Scottish Parliament, 11 January 2007

401 contributions from 85 members. The official report.

Official Report 11 January 2007

Skills Academies

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5386, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on education—

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. No member of the Executive is here to respond to the debate. Is it competent for the debate to proceed without a member of the Executive to move the Executive's amendment and respond to the debate?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

That is a matter for the Executive. No doubt members note your point, but the situation does not prevent the debate from continuing.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a further point of order, Presiding Officer, the subject of this morning's debate is education, with specific reference to skills academies. The motion that we have lodged refers to skills academies, as does the amendment that Fiona Hyslop lodged on behalf of the Scottish National Party. However, the Executive's amendment, in the name of Robert Brown—who is absent from the chamber—does not refer to skills academies. Is that amendment competent, given that it does not address the subject of the debate?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

As you will be aware, Mr Fraser, I put considerable thought into the selection of amendments and I have done so in this case. However, I very rarely give any degree of explanation on the matter.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer, as the First Minister has made an announcement in support of skills academies, I refer to the ministerial code and seek an examination of whether any civil service time or public money was used for that announcement. As the Executive has chosen not to include the matter in its amendment, it is clear that the First Minister's announcement was on behalf of the Labour Party, not the Liberal Democrat-Labour Executive.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

You will be aware, Ms Hyslop, that complaints that relate to the ministerial code are a matter for the First Minister, not for me. I suggest that you write to him on the matter. Can we now carry on?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am pleased that we have got here, Presiding Officer.

We in the Scottish Conservative party have for many years championed the principle of extending to youngsters of school age the opportunity for vocational education. We believe that a system in which all children must concentrate fully on academic subjects after the age of 14 is increasingly out of date and that such an approach fails to meet the needs of our economy, given that employers tell us continually that school leavers often do not have the skills that employers seek. The current system fails too many youngsters, who are simply turned off by academic subjects and would welcome the opportunity for more vocational learning, which might help to motivate them to engage more fully with the school environment. We all know about the horrific statistics on the increase in school indiscipline and levels of truancy in the past eight years, which I do not need to repeat today.

In promoting those ideas, it has, as always, been the Scottish Conservatives' ambition to promote a consensus and to seek to win friends for our approach. I am delighted that we seem to be winning converts to our cause. Other parties in the Parliament have in the past expressed their support for extending vocational education to those who are aged 14 and above although, to be fair, different approaches have been suggested as to how that might be implemented in practice.

The latest convert is no less a person than the First Minister. Speaking at Labour's conference in Manchester in September, Jack McConnell acknowledged the problem of underachievement in our schools:

"we can no longer tolerate the tail of underachievement. The bottom 20% for whom standards have failed to rise significantly since 1999—their achievements, opportunities and aspirations are a national priority.

We must inspire those who are turned off by school. We must help those young Scots who leave school to do nothing.

We will drive up standards in maths and English, specifically to give every young person the opportunity to pass a tough literacy and numeracy test before they leave school.

And I want centres of excellence in schools and colleges—to provide all young Scots with proper vocational options from the age of 14.

So today conference, I can announce that the 2007 Labour manifesto for Scotland will commit to new Skills Academies creating new opportunities in every part of Scotland."

I would struggle to put it better myself.

The idea of skills academies is welcome, and is one on which I hope a new consensus will emerge. We therefore lodged our motion in the expectation that it would have broad support from throughout the Parliament, particularly from Labour members. We are thus rather disappointed that the Executive's amendment does not even mention skills academies, never mind give the idea the fulsome support that we might have expected from the language that Mr McConnell used just a few months ago. What can be behind the situation? Surely it cannot be another example of the Labour Party letting its junior partner in the coalition run roughshod over it. [Applause.] I welcome the Minister for Education and Young People to the chamber. He has made a rather belated appearance, but he is welcome nonetheless.

Surely we have another example of the Liberal Democrat tail wagging the Labour dog. The irony is that, in the past, the Liberal Democrats expressed support for more vocational education. One might think that Liberal Democrat members would have a special interest in upskilling the workforce at this time. According to a YouGov poll that was reported yesterday, Liberal Democrat representation in the Parliament after the election in May will fall to a mere 14 members. I might have thought that the three Liberal Democrat MSPs who are facing redundancy and who will have to seek employment in the real world after May would be keen to acquire the skills that are necessary for the workforce. However, the Liberal Democrats are putting their party-political ideology ahead of the greater good and the interests of Scotland's youngsters.

What might skills academies look like? The pronouncements from the First Minister have not contained a great deal of detail, so perhaps Labour members can further enlighten us today. A figure of 100 skills academies has been mentioned. I cannot imagine that they will all be new stand-alone schools, so I imagine that some at least will be within existing school campuses. Work is already being done on that. On Monday, I visited Forfar academy, where part of the school building is being converted into a vocational training centre, as part of a partnership between the school and Angus College. The development will give youngsters access to vocational training in various trades in the school environment. That is a welcome initiative, and I am sure that it can be replicated elsewhere in the country.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If one of the candidates for redundancy wants to intervene, I am happy to give way.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The development that Murdo Fraser mentions is interesting but, of course, it is not a skills academy. How does he envisage skills academies working in places such as rural Aberdeenshire in my constituency, where there are few academies and people must travel many miles to attend them? Where would he place the skills academies?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I shall happily expand on that point in due course, but perhaps Mr Rumbles might want to address the question to his Executive colleagues, who of course are the ones who have raised the issue. Perhaps the Minister for Education and Young People, in responding to the debate, might want to address the issue, given that skills academies are, we believe, a Labour Party proposal.

We should have stand-alone skills academies. The Conservatives have in the past argued for a city academy in Glasgow to provide vocational training as an alternative approach to education for the city's youngsters. I hope that the First Minister is inclined to support that sort of initiative.

There is no doubt that Scotland's employers are concerned about the need to address skills gaps, particularly among school leavers. Gerard Eadie, who is the chairman of CR Smith and the vice-chair of the Prince's Trust Scotland, has spoken out on the issue, saying that the advantage of vocational education is that it helps to impart soft skills, such as those relating to teamwork and discipline, and even literacy and numeracy skills, as well as the acquisition of hard skills. Other employers groups, such as the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, have welcomed the idea of skills academies.

Some people will say that the proposal is all about going back to a two-tier system of education. The dinosaur tendency among some of the teaching unions has taken just such an approach. Reacting to the idea of skills academies, a representative of the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association said:

"It is going back to the bad old days."

In the past, I heard the same argument from Labour members in the Parliament. However, that is not what the idea is all about—it is about giving all youngsters the opportunity to access a different type of education. It is also about acknowledging that many young people in our school system simply are not engaged with academic work, and that providing vocational education will be of particular benefit to them. The First Minister was quoted in the Sunday Herald on 24 September as saying:

"Vocational courses will motivate kids who are maybe heading off the rails and give them a subject that really interests them."

We know that we have a serious problem in Scotland with youngsters who are not in employment, education or training. The proposal is part of the answer to that problem.

I am glad that the debate on Scottish education is starting to move on. I have never believed that we need a one-size-fits-all approach to education. Too many of Scotland's youngsters have not been well served by that approach in recent years. Opening up opportunities to vocational education and creating skills academies will be good for the education system, good for our economy and employers and, in particular, good for our nation's youngsters.

I hope that there will be support throughout the chamber for our motion, which is about taking Scotland forward.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that our education system should provide children with opportunities to flourish along the lines of their own particular aptitudes and inclinations; notes that for many children over the age of 14 this could predominantly involve activity in a practical or vocational sphere, rather than in a traditional academic one, and welcomes the proposal to establish skills academies, be they stand-alone or attached to schools or colleges, depending on what is most appropriate for a local area, as centres of excellence to extend opportunities to access vocational education to students from the age of 14.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Before I speak, I would like to apologise to the chamber—

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it fair and proper that a minister who appears three quarters of the way through the opening speech of a debate is then called to respond to it?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

While it is not satisfactory, Mr Gallie, there is nothing to stop it, and I think that Mr Brown was about to apologise for that fact.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Yes, Presiding Officer. I am sorry that I was late, but there was a misunderstanding in my diary about the order in which this morning's debates were being dealt with. I apologise to Murdo Fraser for missing about half of his speech. However, I hope that I can pick up on some of the issues that he dealt with when I make my closing speech. We are aware of the issues in this debate.

There is a sense in which education—in terms of its importance, its life-enhancing power and the doors that it can open—defines Scotland and Scotland's identity in the world. Traditionally, we have had a view of education that has been practical and has had practical skills at its core.

Engineering, trade, enterprise, medicine, the law and inventions are the sort of areas that are distinctive to Scotland and in which Scotland has made a distinguished contribution over the years.

Today, every nation with foresight and ambition is investing in education. They recognise, as everyone in this Parliament does, that education and skills are the key to the future in this global age. Underlying today's debate is a belief on all sides of the chamber that we need an educated and highly skilled population and that we cannot afford to lose young people from the workforce. We must ensure that they are able to live rewarding lives rather than ending up as casualties of the social divisions, deprivation and challenges that face some of them at the start of their lives. The effects of many of those challenges play themselves out in schools and, to address those challenges, our education system and our wider social policies and attitudes must respond.

In opening today's debate for the Scottish Executive, it is absolutely right to say that we have devoted a large part of our effort since 1999 to strengthening our education system. The narrative in our amendment about the new and refurbished schools, increased teacher numbers and stable industrial relations in particular is not just a list of some of the good things that we have done since 1999—although we have done a lot of good things—it represents the necessary building blocks to give teachers the best potential to teach, to give students the best opportunities to learn, to encourage the great educational leaders whom we need at all levels and to reduce the numbers who fall out of the system.

To put that in context, a day or two ago I read the report that was published last month by the joint performance team that measures progress towards a smart, successful Scotland. It reveals substantial and solid progress in key areas since 1999. It shows that Scottish gross domestic product per head is up by half as much again as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average; that we have a higher employment rate than the rest of the UK—and one that is growing faster as well; that we have higher rates of academic spin-outs per head from our universities than the United Kingdom as a whole, the United States of America or Canada; that we have the highest proportion of any part of the UK of young people achieving national vocational qualifications at level 3 or above; and that we have a high ranking among the best in the world on the programme for international student assessment, which benchmarks the performance of young people internationally in science, maths and reading.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The minister has not mentioned class sizes. The Executive's target was to have maximum class sizes of 20 for maths and English by May this year. Would he care to comment on the progress in that regard?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am delighted to comment on that. Central to what we have been doing is the number of teachers whom we have been putting into the system. By the class-size target date that Dave Petrie mentions, we will have 53,000 teachers in the system and class sizes will meet the targets that we set.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I need to press on. This is a short debate.

We know that there are particular challenges. For example, the educational attainment of looked-after children is more or less flat; the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training is unacceptable, as Murdo Fraser said; and too many young people are disengaging from learning. Those are long-term challenges to which we have increasingly been giving focused attention and in relation to which we absolutely require to succeed.

We are reforming the curriculum, which is going ahead under full steam. We are providing greater choice, in the interests of motivation, and more work-related options, including vocational learning in schools and colleges, as part of the school-based curriculum.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am sorry, I must proceed. I have only five minutes in which to speak.

We have already gone a long way towards our goals by giving young people over 14 the opportunity to undertake a college-based course as part of their school programme. Enterprise in education is a considerable success and is changing attitudes throughout the education system. We have established new skills for work courses to help pupils of all abilities to develop their employability skills and gain valuable insight into the world of work. Already, around 5,000 students are studying the pilot skills for work courses and the intention is to roll out those courses nationally from session 2007-08 and into other vocational areas.

There is, of course, much debate to be had about where those challenges take us. We must widen and deepen vocational options, develop partnerships between schools and colleges in new ways, continue to build on the highly successful modern apprenticeship schemes, develop better links between businesses and the education system, use youth work methods and approaches to re-engage those who are demotivated, and use the creative power of the arts, music, sport and, indeed, language and science to inspire and enthuse young people.

Education will continue to be central to the political debate as we approach the elections in May. The Scottish Government has achieved a great deal, has reanchored our education system to the pulse of our country and has laid the foundations for it to be the best education system in the world.

