the David Kerr report and "Delivering for Health", which says that we must identify risk in the most challenged communities, prevent and anticipate ill health and deal with it at the appropriate time. That happens all over Scotland, not just in deprived areas.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive which local authorities in the Highlands and Islands are fully meeting the Executive's commitment to free personal care for the elderly and which are not. (S2O-10342)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

All local authorities must provide personal and nursing care without charge where that care is assessed as necessary to meet the needs of people over 65. We are working with councils in the Highlands and across Scotland to secure full implementation of this policy.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I asked the minister which authorities had and which had not fully met the commitment; he did not answer the question. Recent figures show that 382 people in the Highland area and 43 people in the Moray area are waiting to be assessed. I have heard that Lorne and the Isles hospital in Argyll and Bute has record bed blocking, that there are no referrals to residential or nursing care and that there are no direct payments for home care packages other than attendance allowance.

People have been waiting months for an assessment. They are giving up hope. They do not know when funding will be made available. The Executive says that it is not its fault; the council says that it is not its fault. When will someone take responsibility for this crisis? Will the minister give a commitment today that all those who are entitled to free personal care will receive it and that he will reverse the current situation that sees elderly people suffer while national and local politicians squabble over whose fault it is?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I do not accept the premise of Mr McGrigor's question. I reiterate my first point: we are working with councils in the Highlands and across Scotland to secure full implementation of this policy. Responsibility for delivering detailed implementation on the ground clearly lies with local authorities. In many cases, local authorities deliver services by working in partnership with local health boards. Across the Highlands and Islands, I look to that partnership to continue to work to address the issues.

The figures that Mr McGrigor quoted for the elderly people who are waiting for various services to be provided under the community care budget are snapshot figures. They are from February and relate to different services, some of which take time to put in place and others of which should be delivered promptly. Mr McGrigor simplifies the issue, but there is a degree of complexity to the way in which services are best delivered. We are working on the ground with councils to address those complicated issues and to ensure full implementation of the policy.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The minister is aware of my continuing anger and frustration with Argyll and Bute Council, which is failing to meet the needs of elderly people in Helensburgh and Lomond. I welcome the council's very recent announcement that it has found extra money for care of the elderly—is it not amazing what can be achieved when one sets one's mind to it? That said, the money is not enough, particularly in view of the council's underspend last year of some £2 million on its funding from the Executive.

The chamber will have to forgive me for being cynical, but the £700,000 that the council is putting in is exactly the sum that it will get from NHS resource transfer. Does the minister agree that this could well be a case of smoke and mirrors on the part of the council? Will he immediately send in a social work inspection team to ensure that older people in my constituency do not have to suffer any further?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I am, of course, very aware of Jackie Baillie's continuing interest in these matters. Indeed, I met the leader, the chief executive and other senior councillors and officials of Argyll and Bute Council last week to ascertain whether there are any particular reasons for some of the evident difficulties the council has had delivering the services that it is obliged to deliver. I am pleased to say that the council responded to me this week. It has made it clear that it will make additional funding available. I will seek to assure myself that the money is indeed additional and that it will be put to the uses that I discussed at the meeting last week.

I expect to see the joint improvement team's continued involvement in the Argyll area. The members of that team are already working with Argyll and Bute Council and NHS Highland. I also expect new engagement by the Social Work Inspection Agency, to ensure that these services are secured and delivered as they ought to be.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question 6 is not lodged.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

To ask the Scottish Executive what recent discussions have taken place with NHS boards regarding transport difficulties of staff, patients, families and visitors in travelling to and from hospitals. (S2O-10338)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Transport is a significant issue that NHS boards must take account of in the design and delivery of local health services. We wrote to boards last November reminding them of the requirements that are placed on them by the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005 and of the need to work closely with the new regional transport partnerships. Boards have also been advised that, when they submit a proposal for a service change for approval, I expect the impact of the proposed change on the travel arrangements for patients, carers, visitors and staff to have been fully assessed.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I speak as a veteran of many discussions with NHS Tayside, in which transport difficulties are raised but never resolved.

Given the recent controversies about car parking charges in several health board areas in Scotland and the transport difficulties that arise from the centralisation of services—some of which have been mentioned—does the minister agree that it is time for him to get together with the Minister for Transport to ensure that the lack of adequate transport throughout Scotland, particularly as a result of increasingly centralised hospital services, is accorded the priority it deserves?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The member assumes that I have not made representations to or had discussions with the Minister for Transport. About three weeks into my job as Minister for Health and Community Care, I sat down with the then Minister for Transport, Nicol Stephen, to discuss those matters. Just last week, I was at a conference that involved all the transport players in Scotland, including local authorities, health boards, the voluntary sector and other providers, with the aim of ensuring that we begin to get our act together on transport in relation to our hospitals and health service.

I have sent to the member a copy of a lengthy letter that I received from the chair of Tayside NHS Board, which reflects more accurately the intention behind the board's charging regime. The intention is that those who currently pay £1.50 to park at Ninewells hospital will continue to do so but, in car parks 5 and 6, where people have been parking for overly long, a higher fee will be charged. I want that to happen, because the aim is to dissuade from parking there people who should not park there and to allow space for patients and their families and others to visit the hospital. The vast majority of patients who visit Ninewells will pay the £1.50 charge, because they use the car parks appropriately.

Several other transport measures are being taken in Tayside. Local authority transport divisions are considering travel issues, the acute balance of care project is considering the links between Perth royal infirmary and Ninewells hospital and Dundee City Council is doing work that relates specifically to Ninewells. There is a new terminus at Ninewells and extensive public transport information is provided—we should remember how that can work for patients. In Angus, the Whitehills health and community care centre has a transport group. Many measures are being taken in Tayside and elsewhere in Scotland, but I am not complacent about the issue and I understand the difficulties and challenges. Transport provision for patients and families is important, but it needs to be managed, which sometimes involves charging.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Does the minister agree that NHS Lanarkshire took the decision to downgrade accident and emergency services at Monklands hospital without having a proper and workable transport strategy in place? Does he further agree that the board's failure to guarantee a shuttle service between sites in the Lanarkshire area should not lead us to hold out much hope that it will get that right in the future?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I can only refer the member to my previous answer, which was that those matters are for the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, who must take them into consideration in coming to a conclusion on the issue.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The minister will be aware that Lothian NHS Board and West Lothian Council jointly subsidise buses from West Lothian to Edinburgh royal infirmary, following the change in services in the area. Will the minister, in his discussions with the Minister for Transport, seek to come to an agreement about elderly and disabled people who have concessionary bus passes being allowed to use those passes on that service?