I move amendment S2M-5386.4, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:

"welcomes the priority given to improving education standards by the Scottish Executive, local authorities, schools and other partners; recognises that the Executive's investment in new and refurbished schools, increased teacher numbers, reducing class sizes, strong parental involvement and stable industrial relations is providing the right environment for real and lasting change for Scotland's children; welcomes the new opportunities that are being developed through A Curriculum for Excellence and Determined to Succeed, including enabling young people across Scotland aged 14 to 16 to undertake vocational learning in further education colleges as part of the school-based curriculum; believes that a strong and relevant education system is fundamental to securing a smart, successful Scotland in which all our 16 to 19 year-olds are in education, employment or training, and calls for steadily improving opportunities for young people to achieve success in education including, particularly, opportunities to study a wider range of vocational options."

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I thank the Conservatives for bringing this important subject for debate to the chamber. I want to concentrate on some of the things that we can all agree on.

We all agree that skills and vocational training for post-14 pupils is essential. The issue that we face is how to make progress on that aim and whether we have done enough to make progress. We also all agree that the school-college review was important in identifying the links between colleges and schools and that the skills for work programme and the qualifications that it provides are welcome.

However, there are concerns about the new pronouncements on skills academies. The absence of any reference to them in the minister's speech or amendment says more about the internal divisions in the Executive than anything else. Perhaps what has been placed before us is a diplomatic coalition fudge. However, let us leave the Executive to its internal divisions and address how we can improve skills, training, experience and opportunities for young people.

From the Education Committee's inquiry into pupil motivation, we know that pupils are telling us that they will not be motivated if the skills academies and vocational opportunities are just for those who do not have academic ability. What do employers and people in the trade organisations tell us? The Conservatives are fond of talking about plumbers, so let me tell them what Robert Burgon, the director and secretary of the Scottish and Northern Ireland Plumbing Employers Federation, said about the First Minister's announcement:

"It appears that our First Minister has decided that non-academic 14-year-olds should be removed from mainstream schooling to attend a skills academy to learn a trade, such as plumbing.

The Scottish plumbing industry has worked hard over many years to remove the idea that a career in plumbing is only for those who struggle with basic subjects ... this latest announcement bears all the signs that we have some way to go before we convince our leaders that following a vocational route is an acceptable alternative".

The plumbers and those in the skills federations want to ensure that people who have academic abilities can make that choice.

The Conservatives also like to quote the Headteachers Association of Scotland. It warns that the skills academies might attract the most disaffected pupils and could be

"a magnet for middle-ability pupils who see the vocational modules as an easier option than more academic subjects".

The association is concerned that the proposal could

"herald a return to old divisions between junior and senior secondary schools."

Do we want to provide skills and vocational opportunities for all, which is the SNP's position, or do we want to offer those opportunities on a selective basis, which is the Executive's proposition?

Murdo Fraser talked about Forfar academy, in SNP-led Angus Council's area, which demonstrates precisely the example that we need to follow. I suspect that the Labour Party's announcement on skills academies is an attempt to make it look as though it is trying to do something new, but it is a cop-out. The Executive is covering up what it has not done over the past few years, and SNP councils such as Angus Council are showing the way forward.

We can have skills bases and skills departments—we can even call them skills academies if they are within the mainstream operation of schools. Indeed, if the schools of ambition programme was extended from music and drama into vocational skills, perhaps that would be something else that we could agree on. However, if skills academies are just some kind of concept or marketing branding that is used to cover up what the Executive has not done, I am sorry, but we are not interested.

The pupils, the teachers, the employers and the skills federations are saying that they want real training with substance and opportunities for all. We should let the pupils decide whether they want to take the opportunity to learn vocational skills to gain the competencies that Murdo Fraser talked about or whether they want to pursue an academic route into further and higher education. That is the key choice, and it is what we should be debating.

I move amendment S2M-5386.2, to leave out from "for many children" to end and insert:

"most political parties have recognised the need for more vocational experiences for pupils over 14 since 2003 and is concerned about lack of progress in providing this to date; agrees with the position of the Schools and Colleges Review and the Parliament's Education Committee in its recent Pupil Motivation inquiry that all children should have vocational opportunities and that these should not be restricted by assessment of academic ability at the age of 14; acknowledges that the real challenge is to provide opportunities and choice for all pupils, working together with schools and colleges, and notes the concerns of skills and trades organisations that the proposal for skills academies provided for pupils with lack of academic ability, as proposed recently by the First Minister, is not what is required by them to meet current and future skills demand."

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Given the fact that this is an Opposition debate initiated by the Conservatives, I begin on the rather unlikely note—for me—of welcoming the terms of the motion. I do so tentatively, as I am aware of the old adage that one should beware of Greeks bearing gifts. Perhaps as the debate continues we will explore the thinking behind the motion. Given the Conservatives' appalling record on education while they were in power and their failure to support virtually anything that the Executive has delivered, it would be churlish not to welcome their support for a policy that, following the elections in May, we will implement throughout Scotland.

I will outline several reasons why I believe that skills academies are needed. Colleagues on the Education Committee will be aware, from our inquiry into pupil motivation, of the difficulties in engaging some young people in school life. That problem affects too many pupils at every stage of their progression through school, and it can be particularly acute in the later school years. Some young people who are approaching the end of their compulsory schooling can face real difficulties in getting anything out of their education, which can lead to difficulties for teachers in managing those pupils' behaviour and difficulties for society, as many of the young people will end up drifting without qualifications, employment or education and training for their future life.

The choices that are available to those students are limited. I will give an example. A good friend of my family faced a real dilemma when he was 15.

He was at school in East Renfrewshire. As members may imagine, it was an excellent school—one of the best in Scotland—but he was not making the most of himself. Philip was a bright boy but, whether because of non-conformity or whatever, he was not getting on as he should. Because he was only 15, he had to apply to the head teacher and the director of education to transfer to nearby Langside College. Thankfully, permission was granted and he has flourished. At college, he sat alongside other young adults who chose to be there and applied themselves to their studies. Notably, all the students were treated as adults rather than as school pupils. As a result, Philip stayed on and achieved his qualifications, and he is now going to university rather than dropping out—which was a distinct possibility at one stage.

There is a real need for us to improve the vocational option for the sake of our society and our economy. I doubt whether there is a member present who has not heard from an employer who is desperate to take on job-ready young men and women in order to train them up in a trade, a skill or a small business. We need to drive up the status of the vocational option. My one worry about skills academies is that we should avoid introducing a two-tier system. Because of the dominance of the academic over the vocational option in our education system, it would be too easy for the academies to become routes to a second-class education. I do not want to be unfair, but my suspicion about the Tories, given their past record and their support of privilege for the few, is that—to use rather archaic language—they see vocational education as a device to keep the lower orders in their place. We must ensure that skills academies are a genuine choice—one option out of many—for young people. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of the 11-plus exam, which became a dividing point. As part of our commitment to lifelong learning, the skills academies should be one option among many to allow young people to fulfil their potential and make the most of their abilities—not one chance, but one of many chances.

I have used the word "choice", which is an important word in education. It should not be confused with what the Tories call choice—that is, choice for some people. Our commitment to skills academies stands alongside our support for modern apprenticeships and education maintenance allowances—both policies that the Tories opposed. EMAs are about giving young people, who sometimes come from challenging backgrounds, a real choice to stay on at school and pursue their studies. Now, they will have a further choice through skills academies. The failure of the Tories to support EMAs as well as skills academies shows that they still support choice for the few, not choice for all.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will Ken Macintosh explain how skills academies can work in rural areas such as Aberdeenshire? If the Executive is not going to establish skills academies in rural Scotland as well as in urban Scotland, will we have a two-tier system or a different system? Are our kids not going to be educated together?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I ask Ken Macintosh to close after he has answered.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I will close, Presiding Officer.

As I have said, it is important that we avoid creating a two-tier system. The academies will be a properly-resourced option. A skills academy could be set up in a secondary school or college or could be stand-alone, and any of the schools in Mike Rumbles's constituency could be adapted in the same way as the schools in my constituency.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will Ken Macintosh give way?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

No. I am sorry, but he must close.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I apologise. I was going to make the point that we are talking about education, not separation.

We have excellent schools in this country, but the uniformity of school life is not to everyone's taste. The skills academies will provide an opportunity for everybody to educate and liberate themselves and make the most of their abilities. I conclude with this appeal to the minister: following the elections in May, I ask that East Renfrewshire be among the first areas to be considered for a new skills academy.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The Conservative party in the Scottish Parliament has long advocated greater emphasis on skills and vocational training in our schools and through associations between schools and local further education colleges. For example, in debates in 2002 and 2004, the Parliament approved Conservative amendments and motions that called for school pupils from the age of 14 to be given greater opportunities to take courses at FE colleges. We welcomed the support that we received from other parties.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does Mr McLetchie accept that the establishment of school-college links for 14 to 16-year-olds in particular was at the heart of the 2003 partnership agreement and has been delivered by the Executive?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I happily acknowledge that the Executive has, in part, adopted the approach to such links that the Conservatives have long advocated and have proposed in our motions and amendments. It is interesting that the minister's amendment suggests that vocational training will take place only within the context of an FE college, whereas the issue that we are discussing is whether vocational and skills training should take place in our schools. That is the nub of the matter.

It is not surprising that concerns have been expressed about the details of the scheme. Although we were pleased to receive the First Minister's commitment to the enhancement of skills training through the possible establishment of 100 skills academies in schools and FE colleges throughout Scotland, beyond the general concept we have very little information about what is intended and how it would work in practice. First, given that there are 385 secondary schools and 46 FE colleges in Scotland, what is the rationale behind the figure of 100 skills academies? Why not make it 50 or 150? Why not have a skills academy in all secondary schools? Surely there must be young people in every school—including those in Mr Rumbles's constituency—who would benefit from such training. Is the initiative intended to achieve universal coverage?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

No, thank you. I must make progress.

Secondly, to what extent are the so-called academies to be separate entities that are run independently from the rest of the schools? Will they simply be ramped-up technical departments with a grandiose title? Will they seek sponsors and funding from business? Will businesspeople be involved in a governing board?

Thirdly, will attendance at courses that are run by the staff of skills academies be the whole or only part of the curriculum that the young people concerned will follow?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Will the member give way?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

No, thank you.

It is legitimate to ask those questions about the proposal and to inquire whether this policy goal is supported by both the Minister for Education and Young People and his deputy. Perhaps we will receive some answers. However, although I have questions and may not agree with the answers, what was entirely typical and depressing about the wider reaction to the First Minister's speech was the dismal negativity that was shown by the Scottish educational establishment, which demonstrated yet again that it is stuck in a 1960s time warp and refuses to face the fact that the comprehensive school system has failed far too many children in Scotland—not least those whom it was intended to benefit most. As far as those dinosaurs are concerned, any alternative model for the delivery of education and training is to be viewed with suspicion and scorn. The same was true of the reaction to the First Minister's subsequent call for the establishment of regional science academies as specialist upper schools.

Whether they are made north or south of the border, the proposals for skills academies, science academies and city academies demonstrate the failure of the one-size-fits-all neighbourhood comprehensive school, where the standard of education and curriculum choice that are available to pupils are dictated by their parents' postcode and the price their parents can pay for a home.

The young people who are failed by the system range from potential high-fliers with academic aptitude for subjects such as science and languages to underachieving youngsters who are not so good at the academic subjects and who would benefit from enhanced vocational training. That is the reality. The Labour Government down south knows that that is the case; up here, there is only a grudging acknowledgement of that and a few tentative steps in the right direction, which we have long advocated. We are being held back by the timidity of Labour ministers and the downright hostility of those who are still in thrall to the ideology of the comprehensive. Our motion gives fair credit for a step in the right direction and I am sure that it will be supported by the more enlightened members of the Parliament.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I hope that I am an enlightened member of the Parliament, but I am not sure that I support everything that David McLetchie said.

The Scottish Executive, backed by the Parliament, committed itself to the principles and practice of the curriculum for excellence. In time, that step could completely reshape Scottish education so that it comes closer to the needs of our young people and gives them far greater opportunities to develop their potential. Dedication to that vision should herald a gradual process of development but not a revolution. All the parts, tools, knowledge and examples of good practice are there already in the system; it is simply a question of refocusing what we do. Rather than doing the same things better, we should be doing better things—things that we have already been doing in a small way for years.

We need to consider what art, music, technical subjects, dance, drama, outdoor education and sport—those undervalued but essential parts of education—can do for our young people and recognise fully the huge contribution that those activities, disciplines and skills can make to the fully rounded development and education of our young people. Vocational skills are not the only opportunities that are in short supply in the curriculum.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I will take a very brief intervention—I have a lot to say.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will Robin Harper accept that a good part of the increase in teacher numbers has been devoted to the aspirations that he is talking about?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Indeed, and I hope that the proposals are consonant with my ambitions in that respect.

As a nation, we are still committed to the principle of comprehensive state secular education being made available to all. Our schools are based in our communities and are our principal community assets, making their contribution to our sense of place from an early age. However, I am not yet sure how the notion of specific skills academies will sit within that philosophical framework. My party is concerned that at least one quarter of our young people leave school feeling that it was a negative experience. The curriculum for excellence has every chance of addressing the problem, although it is open to question whether purpose-built skills academies will contribute hugely unless so many are created that in effect we go back to the former divisive English system of secondary moderns and grammar schools. I am not sure that we want to go down such a regressive path. However, the possibility of investing heavily in skills development in all our comprehensive schools, in co-ordination with local further education colleges, and investing where demand is identified by schools, parents, pupils and local labour markets would seem to be sensible and proper.

We should beware of seeing skills academies as a panacea for the skills gap in Scotland, which has continued to widen since 1999. It is far more important that all our young people should be confident within themselves, adaptable, socially confident and always ready to learn new skills.

In conclusion, I suggest that we see what can be achieved by inviting individual comprehensive schools to tender for skills academy status and investment, and invest that money across the country, retaining the comprehensive nature of all our schools. We should not even think about pursuing a course that could have unforeseen and unwanted consequences for our comprehensive system of state education.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Like my colleague Kenneth Macintosh, I welcome the debate and recognise that the Conservatives' motion has some element of worth. However, I would not necessarily agree with the contributions that were made this morning, particularly that of David McLetchie. It is wrong to claim that the comprehensive model of education has failed the majority of Scots. In fact, all the academic research indicates that the comprehensive model has been much better than the two-tier Scottish education model that existed in the 1950s and 1960s.

The debate is about what we should do to ensure that the comprehensive model is flexible enough to address the needs of diverse communities in both rural and urban Scotland. I acknowledge the concern of individuals such as Mike Rumbles, although I say to him that the debate is about how to frame and shape the idea during the next year, depending on the outcome of the May elections. Our starting point is that too many young boys and girls leave school without the basic expectations that we think that they should have of their educational attainment and without the opportunities that they should have in life.

Much of the debate is predicated on old-fashioned principles. It is about how to modernise the curriculum in and beyond school to give choice to as many young people as possible. I was a teacher in Glasgow secondary schools in the late 1980s and I remember that there was a very passionate debate about the introduction of the technical and vocational education initiative. Many of the concerns that were raised at that time did not come to pass. Much of the work that was done by the TVEI energised many schools, particularly those in disadvantaged areas, to give opportunities to their youngsters. I therefore see the skills academies as being in line with the package of many other initiatives that have been undertaken by the Executive recently.

Whether we like it or not, the issue is not to do with whether an academic student does not want to take any elements of the skills academy pathway; it is to do with the fact that too many of our youngsters have been pushed into an academic educational experience that is clearly not suited to their needs. In my experience of teaching in the east end of Glasgow, too many young people were forced to take subjects that they could not cope with, and that impacted on their wider experience of school.

Here is a confession: I was once an apprentice—probably the first Francis Aloysius McAveety who was an apprentice boy in the east end of Glasgow, but there we go. When I was 16, I chose to be an apprentice electrician because of pressure from my father. It was a reasonable choice, but I was not happy with it, so I changed my mind about it and caused great parental dissatisfaction. How can we ensure that other youngsters have the chance to make the best of that vocational opportunity that did not suit me? We need to allow for flexibility in the system.

I welcome the skills academies concept. A lot of work needs to be done to address some of the detail and to reassure many of the people who have raised concerns in the chamber and beyond. It is a welcome development and, post-May, I look forward to being part of shaping that process and making a difference for many youngsters across Scotland.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I ask the final three speakers to keep their speeches inside three minutes.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I will do my best, Presiding Officer.

I apologise to the chamber and Murdo Fraser for being late this morning. Unfortunately there were serious transport difficulties for those coming in from Fife.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Blame the Executive.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I blame the privatisation of the railways.

I was particularly keen to hear Murdo Fraser's speech because I wanted to know what the Conservatives are proposing through their motion. What do they mean by "skills academies"? Having listened to David McLetchie, I am not sure that they know the answer to that because, instead of telling us, he asked questions—presumably of the Labour Party rather than the Executive—about skills academies. If Murdo Fraser did not cover that point in the opening speech, perhaps the Conservative who is closing can tell us what they mean by "skills academies"? What would they be? How many would there be? Would they be stand-alone skills academies or would they be attached to existing schools or colleges? How would they be established? How would people be selected to attend them? Most specifically, what would be the cost?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

That is exactly what I asked.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Yes. I am asking the same questions that David McLetchie asked because it is the Conservatives' motion and they should be giving us the answer and telling us what they are proposing. Presumably, the point of lodging Opposition motions is so that the Opposition parties can tell us what their policies are, not so that they can ask questions about other parties' policies.

I am concerned about skills academies and what they would mean. Although Kenny Macintosh gave a cautious welcome to the Conservatives' motion, he indicated that he is concerned about the possibility that they would result in a two-tier education system. That is a very important point. I do not want us to move back to a two-tier education system.

Scotland has benefited greatly from having a broad-based comprehensive education system that does not close down children's options before they have had an opportunity to determine what they want from their careers and their futures. Under the current selection proposals, I would probably have ended up in a science academy because I was keen on science when I was 12 or 13. Later on, my interest in science disappeared and I moved into social subjects—at university, I took politics and economics. My opportunities might have been closed down by the new approach that is being advocated.

The evidence shows that the so-called choice between city academies and skills academies does not benefit the bottom 20 per cent of pupils. The choice is taken by the more mobile members of society. The least mobile members of society end up being left behind even more by the city academies. When city academies have been linked with skills academies in England, they have proved to be a bit of a disaster. Just before Christmas, a former Labour minister, Karen Buck, decided to move her 12-year-old son away from a city academy to a nearby comprehensive because she was so appalled at the conditions in the city academy.

City academies have failed because they represent an attempt to create a selection system in the education system that will not work. Skills academies are not the right way forward. We must continue to invest in broad-based education in Scotland, from pre-school right through to provision for 18-year-olds.

Rosemary Byrne (SG, South of Scotland)

When I read the motion, I welcomed it because I thought that it would give us an opportunity to hear from the Executive about the proposals that Jack McConnell announced some time ago, which seem to have dwindled into nothing at all. I will be interested to hear whether the minister will provide any explanation of what the First Minister meant.

I begin by saying that Solidarity fully supports comprehensive education, a broad and balanced curriculum and equality of opportunity for all our young people. In my view, dumping young people into further education colleges—which seems to be Jack McConnell's vision—is not the way forward. I have no problem with partnerships between schools and colleges. Indeed, I participated in such a partnership when I was a principal teacher. However, I take issue with not all young people being given the same opportunities. I feel that the proposals that were made were ill thought through and would succeed only in diminishing education rather than tackling the crux of the problems.

The problems are deep rooted and we must consider how we can solve them. Our young people require a broad and balanced education in an appropriate setting. Skills academies will not address the problem of the 14 per cent of young people who are not in education, employment or training, whom the system is failing. In pockets of our communities, including areas in the region that I represent, there are schools that have received bad reports from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education and where exam results are poor. That is because insufficient resources are being provided to meet the needs of what are, in some cases, heavily deprived communities. Instead of further tinkering with the system, I would like solutions to be provided to existing problems.

Why do those problems exist? Some young people have a poor sense of belonging. They have difficulties in accessing the curriculum and, in spite of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, their additional support needs are not being identified or supported appropriately. A great deal of research has been done on young people's literacy and numeracy problems and we know that the needs of children with social and emotional problems are not being addressed properly. There is a lack of interaction. The fact that some young people are in classes that are far too big means that there is inequality.

The starting point should be a national minimum standard, under which classes should contain no more than 20 pupils. Along with the provision of well-trained additional support needs teachers who could identify and work with the difficulties that young people experience in school, that would go a long way towards tackling the problems. We should then consider the development of different learning styles. Robin Harper is quite right. We must examine the difficulties that young people have in learning and develop appropriate learning styles properly. We should think about having smaller learning communities, because some of our secondary schools are far too big. In addition, we should definitely restore the community schools programme, because properly integrated community schools are the way forward.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

The debate has been welcome and if one strips out much of the party-political stuff, members of all parties have made some extremely thoughtful speeches. I welcome the fact that the First Minister's announcement that we should consider skills academies for Scotland has generated such debate.

There is a national shortage of people who have adequate technical and vocational skills and the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training is a national problem, but it is simplistic to suggest that the second problem can be solved just by providing everyone who falls into the NEET category with technical and vocational training. The debate must be about examining the different dimensions of skills and technical and vocational qualifications.

First, we need to consider how adequate the vocational curriculum in schools is at present. I argue that it is not nearly broad enough because it does not take account of information technology, which it can be argued is both a technical and an academic subject in the working world. As we develop our thinking on skills academies, we must decide what we mean by vocational and technical qualifications. It is not good enough to suggest—as the Tories seemed to do—that skills academies would be where the thickos would go.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We did not say that.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

The Conservatives alluded to it.

We must raise the esteem in which vocational and technical qualifications and training are held so that it is on a par with the esteem in which academic subjects are held. We must not use the term "skills academies" as a proxy for places where non-achieving pupils go; if we do that, they will fail.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You have one minute.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

In my final minute, I want to talk about an initiative that is under way in Levenmouth in my constituency, where there is a partnership that involves colleges, two local high schools and local businesses. As recently as this week, it met to discuss courses for next year and to free up the curriculum for excellence so that there will be greater scope for a range of courses to improve employability and to meet local needs. Core skills are being examined and work is being done with the colleges on construction and industrial skills. As well as businesses, the group includes representatives of the voluntary sector and of social work, careers and other local authority services. It is not necessary to construct separate academies, which Mike Rumbles has frequently asked about, although that might be appropriate in some cases.

We want to create responsible citizens, effective contributors to society, successful learners and confident individuals. We must ensure that the bright sparks in our schools go on to become bright sparkies or bright graduates.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The debate has been interesting, not least because it has exposed the fault line between the thinking of the Scottish Conservatives and mainstream Scottish opinion. The terms of the motion reveal a hankering for what the Tories see as the good old days of a two-tier education system of grammar schools mostly populated by children from middle-class families and secondary moderns for the hoi polloi.

By contrast, the SNP is totally committed to the comprehensive model of education, which should provide an appropriate mix of academic and vocational educational opportunities. Indeed, that has been a traditional theme in Scottish education for at least 200 years. During the 19th century, the original academies were established up and down the country to teach the knowledge and skills that were needed to fuel the great industrial revolution of that era. The needs of modern economies are even more demanding. In that context, it is right to review the mix that is currently on offer.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Does the member agree that it would be a disaster for Scottish education and our comprehensive system if we tried to copy the way in which skills academies have developed in the English system?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I agree absolutely with Mr Rumbles on this occasion.

The SNP supported the Executive's review of school-college partnerships and supports further development in the area to allow all 14 to 16-year-old pupils a chance to develop vocational skills by opting for FE courses for part of their school week. We are less sanguine about skills academies, not least because of the prospect of conflict and confusion between the role of skills academies in schools and that of local colleges, to say nothing of the potential duplication of spending. Jack McConnell's main aim in advocating skills academies appears to be to re-engage those pupils who are currently switched off school and who will in due course enter the ranks of the NEET group. As a result, there is a real concern that skills academies would become dumping grounds for disaffected or unruly pupils. Fiona Hyslop referred to the Scottish and Northern Ireland Plumbing Employers Federation. Employers make clear that they are not interested in recruiting people whose standards of literacy and numeracy or academic ability do not allow them to cope with industry training programmes. They rightly point out that trades are not now and never have been careers of last resort.

Labour's skills academies policy bears none of the hallmarks of having been properly thought through. Last year the Education Committee published a report on pupil motivation. One of our main recommendations was that the school curriculum had to be aligned more obviously to future career options, with the linkage between school, education and future employment emphasised. The practical importance of academic subjects needs to be made clearer and careers guidance needs significant reform. The committee came to the conclusion that vocational education opportunities must be made more widely available but that vocational education should not be ghettoised to non-attainers. That would torpedo any chance of improving the status of such courses and increasing the esteem in which they are held.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

This has been an interesting debate on what all members regard as an important area of discussion. We are moving into the realm of the pre-election debate, and controversies and debates about new ideas and the new programmes that the different political parties will put forward at the election are beginning to gather pace. However, Fiona Hyslop was right to say that there are a number of underlying common themes. It is widely accepted that many of the initiatives that the Executive has taken over the past period have taken us in the right direction and have addressed the right issue. I would like to focus on one or two themes.

I was interested in the point that Adam Ingram made about the original academies, which was a central and helpful insight into what we are trying to do. We need to try to accommodate two different objectives. The first is to provide skills for industry, to meet the needs of employers and, as various members have said, to ensure that there is parity of esteem between vocational and more academic education. The second is to meet the needs of the bottom 20 per cent of young people who are falling out of the system and, unfortunately, are not succeeding in any realm of life. They do not have basic skills—numeracy and literacy skills or the soft skills that are increasingly required by the economy. It is quite right that both of those issues should be raised in the debate, because they are important.

We need to think about what we have to build on—what is going on already in different parts of Scotland under existing programmes. I was interested in what Christine May said about the position in Levenmouth. I echo her point, as not long ago I visited a learning centre that is attached to a school in Inverclyde, which is used as a base and facility for the rest of the Inverclyde area; no doubt Duncan McNeil has some knowledge of it. There have been successes and different approaches are being tried.

Another issue is whether skills training is for people who followed the academic trail but should not have done so, or whether it is for people who have not thrived at school. The answer is that it is probably for both. Some of the schools that used school-college links in the first instance as a way of dealing with more troublesome children by getting them out of school, so that they could improve their figures, quickly found that that approach was not successful. As well as making available broader educational choices, schools need to tackle issues of maturity and wider social issues.

When I was convener of the Education Committee, I accompanied other members of the committee on a visit to Perthshire; I cannot remember whether Ken Macintosh was with me on that occasion. We looked at work that was being done by a number of organisations, in association with schools, to remotivate people; it was linked with the Columba 1400 centre in Skye. The aim was to engage young people, to involve them in making choices and to get them to see the relevance of education. A much wider issue underpins this debate—how, in different ways and in different circumstances, do we engage, motivate and move forward different young people with different needs by giving them skills and academic and vocational training?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister spoke for five minutes at the start of the debate and has spoken for three and a half minutes in his wind-up speech, but in that entire time he has not mentioned the subject of skills academies. Does the Executive have a view on the matter?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Murdo Fraser is well aware that the proposal for skills academies was made by the First Minister in his capacity of leader of the Labour Party, as one of the proposals that that party is making in the run-up to the election. Other parties will need to engage with the issues that are raised in that debate, to examine the proposal and to deal with it in a different way. We have seen the beginnings of that process today. It is clear that the proposal for skills academies that my coalition colleagues have made is somewhat different from the Conservative party's understanding of skills academies.

We must concentrate on the existing system and the movement forward that is being made there. All members will accept that there is no single magic solution to all the problems that exist and that contributions can be made by a series of measures, building on the central strengths of the Scottish education system as the Executive has developed it. Robin Harper was right in his speech—a speech of considerable merit—to concentrate on the potential of the curriculum review to provide opportunities to all young people in all schools in Scotland to deal with some of those issues.

I have no doubt that this will be an on-going debate, as it relates to an important issue. At the heart of it is the ability of our teachers and lecturers and the quality of education in all schools and educational institutions. We need close and developing partnerships between schools and colleges, supported by the best leaders and against the background of the curriculum review. Those are at the heart of the actions that will bring Scotland even greater success in the future. I look forward to a continuation of the debate on this important issue.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

The deputy minister made an enormously controversial statement when he suggested that the First Minister was speaking not as First Minister but merely as a member of the Labour Party. We do not take that view. We believe that he was laying down the policy for the coalition and that he was perfectly entitled to do so. What is more, the fact that the deputy minister was totally unable to spell out the detailed implications of the policy on skills academies shows that there may be deep rifts within the coalition; we will bear that in mind for the future.

I say with certainty this morning that this is an extremely important debate. In the past we have lodged two motions calling for the establishment of skills academies, which attracted cross-party support. The first was lodged as long ago as 2002, when our proposal was supported by the current First Minister. I use the word "current" because none of us can anticipate for certain what the outcome of the election will be, although we can live in hope. Only three months ago, the current First Minister pledged that there would be a major initiative to set up 100 centres dedicated to meeting his worthy aspiration. Before endorsing the initiative, I state that if we had been in power, we would have implemented comparable measures at a much earlier stage, but it is better late than never.

Frank McAveety and Christine May made very good speeches. We strongly support parity of esteem. More than 10 years ago, we introduced modern apprenticeships, a scheme that the Labour Government has retained. We also expanded further education colleges. Sadly, participation in such colleges has decreased by 12 per cent since 2001, so a great deal requires to be done.

There are three problems. First, many youngsters are not necessarily fired with enthusiasm by the current curriculum; secondly, vocational qualifications are not always held in sufficiently high esteem; and thirdly, there are skills shortages. Skills academies will go a long way towards meeting the requirements of each subject. We are all aware of the youngsters who are not in education, employment or training. The report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education highlighted again the Executive's failure to improve the performance of the lowest-attaining 20 per cent of Scots pupils.

Skills academies should be presented as an option that many more people will wish to choose as a passport to a job. As to the benefits of vocational education, we are aware of what the First Minister said. He could have improved his rhetoric when he wondered:

"What is the point of teaching French to kids who can't speak English? Vocational courses will motivate kids who are maybe heading off the rails and give them a subject that really interests them."

The point can be made far more positively than that. Vocational education in skills academies could and would provide a good environment in which to improve literacy and numeracy. As Murdo Fraser stated, Gerard Eadie, who employs a large number of people and is a member of the Prince's Trust Scotland, highlighted that the different ethos and clear end-purpose of vocational education is a better backdrop for improving literacy. Vocational education is also better suited to helping people to acquire soft skills.

As regards skills shortages, we all know that finding joiners, electricians and plumbers can be difficult. Plumbers from Poland are welcome in Scotland and have done a great deal to help, but it should not be forgotten that they come here because of the strong technical grounding that they get from their secondary education. The same goes for people from other European countries.

As our economy develops and globalisation continues, giving skills to more people is more essential than ever. I therefore welcome the Executive's somewhat belated action. Skills academies will engage those who are uninterested or unsuited to the current academic curriculum while improving employment prospects and reducing the numbers of people who are not in education, employment or training. That will open up rewarding careers to a great many and help to close the present skills gaps. On an issue of such importance to our countrymen and women, we look forward to MSPs from all parties supporting our motion.

Accident and Emergency Units

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5389, in the name of Nanette Milne, on health, with specific reference to accident and emergency provision.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

It is with real regret that I speak in today's debate about the need to stop hospital closures. I regret that an opportunity has been missed by the Scottish Executive to take the Kerr report and develop its ideas into a flexible blueprint for the delivery of health care in this country.

As members would expect, I will address NHS Ayrshire and Arran's decision, which was endorsed by the minister, to close the accident and emergency department at Ayr hospital. My colleague Margaret Mitchell will debate the issues surrounding Monklands hospital and Wishaw general hospital, and Bill Aitken will debate the issues of the Glasgow hospitals.

I thank the minister for contacting me on the day on which he announced his decision to close the A and E unit at Ayr to explain his reasons; I very much appreciated that courtesy.

Although I acknowledge that there is much in the Kerr report with which I and my party agree, that does not mean that we accept it in its entirety or every decision made in its name. Indeed, given Scotland's population, one could not reasonably argue against the inevitable focus of a measure of specialisation in our major cities. Although I would prefer all services to be delivered locally if there is no time-critical element to their delivery, it makes sense in the west of Scotland to deal with heart problems at Clydebank, head injuries at the Southern general and cancer care at the Beatson oncology centre.

The trade-off for me and my constituents is that time-critical accident and emergency care should be delivered locally. This is where, regrettably, the minister and NHS Ayrshire and Arran part company with me and my constituents. It would not be unreasonable to ask why there is so much disagreement about the changes after so much consultation. There is disagreement because NHS Ayrshire and Arran has not made the case convincingly that its proposals to centralise A and E care for Ayrshire at Crosshouse hospital will be an improvement. It is entirely correct that communities and politicians question such fundamental and far-reaching proposals, and it is important that those who make the case for change convince service users that the proposed changes will be for the better.

That has not happened in this case. Neither NHS Ayrshire and Arran nor the minister has made a compelling case for the proposed closure of the A and E unit at Ayr hospital. The consultation simply emphasised the existing problems with A and E provision in Ayrshire without offering adequate solutions to the new problems that the proposals will create.

I say to the minister quite simply that we need two A and E units in Ayrshire, notwithstanding the Kerr report or the views of Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board.

It is a matter of capacity. Since the new year, I have been informed by local health professionals that demand for A and E services has exceeded capacity in Ayrshire hospitals. As recently as Monday night, I heard that, despite the best efforts of hospital staff, around 20 people were lying on trolleys at Crosshouse, waiting for beds to empty so that they could be admitted to the hospital through the A and E unit. On Tuesday night, 135 people were admitted to Crosshouse through the A and E unit between 8 pm and 2 am, while on Tuesday 2 January, the A and E unit at Crosshouse was completely closed, even to ambulance admissions, because of its inability to cope with demand.

Currently, 16,000 people a year are admitted to Ayr hospital following presentation at the A and E unit at Ayr. In future, all those people will need to be accommodated at Crosshouse, which cannot cope with current demand. More than 300 people a week will need to travel the extra 18 miles to Crosshouse from Ayr to find a hospital bed, and some of those people will be in a life-threatening state. Consultants at Ayr hospital have warned that lives will be lost. Ambulance provision for the task is currently inadequate and I have grave concerns that it will remain inadequate in the future. There are insufficient numbers of paramedics to meet current demand, never mind the extra and longer journeys that are envisaged.

Journey times to Crosshouse for visitors from the southern part of Ayrshire are horrific. Having spent a significant part of the Christmas recess taking my blind father from Ballantrae to visit my mother in Crosshouse, I can tell the minister and colleagues that the 100-mile round trip is not enjoyable for the able-bodied—by car—never mind the disabled, many of whom are restricted to the use of public transport because of their disability or age.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member give way?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

No, thank you.

On his brief visit to Ayrshire, Professor Kerr spoke about the geography of Ayrshire and south-west Scotland as important in the decision-making process. However, I fear that no heed has been taken of the geography of the south-west of Scotland in terms of A and E provision. The decision of the minister and NHS Ayrshire and Arran will leave only two A and E units in the south-west—one at Dumfries and one at Kilmarnock. That is fundamentally wrong.

As a result of the flaws in the consultation process, many people in the northern part of Ayrshire are unaware of the increased journey times that they will face when visiting family or attending for elective surgery at Ayr hospital. There will be much unhappiness about that in future.

I regret the decision to proceed with the planned closure of the A and E unit at Ayr hospital. It is utterly the wrong decision. I urge Parliament to support the motion in Nanette Milne's name and overturn the decision, which, in the view of my constituents and many health professionals in Ayrshire, will cost lives.

I move,

That the Parliament does not accept the case put forward for the closure of accident and emergency units at Ayr Hospital and Monklands Hospital; recognises the real dangers of the proposals for accident and emergency provision in Greater Glasgow, and calls on the Scottish Executive to re-examine its decision to approve these closures.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am sometimes depressed and often disappointed by the jaded, ill-informed arguments that I hear from Opposition members who either do not understand or choose to misunderstand how we need to respond to the increasing demands that are placed on our national health service. We need to ensure that the NHS provides high-quality, effective services now and into the future. "Delivering for Health" addresses Scotland's long-term health needs and shapes services to meet the needs of all communities.

When we debated the Kerr report and "Delivering for Health" back in 2005, I hoped that we had found some consensus on some big issues. The publication of the Kerr report was broadly welcomed, and when we debated our response to it in October 2005, in the "Delivering for Health" debate, members voted in favour of the Executive's position by 70 votes to 20.

There was widespread agreement about the key principles for the future of our services in Scotland: shifting the balance of care into communities; tackling health inequalities by anticipating and preventing ill health; streamlining emergency care, which is very important in this debate; and providing the majority of care closer to communities in community casualty facilities, which John Scott did not even have the courtesy to mention, while more specialised A and E units deal with more serious cases.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I will not give way.

There was also agreement on separating planned care from emergency care, so that we make the best use of services, facilities and staff, cut down on cancellations, reduce waiting times and manage staff in a way that is better for patients and better for them.

I would like to remind members of what they have said in the chamber. Nanette Milne said that she commended Professor Kerr

"for his excellent report... Given that it is a long time ahead, how quickly can we expect to see changes in the services and local services being put in place for patients?"—[Official Report, 25 May 2005; c 17161.]

She also said:

"The Kerr report ... addresses the most fundamental issues that face the NHS today."

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Will the minister give way?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Sit down, Mr Scott.

Nanette Milne continued:

"We, like the Executive, are very positive about much of the report."—[Official Report, 27 October 2005; c 20039.]

That was the Tory spokesperson's view.

Shona Robison said:

"I welcome the report and pay tribute to those who have been involved in its production."—[Official Report, 25 May 2005; c 17160.]

She also said:

"If the minister ensures implementation and delivery, he will have our full backing on the broad thrust of Kerr."—[Official Report, 27 October 2005; c 20038.]

Mary Scanlon said:

"This is an excellent report".—[Official Report, 8 June 2005; c 17750.]

Adam Ingram acknowledged

"that most, if not all, of us can agree with the prescription that Kerr gives us for the reconfiguration of the NHS in Scotland."—[Official Report, 18 May 2006; c 25764-5.]

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

rose

—

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

rose

—

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I want to make one point about interventions. I have five minutes—the Conservatives, not me, decided how much time was available for the debate—so I will not take any interventions.

Those are all fine words from Opposition members, but they do not have the backbone to make the tough decisions in the best interests of patients throughout Scotland. We have to get behind the NHS, guarantee its future through action and implement the proposals that members said that they would gladly welcome.

John Scott comes late to this debate. He has absolutely nothing to offer. I want his constituents to know that they will get from me—

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The minister has made it clear that he is not taking interventions, but is he duty bound during the debate to respond to the damning figures given by John Scott in his excellent presentation of the motion?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am sorry. That is a political comment, not a point of order.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I do not think that John Scott mentioned the £40 million investment in Ayrshire health services or the five community casualty units that will be opened in Ayrshire—

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

What about the waiting lists?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

As I said, John Scott comes late to the debate. I will respond to every one of the postcard campaigners whom he supported, and I will give them my assurances that the service changes in Ayrshire are in the best interests of the community.

It is easy to make political points through alarmist statements—the Tories and the Scottish National Party are very adept at that—but it is more difficult to make decisions that are based on the best interests of patients and the NHS.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

No.

That is because it is always difficult to make changes locally. They are not universally popular at the time but, as we all know from the Kerr report and "Delivering for Health", they are right and in the best interests of patients and our NHS.

The decisions on A and E services have been particularly difficult, and I do not underestimate the strength of feeling in local communities about the changes. The changes that we must make must provide a sound basis for the delivery of safe, sustainable and high-quality services into the future. The proposals make the Kerr principles—which members supported—a reality.

In taking such decisions, we have been accused of having blood on our hands by some in this chamber. I put it to John Scott and others of his ilk that they should examine their consciences. They are the ones who are proposing to perpetuate a service for communities that is sub-optimal—a service that is not all it can or should be. The Executive will not do that.

It is self-interest at its worst. It is blatant short-termism and puts patients at risk. Time and again, we see the Opposition supporting the principles of change but then campaigning against them when tough decisions are needed at a local level.

I do not stand alone in that view. Peter Terry, chairman of the British Medical Association in Scotland, recently said of "Delivering for Health":

"As we near the 2007 ... elections, the various parties will present policies for their vision of the NHS in Scotland. It is therefore vital that they do not deconstruct the various parts of this strategy, picking and choosing elements upon which they campaign for or against, including hospital closures and service reorganisation. This strategy is a package and to break it apart would be to return to the old problems that have dogged the NHS for too long."

That is sound advice from the leader of Scotland's doctors, and it would be a foolish politician who did not heed it. I know where I stand—for the interests of patients, for the NHS and for the future of Scotland.

I move amendment S2M-5389.3, to leave out from "does not" to end and insert:

"reaffirms its view that Delivering for Health provides a coherent and consensual basis for service change in NHS Scotland; notes the support expressed in previous debates by Members from across the Parliament and health stakeholders for key aspects of the policy, including promoting local access to services and balancing local delivery with the need to have centres of excellence that provide high-quality, modern, specialist care, focusing on primary care services, separating scheduled and unscheduled care and providing community casualty units; commends the progress being made to implement the key directions set out in Delivering for Health; supports the unparalleled investment in health and health improvement made by the Scottish Executive; welcomes the requirement for investment in primary care and in community casualty services before changes are made to existing accident and emergency services; commends the hard work and outstanding commitment of NHS staff to new and flexible ways of working needed to provide modern and responsive services; supports the principle of a modern, well-resourced NHS in Scotland, free at the point of need, and believes that any necessary changes in the NHS in Scotland should be based on the needs of local communities."

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I welcome this debate, but perhaps a bit of new year's advice to the Minister for Health and Community Care is that he should calm down a little.

The debate follows on from a similar debate that the Scottish National Party brought to the chamber last September to highlight the folly of further cuts to Scotland's A and E units.

The consultation processes in both Lanarkshire and Ayrshire have been accepted by many in the chamber as little short of a sham. The clearly expressed views of the public have been ignored and it is apparent that decisions were taken before the consultation process even began.

In our submission to the Kerr review, the SNP was clear that we regard A and E not as a specialist service but as a core service that must be delivered as locally as possible. Although there is consensus on some of the Kerr recommendations, there is not agreement on all of them. As I and many others have said, the interpretation and implementation of the report are the critical issues.

Ministerial approval has now been given to plans by NHS Ayrshire and Arran to close the A and E unit at Ayr hospital, centralising all emergency services at Crosshouse hospital in Kilmarnock. That is despite the massive opposition that John Scott outlined. Health professionals have also been at the fore of raising concerns about the potential impact on patients, given Ayrshire's geography and the current use that is made of local A and E facilities. Switching to Crosshouse, which would be the only specialist casualty unit in Ayrshire, could add at least 30 minutes to some patients' journeys. Therefore, we believe that there is a strong case to be made for retaining two A and E departments, one at Ayr hospital and one at Crosshouse hospital.

That is not to say that community casualty units are a bad thing—they are not, but neither are they a replacement for core, well-located A and E services. Community casualty units should be regarded as a supplementary service, particularly in rural areas, to take some of the strain off under-pressure A and E departments.

As we know, Monklands has one of the best performing A and E units in Scotland. It meets the four-hour waiting target in 94 per cent of cases and only four years ago received investment of £4 million to develop innovative ways of delivering accident and emergency services. The hospital serves some of the poorest communities in Scotland. As those communities have some of the lowest levels of car ownership, that makes it difficult for people to travel to alternative sites. There were more than 17,000 emergency admissions in 2005. Many of those people will have to be transported across Lanarkshire by ambulance, which will put enormous pressure on the ambulance service.

The move will have serious knock-on consequences for the other Lanarkshire hospitals, which are already experiencing pressures.

Monklands has one of the busiest A and E units, and the second busiest is in Wishaw. Only last year, we released figures that showed that Wishaw general hospital was running at more than 20 per cent overcapacity. The pressure came to a head only this week, when Wishaw had to close its doors, taking only the most severe emergency cases. How much worse would the situation be if there was a repeat of those winter pressures with only two A and E units operating in the area? The change is extreme folly given the pressures on services—and that is before we think about the pressures on Glasgow royal infirmary and the new-build hospital at Larbert.

These are bad decisions and the Executive should think again—but let me be absolutely clear: if it does not, an SNP Government will think again on both proposals. We will go further by addressing the democratic deficit in heath boards by putting local people at the heart of decision making in the health service.

I move amendment S2M-5389.2, to insert at end:

"particularly in the light of recent events at Wishaw General Hospital which was forced to close its doors to all but the most severe emergency cases."

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I am dismayed at the attitude of the minister, particularly given the reports that we have had of patients having to lie on trolleys—including a 92-year-old man who had to lie on a trolley for 13 hours. Wards are stretched to the limit and demand is overstretching capacity. I am dismayed that he did not deal with those points and that he would not take interventions from members. That kind of arrogance is likely to lose the minister his position, and I advise him against it.

The crisis that faces us in the winter is anticipated and technically planned for each year. However, this year, something has gone seriously wrong. Why? Historically, over 10-plus years, thousands of bed reductions have been made without the use of proper bed modelling and capacity planning. The minister is shaking his head, but I challenge him to produce the science and the figures. Where are the Executive papers that would show that the Executive has ever scientifically predicted capacity or undertaken bed modelling? The minister knows that the Executive has failed to do that work. Closures have taken place in the absence of proper figures and planning.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way on that point?

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I have not got much time. I want to progress.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

That is all right, then.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I might give way later, if I get through my speech.

Instead of running at average capacity—which, in the 1980s, was 70 to 80 per cent—wards, particularly acute admission wards, are running at more than 200 per cent capacity. There is no slack in the system to absorb peaks in demand. That is a fact; I challenge the minister to disprove it.

In one ward at Stobhill hospital, throughput is more than double the available admission beds and staff complement. It is no wonder that there are trolley waits of 13 hours. It is a disgrace that people are waiting for patients to die for beds to be freed up. It is also no wonder that multiple transfers are being made between wards and departments. People are being woken up at 3 o'clock in the morning to move departments in order to make way for new admissions. That is not quality of care. I challenge the minister to say that it is. It is disgraceful.

I turn to the Tory motion. The issue is not only accident and emergency provision but capacity within the NHS to admit and treat patients. Indeed, the gaping omission in the Executive amendment is its failure to discuss capacity. The minister knows that I have consistently raised concerns about the Kerr report, including my concerns over interpretations, consequences and the report being all things to all people. Even if people agreed in principle with the aims of the Kerr review, we are debating not just the principles or the quality of service, but the quantity of provision. The minister refuses to discuss capacity—he refuses to do so because it is not in place. The work that the Executive needs to do is on capacity—needs need to be measured, as do the resources that are required to meet those needs. The Executive needs to deliver on that. If it does not, there will be more trolley waits and more unmet demand.

I am very concerned about staff who are absolutely run off their feet and under intolerable pressure. Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a few of them. They said that there is little job satisfaction in being forced to apologise for long trolley waits and for having to provide less-than-optimum care. That is not what people went into the health professions to do.

I hope that the minister will speak to Jack McConnell on the subject. In Wishaw, in the First Minister's constituency, an accident and emergency department had to be closed recently, yet NHS Lanarkshire—which recognises the increased level of demand in its area due to demographic change—is to reduce emergency provision with the downgrading of Monklands, and it is making no increase in bed numbers or staff.

I support the Tory motion and the SNP amendment. Obviously, I will vote for my amendment. I am utterly opposed to the Executive's abdication of responsibility in its amendment. It is disgraceful.

I move amendment S2M-5389.1, to leave out from "and calls on" to end and insert:

"further expresses concern that hospitals are showing the strain caused by insufficient capacity with, for example, Wishaw General closing to admissions; believes that PFI costs are sucking resources from the NHS, and calls on the Scottish Executive to reverse the closure decisions and conduct an urgent review of NHS capacity with reference to meeting actual need and to abandon the wasteful PFI policy to fund capital projects."

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I, too, recall the debate when "Delivering for Health", the Scottish Executive's response to the Kerr report, was published. I recall the welcome that was given from almost all quarters in the chamber to that document. Clearly and obviously, different interpretations can be made of parts of the document. Nevertheless, the tone of that debate was memorable for its cross-party consensus.

On pages 35 and 36 of "Delivering for Health", the Executive could not be clearer on the future for unscheduled care:

"in 1983, 59% of bed days were occupied by emergency patients, compared to 80% today."

That objective of reducing the number of emergency patients has not yet been mentioned in the debate. In section 3.2 of "Delivering for Health", the need for a reduction in unscheduled care is underlined. The series of actions and interventions that would be required to bring that about are also set out.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Can I take it from the member's remarks that Liberal Democrat policy in Central Scotland is to close Monklands A and E?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The decision has been taken. As I will come on to say, it is irresponsible to revisit decisions after they have been taken; doing so creates uncertainty for communities.

In "Delivering for Health", the Executive went on to say:

"We intend to redesign the model of unscheduled care throughout Scotland, building on the National Framework and the Unscheduled Care Collaborative Programme."

The actions to develop a stratified unscheduled care system included making more efficient use of limited facilities and specialised staff across the country while maintaining at the local level care for the majority of unscheduled cases.

On page 36 of the report, seven actions are set out, two of which are significant for today's debate: the Executive's commitment to

"support the development of networks of Community Casualty Units linked to appropriately staffed and resourced Emergency Centres"

and to

"allow emergency specialists to concentrate on dealing with complex cases by focusing key medical resources in well-staffed and resourced Emergency Centres".

No one reading the report can be in any doubt about the changes that would occur as a result of its publication:

"NHS Boards and Regional Planning Groups have begun to work on these issues. They will be required to report their conclusions by the end of 2006."

The objectives were clear:

"to deliver urgent care that is tailored to individual needs locally if possible, but always safely."

Given that background, it was clear that difficult decisions would have to be taken—not everywhere, but in certain areas, two of which were Monklands and Ayr. I do not underestimate the difficulty for local communities. Substantial new investment is going into Monklands hospital. At the time of the debate on the proposed closure, I had concerns about the impact on neighbouring health board areas. However, the decision has been taken, as has the decision on the A and E unit at Ayr hospital.

John Scott raised a number of important points on the practicalities of what is happening at Crosshouse. Those issues should be addressed within the context of the decision that has been taken. To be frank, a return to the debate to reopen those issues would create further uncertainty. As the decisions have been taken, they should be implemented and made to work. For example, if there is a requirement for additional paramedics and for improvements to the ambulance service, those changes should be made. If there is to be another A and E unit in south-west Scotland, I cannot see that locating it at Ayr is as appropriate as locating it further to the south.

The decisions were taken on the two locations that are mentioned in the motion. It is now important that everyone gets on with the job of ensuring that there is proper emergency, unscheduled care in those areas.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The review of emergency and unscheduled health provision in Ayrshire and Arran has not been an easy process. As we all know, it is never easy when hard decisions must be made.

It is unacceptable that some members, in particular John Scott, refuse to see or even consider the big picture for the 310,000 people who live in Ayrshire and Arran. John and his colleagues continue to wave shrouds and focus on accident and emergency services at one hospital. I remind the chamber of a comment made by Nanette Milne in the debate on the Kerr report. She said:

"We welcome the focus of Professor Kerr's report on primary care services".—[Official Report, 9 June 2005; c 17779.]

Do I take it that the Tories have changed their minds and want to deprive local communities of enhanced primary care services?

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Will the member take an intervention?

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Our health service is more than buildings. It is about meeting the needs of patients. That means delivering the highest quality care in the most appropriate facility, which is not always a hospital building.

I correct Shona Robison in relation to the consultation that was undertaken in Ayrshire and Arran. The process met the criteria of the Scottish health council. The process of lay involvement in the evaluation of the options within Ayrshire and Arran was novel. I will quote from some of the people involved in the process. Mrs Collins of Girvan said:

"It was about securing health services for the whole of Ayrshire and Arran—it couldn't become personal."

Mr Gallacher of Troon, one of John Scott's constituents, said:

"Although accident and emergency services as we know them may close at Ayr hospital, what is being proposed in their place with centres at Girvan, Irvine, Cumnock, Ayr and Kilmarnock should be a more local and better service, serving more."

They were able to see the big picture and put patients first. Why can John Scott and the Tories not do the same, or is his approach just intended to prevent a hospital candidate from standing?

When the Minister for Health and Community Care announced his decision just before Christmas, he identified issues that he wants NHS Ayrshire and Arran to take forward. I fully support him in his desire to improve transport links. I welcome John Scott to that debate. The issue was raised by all the people who responded to the consultation in Ayrshire and Arran.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will Margaret Jamieson give way?

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The decision to make £150,000 available over two years to NHS Ayrshire and Arran to enable infrastructure to be established is very much welcomed.

The minister's decision also provides for £30 million to be made available to NHS Ayrshire and Arran over four years from 2009. That is over and above the normal capital allocation. It is to be spent on improvements to theatres and a much welcomed integrated cancer unit at Ayr hospital. That means that the theatre project will be delivered a year ahead of schedule and the integrated Ayrshire cancer unit will be delivered two years ahead of schedule.

Are the Tories seriously prepared to jeopardise that welcome improvement in care and outcomes for the 310,000 people in Ayrshire and Arran through their continued blinkered view? The people of Ayrshire and Arran deserve the best possible health care and only this Labour-led Executive will deliver that.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I will concentrate on the proposed closure of Monklands A and E unit in Lanarkshire. Given the minister's comments, it is worth setting this debate in the context of the wider debate on service reconfiguration, which—let us be clear—has been triggered by the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition's failure to anticipate the need for change, consult widely and appropriately, drive service change and conduct effective workforce planning. As a result, NHS boards have had to undertake, as a matter of urgency, reviews of service provision and delivery that take into consideration local and regional needs. It is therefore a disgrace that those failures are now being compounded by decisions taken against the background of a flawed consultation, which took no account of the overwhelming opposition to the closure from Lanarkshire's population at large and the potentially disastrous consequences.

The arguments for the retention of three A and E departments within NHS Lanarkshire have been well rehearsed in the chamber, but that does not make them any less compelling.

Lanarkshire's unique geographical considerations, congestion problems and poor transport links all confirm the necessity to retain three A and E departments. Furthermore, each of Lanarkshire Health Board's three assertions on which the decision not to retain three A and E departments was predicated—the financial viability, the anticipated staffing problems and, best of all, the Walter Mitty-type assertion that the closure of one A and E department would result in the delivery of a better standard of care—have all been comprehensively shot down in flames.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Will the member give way?

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am sorry, but I do not have time for any interventions.

Nonetheless, the decision to close the A and E department has been approved by the minister, who has taken no account of the opinion of numerous members of the medical staff who do not believe that there is evidence to support the decision. Their arguments reflect the work of Dr George Venters, a former consultant in public health medicine in Lanarkshire, which shows that closure would not only be against the interests of the people in the west of Scotland but would further deprive communities who need services most and would have serious consequences for all other Lanarkshire hospitals as it would increase already significant pressures on them for access to acute hospital beds and other services.

Those were prophetic words, given the pressure on Lanarkshire hospitals over the festive period. On 28 December, Hairmyres hospital A and E department, in the minister's constituency, had so many cases, ambulances and people arriving for treatment that although it did not officially close its doors to new patients they had to be directed to the A and E department at Monklands hospital. That creates real uncertainty for the future, Mr Robson. The consequences for acute hospitals would be similar to those in adjacent health boards, such as Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board and Forth Valley Health Board, where the valid concerns that have been expressed have been accepted. I commend the decision by Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board and now call on the Scottish Executive to go back to the drawing board. I therefore have much pleasure in supporting the Conservative motion before us today.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Andy Kerr's announcement in Christmas week that he approved the local health board's plans to downgrade Ayr hospital's A and E department came as no great surprise. The timing was certainly cynical, but that is par for the course for the Executive on this issue.

The substance of the announcement was also entirely predictable, given that the health board had claimed throughout the review process that it was adhering to the Executive's policy.

Nevertheless, the minister's announcement was still a severe shock to many people, not least the many community groups that had made direct representations to the minister and believed that they had got across to him both the depth of feeling against the proposals and the real risk to life and limb involved in such a decision. The sense of betrayal felt by the Ayrshire public served by Ayr's A and E unit is now palpable and I will be very surprised if the Labour vote at the forthcoming elections does not suffer accordingly.

What is clear now is that the only hope of saving Ayr's A and E unit comes in the form of an incoming SNP Administration on 3 May. Of course, Labour candidates will try to sweeten the bitter pill by insisting that no changes will be made to Ayr A and E unit until all the community-based facilities and services that have been promised are in place. Both the minister and the health board have made that pledge but, frankly, it is not worth the paper that it is written on. It will carry no weight with a public sickened by a sham consultation process, in which overwhelming public opposition—55,000 signatures on a petition, protest marches and the like—made no impact. I say to Margaret Jamieson that, as the Scottish health council pointed out in its report on the process, the board failed to consult on all feasible options and instead promoted its own preferred option. People are not stupid. They recognise a fait accompli when it is shoved in their faces.

The minister can protest all he likes about his pledge. If it were genuine, he would announce a moratorium on A and E downgrades for the next parliamentary session. By all accounts, community casualty facilities such as the proposed new hospital at Girvan will not be built—far less fully operational—until 2009. It will take several years for new staff to be recruited and trained to provide the promised new services. There is no way in which those services can be put in place without deploying existing hospital staff, including A and E staff. I did not come to my own conclusions on that. That informed view was provided to me by no less an authority than Professor David Kerr, when, along with MSP colleagues, I met him to discuss the health board's proposals last year.

When he is making that pledge, the minister also knows that existing A and E staff will be looking around for jobs with better prospects as of now. Once they move, it will be extremely difficult to recruit for an A and E department in its last days. There will be no stability at Ayr A and E over the next few years. The minister is adding insult to injury with his handling of the issue. I trust that his party will pay a heavy price in this year's polls.

Jean Turner (Independent, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

The important factors that have emerged from the debate are that everyone is uncertain and that capacity is important. I have been going around the casualty and intensive care departments in Glasgow and the importance of capacity shines out. Staff in intensive care say that they should not work above 75 per cent capacity. Staff in ordinary wards say that they should not work above 82 to 85 per cent capacity. Every new hospital reduces its beds and we think that we can put everything into the community—we cannot. A small percentage of patients will still need to be seen in a hospital bed. If we want to reduce the work of an A and E department, we must support primary care, where 98 per cent of the work of the NHS is carried out. Working at its best, primary care can reduce the work of any hospital.

However, that can only be done if we have highly experienced nurses, doctors and other skilled staff. It is about teamwork, and there should be a good skill mix. I am anxious about whether, with agenda for change, the skill mix and the highly trained staff will be there to do the work that needs to be done in order to keep people in the community. Patients are increasingly discharged quickly from hospital into the community. The community is not a Nightingale ward. It is difficult to look after people in their homes unless we have highly qualified staff.

We have a situation in which there are trolley waits and in which patients are moved from their beds in the middle of the night to make room for other patients. The more frequently we pass people around a hospital, the more we increase cross-infection. It should not be done. There are other problems, such as influenza, cases of which have been increasing. Wards, and even hospitals, are being closed, not only because of MRSA but as a result of influenza and Clostridium difficile. We should consider the number of buildings that we have and the ability to barrier nurse. Despite some patients having influenza and other conditions, they should still be admitted to hospital.

I will tell a little story from when I was a doctor. While I was doing my rounds in the middle of a summer epidemic of diarrhoea and vomiting, I visited three children in one household who all had the same symptoms. However, something made me go back and check one of them, and he had appendicitis. I was very glad to send that child to hospital—I knew that they would not like me, because he had diarrhoea and was vomiting; he would not be a welcome patient—but it saved a life.

Numbers are important. We were told that A and E figures in Glasgow were dropping by 20 per cent. Professor Stewart-Tull, from the north Glasgow monitoring group, has looked at the figures. For 2004-05, the figure for A and E in Glasgow was 147,430. In 2005-06, the figure was 155,486. In 2006-07 the figure of 155,074 is a little bit down but is still roughly the same. If the minister gets incorrect information from a health board, how can we plan? It is totally irresponsible. If we do not check decisions, we end up feeling foolish and people suffer. I am truly surprised that we do not act as caring human beings. There should be cross-party recognition that something is wrong.

We have not got transport right. The Erskine bridge is closed today, and was closed the day I went to see the Golden Jubilee hospital. The downgrading of Monklands A and E is having a knock-on effect. The closure of other hospitals in the area will swamp Glasgow. Glasgow royal infirmary cannot cope. The Executive must re-examine its decisions.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Unfortunately, I am not sitting close enough to the Tories to see whether their tongues are actually in their cheeks. That the Conservatives should raise concerns about the state of the NHS is astonishing given the extent to which they undermined it during the terrible Thatcher and Major years.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Will the member take an intervention?

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Mr Scott took no interventions, so I am not prepared to take one from him.

Like the people of Scotland, I am clear that the Tories failed the NHS during their reign in the 1980s and early 1990s. Repeated underfunding left the NHS estate in a dreadful physical condition, with demoralised staff, ever-lengthening waiting lists and inadequate information technology systems. The Tories steadfastly refused to acknowledge the link between poverty and ill health and, as a result, the poorest people of Scotland suffered. The Tories' attempts to impose a market philosophy on the NHS only helped to exacerbate the so-called postcode lottery of care.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

rose—

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

In contrast, since Labour came to power, spending has risen in the NHS and the results are flowing from that. Since 1997, hip replacements have increased by 37 per cent, cataract operations by 58 per cent and knee replacements by 104 per cent. Labour investment has resulted in a significant increase in the number of nurses, midwives, occupational therapists and doctors. In fact, compared to 1979, we now spend an extra £902 on the health of every man, woman and child in Scotland. That is twice as much as was being spent on our health service when we got rid of the Tories. It is therefore difficult to suspend my disbelief sufficiently to take the Tory motion seriously, especially since, during their years in Government, they closed hospitals.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

rose—

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Tories closed Dunfermline maternity hospital. They closed Bellshill maternity hospital and relocated it to Wishaw, which is responsible for some of the current decisions in Lanarkshire.

Let us give the Tories the benefit of doubt. There are some parts of the Tory motion with which I agree. However, as with the Scottish National Party debate in September, I do not feel that the motion goes far enough in relation to the decision at Monklands. Whereas the Tories called for the re-examination of the Executive's decision, I and my colleagues Elaine Smith and Cathie Craigie firmly believe that the Executive should reverse that decision. When it was made, we firmly believed that it was the wrong decision and we still hold that opinion. Following the recent temporary closure of Wishaw general hospital, I must raise my continued serious concerns about the wider impact of the decision to downgrade Monklands A and E. Significantly increasing the size of an already overstretched A and E at Wishaw can do nothing other than worsen the problems faced at Wishaw this week. We have no guarantee that Wishaw general will have sufficient capacity to deal with the increased demand generated by the closure and relocation of Lanarkshire's busiest A and E or any other "unprecedented" surges in demand.

I urge the minister to consider the matter closely and to reverse his decision to downgrade Monklands A and E. Cathie Craigie and I also joined Elaine Smith in asking the Auditor General to examine the decision by NHS Lanarkshire and the minister. We await the Auditor General's comments.

Like the Tories' stance, the Scottish National Party's position on this subject is at best confused and at worse disingenuous. The SNP signed up enthusiastically to the Kerr report's central recommendations, but its members now wish to distance themselves from any change whatsoever, purely for electoral gain. Where change is proposed on the ground, rather than in theory, the nationalists revert to their default position of opposition, always telling people what they want to hear.

I recognise the implications of the Kerr report. Sometimes, difficult decisions will have to be taken. Let me be clear, however: in the case of Lanarkshire, I believe that the wrong decision has been taken, and I stand by that position today.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I will not comment in detail on the merits and demerits of the examples in Lanarkshire and Ayr to which the motion refers, because I wish to address the broader issues of which the units there are examples. The overarching issue is one of trust: trust between communities and their local NHS; trust that services will be there when they are needed; and trust that consultation is genuine.

It is true that the NHS must continually evolve. Many hospitals are located where they are for purely historical reasons, which might not reflect current needs. The modern drive to keep people out of hospital is desirable for many reasons, the emergence of hospital superbugs being only one. There are limits, however. We cannot reduce the need for hospital beds indefinitely, especially given the fact that the population is aging and, regrettably, getting fatter and less fit.

The Kerr report suggested that the NHS would need to be redesigned to meet people's needs and expectations. However, the expectations of local communities might not always accord with the plans of health boards. When a facility is earmarked for closure, the phrase that is often used is that it is "no longer fit for purpose", but there might not always be a shared understanding of what that purpose ought to be. The other issue to do with trust is that of what replaces any facility that is to be closed. It is fundamental that whatever replaces it must be up and running before the closure.

I will mention a case in my own region, of a care-of-the-elderly facility at Glencoe hospital in Lochaber. It is an old-fashioned building, and it is no longer considered, in the usual phrase, to be fit for purpose. Naturally, however, the local community does not wish the services that the hospital provides to be lost. At least NHS Highland has pledged not to close the facility until alternative accommodation is found for the patients who are currently cared for there. Talk of extra support to keep people at home, although that is welcome, does not quite sound like a replacement for the sort of facility the need for which—given the aging population—will not go away.

The drive to keep people out of hospital is welcome, as I have said, and so is the principle of treating people near home. People need reassurance, however, that the facilities to do that are in place. The Executive amendment mentions "high-quality, modern, specialist care". More modern health care would make much more use of tele-medicine, avoiding the need for patients to travel to specialists or vice versa. A modern NHS would have more specialist nurses and allied health professionals. For instance, there is currently just one cystic fibrosis physiotherapist for the Highlands and Islands, who is playing a vital role keeping patients out of hospital, but whose work is hugely overstretched—they are simply unable to cover what is a ridiculously large case load adequately.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Would the member accept that, in those areas that are further advanced with health care changes, such as Fife, the promises of increased investment in local facilities have been met and new technology is being used to prevent people having to move? Would she therefore accept that the Executive is meeting the trust that she mentions as necessary?

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

In rural areas, there is still a long way to go to convince people that they will not have to travel increasingly long distances to centralised facilities to get the specialist care that they need. Tele-medicine link-ups from general practices to central hospitals should be in place. That is the norm in lots of other European countries. It is the norm, for example, in northern Norway, as some members saw on a visit there to discuss remote and rural medicine. It is not the norm here, but it should be. I want us to go in that direction, but I am sorry to say that I see no evidence that that is happening.

The Executive amendment states:

"any necessary changes in the NHS in Scotland should be based on the needs of local communities."

That brings me back to the point about trust that I made earlier. Sometimes, it is necessary for the architects of service delivery to learn to trust communities to know what their own needs are. We have to remember, after all, who the NHS is there for.

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

I will speak more within the terms of the Executive amendment, very much in the style in which Eleanor Scott has just addressed the issues. The debate is about change. Three or four years ago, there was a big question mark over accident and emergency services in Caithness. There has been change since then. Like Christine May, I believe that it has been a change for the better. In response to what Eleanor Scott said, I believe that change is being delivered locally.

There have been improvements, including on the A and E front. There have been extra ophthalmologists, an expanded renal unit and a new computed tomography—CT—scanner at Caithness general hospital. Minor surgery services and enhanced service contracts have been put in place. That is what the minister and others have been talking about: trying to deliver services in the general practitioner's clinic, rather than clogging up acute beds in hospitals. I think that that is working.

In Caithness, there has been a change since the time when there was a question mark over A and E services. There is now a greater sense of ownership of A and E services in the far north. Referring to the NHS team that is headed up by Sheena Craig, I believe that the community health partnership is delivering. There has been improvement, but we must build further on that improvement—I could not continue without noting that, and I continually make that point to ministers. That is very much to do with something that is close to my heart: the better the medical services and the more that they improve, the better the economy of Caithness.

I listened to John Scott discuss transport and communication problems. Members can imagine the bigger challenges that exist in my constituency. John Scott would be more than welcome to come north, and I could gladly show him, as a friend, what is being done there.

One big problem that I will bring to the attention of ministers is that, in Sutherland, the Scottish Ambulance Service seems not to be going the right way at all. There has been a change from double manning to single manning of ambulance services there. If I had a heart attack in Tongue, the ambulance would probably come from Kinlochbervie and it would take quite a long time to get to me. If one member of the ambulance crew was on leave, it might just be a single person who would come. That would be no good for getting me to hospital in Wick, so another ambulance, from Bettyhill, would need to be called out. Sandy Mackay, who is a councillor in north Sutherland, was caught in that trap. He had a nasty heart attack, and he had to wait for an excessive amount of time.

Doctors have been making a point that The Northern Times conveys eloquently:

"'Bean-counting' is putting north lives at risk".

Jamie McGrigor and Eleanor Scott will be acquainted with that article, which was published on 1 December. The doctors in Sutherland have put the matter concisely, saying that the backwards step that has been taken in relation to ambulance services could be life threatening. That is pertinent to the issue of transport that has been raised.

On other fronts, there has been a genuine improvement in services. It is a matter of change, as I have said, and I believe that, as MSPs, we are right to recognise the necessity for change and to work with that change. At the end of the day, services are better, and I believe that my constituents know that.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I will pick up on a couple of issues that I did not manage to address during my opening speech. I will at some stage during this speech let Phil Gallie intervene on me, if he is so minded.

My amendment refers to the private finance initiative situation in Lanarkshire, where the health board has the second-biggest expenditure in Scotland in terms of its commitments to fund PFI projects—it comes to a total of £42.7 million due in 2006-07 alone. Much of that money goes in dividends to shareholders, rather than being invested in public services. It is no wonder that, in the words of three Unison colleagues who recently wrote to Tim Davison, chief executive of Lanarkshire NHS Board, NHS Lanarkshire is fast becoming the private sector "jam pot" of Scotland, given the threatened takeover of general practice by Serco.

The concerns are genuine. It has been demonstrated that PFI sucks resources from the NHS, and I believe that it has compromised the ability of NHS Lanarkshire properly to plan services on the basis of need, rather than on the basis of predetermined financial commitments and contracts that last for many years. Elaine Smith has done a lot of work in that area, and I concur with some of Karen Whitefield's comments on the subject. I, too, have written a letter to the Auditor General and I have supported Elaine Smith in her efforts. I am pleased that she is confirming her commitment to opposition to, and reversal of, the decision to close Monklands hospital. My amendment refers to reversing the decision. I hope that Karen Whitefield will support it, but if she will not, why did she not lodge her own amendment to make it clear that the decision should be reversed—if indeed that is her position?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I thank Carolyn Leckie for her generosity in giving way.

On the closure of the accident and emergency units, John Scott laid out a series of facts about what is happening on the ground and Carolyn Leckie has referred to capacity issues. Why does she think the minister closes his ears and eyes to the facts of the matter?

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

The minister should answer that. He should be well warned not to close his ears to the voices of patients and staff. What is being said is not hyperbole but reflects what is happening, which has been reported in the papers in the past few days. The minister should get his information directly from staff, rather than accepting the advice that he is being given, which is wrong.

Karen Whitefield quite rightly had a go at the Tories about their market-based reforms and the problems that they have caused, but I find it astonishing that she does not understand that the Executive has brought in its own market-based reforms of the NHS. Is she aware that it has brought in practice-based commissioning via the Kerr report and implemented joint ventures and local improvement finance trusts through the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005? Unfortunately, she did not oppose any of those market-based reforms. The Labour-led Executive is still punting the ideology that the Tories introduced.

I return to the current short-term situation and the crisis that we face. The minister attacked the Tories for the time that they have allocated to the debate, but is he prepared to provide more time for Parliament to discuss the matter? Is he prepared to make a statement to Parliament on issues associated with the projected increase in the incidence of flu, which has not peaked yet? Judging by my sore head and aches and pains, it is about to peak in me.

Where is the planning? In Stobhill hospital, ward 13B used to be allocated for overflow in winter, but it was not available this year, because it has been stripped down and is being prepared for closure. All the equipment has been removed and the sluice has been stripped, so the ward is not available to meet the increased demand. Why? I look forward to discussing the matter in more detail, because it needs to be addressed urgently. I emphasise that the minister must provide more time in Parliament and that he must at least make a statement on the matter.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

The last time we debated this issue, I mistakenly thought that if I and some other people voted in a particular way, it would allow the position at Monklands to be improved in the future. That proposition unravelled, as clever schemes often do—I should be old enough to know that. I was left voting in a way that made me extremely unhappy. Today, we will have a re-run of that.

The minister quite rightly sets out his stall about his strategy and all the good things that he is doing. One can have a good strategy but, within it, make bad decisions. Lord Raglan's strategy to defend his base at Balaclava was sound, but particular decisions caused the light brigade to charge the wrong lot of guns. NHS Lanarkshire is busy closing the wrong hospital; it is making a bad decision.

The minister's amendment states:

"any necessary changes in the NHS in Scotland should be based on the needs of local communities."

We all agree with that. The question is to what extent the wishes of communities are taken into account in assessing their needs. As Eleanor Scott said, we should pay more heed to the wishes of local people.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member clarify the Liberal Democrat policy? Are the Liberal Democrats opposed now to the closure of Monklands accident and emergency unit, or are they opposed to the closure of any accident and emergency unit in Lanarkshire?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Euan Robson quite rightly argued that, whether we like it or not, the decision has been made and we should get on with doing things as well as possible in Lanarkshire. As Alex Neil knows, some people argue for keeping three accident and emergency units in Lanarkshire and some argue for keeping two, of which Monklands would be one. I could support either argument. I support having a unit at Monklands because the unit there works well. It is efficient and it is in the right place, given that it is in an area of maximum ill health. It is clear to me, as an elected representative, that there is widespread feeling throughout the parties, which Karen Whitefield articulated, against the closure. The question is what we should do about it. If we feel that a bad decision has been made, how do we set about trying to improve the situation?

There are issues surrounding how we run our health services. Apparently, nobody who was involved in making the decision paid any heed to the potential effect on the new hospital in Larbert and hospitals in Glasgow. We regard each health board area as an island—we have to sort that out.

We also have to give some thought to our procedures in Parliament. It is difficult to vote against Andy Kerr's amendment, but if it is agreed to, that will prevent Parliament from voting on whether it thinks the two accident and emergency units should close. It might be beyond the wit of man to come up with a rule to the effect that amendments must be relevant to the motion, but we should consider it, because the public expect us to have a view, whatever it may be. I am not in any way accusing Andy Kerr of doing something wrong. Amendments are worked out for party-political reasons, but they often have little to do with the motion and can prevent people voting on the issues that they raise. We should consider that procedural issue. There is a problem for those of us who think that Andy Kerr's amendment is sensible, but who are unhappy about the closure of Monklands or Ayr accident and emergency units. We will have to sort that out individually.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We now know that the Liberal Democrat position is that they are, having been hoodwinked in the previous vote, prepared to be hoodwinked in this vote. From the tone of the minister's opening remarks, it is clear that he is still smarting from having lost the campaign to keep Rhona Brankin out of the Cabinet.

When the Labour Party was elected in 1997, the message in its final campaign press conference was that we should vote Labour so that we could save the national health service by Friday. In the run up to the Scottish Parliament elections this year, the slogan must be, "Vote to save the Scottish health service on 3 May." Although Donald Gorrie said that the decision to close the accident and emergency units had been taken, a new Administration after 3 May could reverse that decision and keep both Ayr and Monklands accident and emergency units open. That is why Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon, Shona Robison and the rest of the Scottish National Party have given an unequivocal commitment that if we form the Administration, possibly with other parties, after 3 May, we will keep both Ayr and Monklands accident and emergency units open. We will do that for the simple reason that we, unlike Labour, are not prepared to risk life and limb in the name of PFI.

People ask me on their doorsteps about all the extra money that is supposed to have gone into the health service in the past 10 years. The boast, which is quite right, is that the amount of taxpayers' money that is going into the health service has doubled. The budget for the health service in Scotland is edging quickly towards £10 billion a year, so how is it that, on the one hand, all that extra money is going into the health service, but, on the other hand, the Executive is proposing to close six of the 15 accident and emergency units in central Scotland?

The answer is that so much of that money is wasted on PFI and on profiteering. As "Frontline Scotland" pointed out four weeks ago in its programme "In Sickness and in Wealth", the decision in Lanarkshire has nothing to do with consultants' capacity or bed capacity, and it certainly has nothing to do with the wishes of the people of Lanarkshire. Their wishes have been articulated not just by me but by my good friend John Reid and his good friend Tom Clarke, both of whom will have to vote SNP on 3 May if they want the accident and emergency unit at Monklands to remain open. The decision had nothing to do with health policy and everything to do with finance and PFI. If the accident and emergency unit at Monklands had been funded through PFI, it would not be closing. The decisions that have been made are all about the need to protect PFI—a profiteering policy that was introduced by the Tories and which is now sustained by the Labour party in Government.

For 30 or 40 years, Labour lived off its reputation as the creator of the national health service, but Nye Bevan must be birling in his grave when he listens to Andy Kerr. Nye Bevan created the national health service, but, as far as accident and emergency units are concerned, Andy Kerr is butchering it.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I will tell Alex Neil what I am going to say to Nye Bevan if I get the opportunity to speak to him somewhere else. I will tell him what we have done under our leadership of the NHS. Under the Tories, 10,981 people in Scotland waited more than six months for treatment, but now no one waits that long. Under the Tories, more than 20,000 patients waited more than 19 weeks, but now there are only 3,300, and they will soon be gone from the list.

I will tell Nye Bevan that cataract operations in Scotland are up by 62 per cent, that angioplasty operations are up by 260 per cent, that hip-replacement operations are up by 41 per cent and that knee-replacement operations are up by 113 per cent. I will tell him that the number of consultants is up by 29 per cent, that the number of doctors in training is up by 26 per cent, that the number of registered nurses is up by 13 per cent, that the number of student nurses in training is up by 47 per cent and that the number of allied health professionals is up by 34 per cent.

I will tell Nye Bevan about the £850 million programme that is rebuilding the Glasgow health service. I will tell him about the specialist accident and emergency centres in the city and the five minor-injuries units that will provide services for communities. I will tell him about the new Victoria hospital that we are building and the new Stobhill hospital that we are building. I will tell him that Labour is delivering for our health service.

I will tell Nye Bevan about the new £87 million Beatson centre, which will open soon and will deliver for patients in Scotland. I will tell him that, although members in the chamber say that a hospital in Lanarkshire is closing, it is not. There is £100 million of investment in that hospital for the community.

I will tell Nye Bevan more. I will say that the Labour-led Executive is worried not about the bricks and mortar but about the health of the nation. I will tell him about the primary care initiatives that have people on aspirin to reduce possible heart attacks. I will tell him about the interventions that we are making through GPs that will change the focus of health care in Lanarkshire, prevent people from dying and stop them coming to the accident and emergency unit in the first place. That is what the national health service should be about. It is not about the bricks and mortar, as Alex Neil argues. It is he who is putting patients' lives at risk in Scotland. I have to say that that applies equally to John Scott.

Ayr hospital is not closing. There is a £40 million investment in Ayr hospital. It will have a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week community casualty facility. It will have orthopaedic, ophthalmic and neurology services. It will offer general surgery, dermatology inpatient services, specialist services such as a minimally invasive surgery unit, and diagnostic services that it did not previously have. There will be five community casualty units, which will mean that 60 per cent of patients who normally use the accident and emergency service will be able to access services more locally.

Members should not talk about closures—they should take on board Eleanor Scott's point that the matter is about trust. How can people trust the SNP and the Tories when they choose to put people's lives at risk? The Executive has delivered. Professor Sir George Alberti, the national clinical director for emergency access—in England, I have to say—said:

"We have to be upfront and tell the public that, in terms of modern medicine, some of the A&E departments that they cherish are not able to provide this type of care and cannot and will not be able to provide the degree of specialisation and specialist cover that modern medicine dictates the public deserves",

and that

"In a range of very serious emergencies ... it may be better for patients to bypass the nearest local hospitals and be taken by highly-trained paramedics straight to specialist centres".

He agrees that that will mean long ambulance journeys, but states that

"long ambulance journeys do not lead to more deaths. If they did, patients in America and Australia, where ambulance journeys are much longer, would have higher mortality rates."

We will provide a better service. Lives will be saved as a result of the interventions that we make, because we will have specialist centres that provide those services.

Let us consider some of the content of the debate. I am not unhappy that Shona Robison told me to calm down, because I am passionate about saving patients' lives here in Scotland. Many points were made about current pressures in our health service and I want to try to address them in my closing remarks.

I know how hard NHS staff in Scotland are working, given the current pressure around respiratory and flu conditions, but the service model that is set out in "Delivering for Health" and in the Kerr report is exactly why we need to change the circumstances that we have today, so that tomorrow we can handle such situations more effectively and staff can care for patients more effectively. The community casualty units will divert patients away from accident and emergency units and allow trauma and accident and emergency services to continue more effectively. That is how we will provide specialist accident and emergency services.

There is significant international evidence—which is borne out by pages 36 and 37 of "Delivering for Health" and by the Kerr report—that the separation of elective and emergency care can reduce waiting times for operations and cut the number of elective patients' operations that are cancelled due to emergency patients' taking precedence. Community casualty facilities not only ensure that more care is provided locally, but allow larger specialist emergency teams to provide more effective care for patients who need it the most. The community casualty units will deal with some 70 per cent of people who currently attend accident and emergency units and they will enable the majority of people to be treated close to home. At the same time, the units will free up specialised accident and emergency services for those who need them the most.

In the clinical community, the evidence base is overwhelming. It comes from international examples and from elsewhere in the UK. We need to respond to that evidence to ensure that what we do in Scotland is right. All Adam Ingram talked about was votes, but I am talking about patients' lives and about the families of Scotland living together for longer. That is what we think about when we make changes in our national health service.

The Executive has continued to invest in our health service and to build up its professional base, but all the SNP can talk about is closures. I refer the SNP to my answer to Colin Fox's written question about the closure of hospitals, which refers to the changes that we have made to ensure that services are supplemented. The investment that we are making, the differences and the changes that we are making were all welcomed by everyone in the chamber. When it comes to tough decisions, the SNP is just not up to it. SNP members are not fit for Government—they are not even fit for Opposition.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer, the minister said in his winding-up speech that the Executive's reforms were welcomed by all parties in the chamber. That is not true, so will you ask the minister to withdraw that comment?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

That is not a point of order. Perhaps you should speak to the minister.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

It is perhaps not surprising that the debate has travelled some distance from the provision of accident and emergency services in various parts of Scotland. It is hardly surprising that, in an attempt to cover up the fact that the minister has weak arguments on the matter, he and his colleagues should seek to expand the terms of the debate.

The usual suspects have been wheeled out to point out what happened in the days of the Tory Government. It is true that, as the minister says, no hospital has been closed yet. Some are marked for closure—we are not arguing about those—but let us look at the record.

It is not the wicked Conservatives who are planning to close the accident and emergency unit at Ayr hospital—it is Labour and the Liberals. It is Labour and the Liberals who have transferred all major trauma cases and medical and surgical emergencies from Falkirk to Stirling royal infirmary. It is because of Labour and the Liberals that Monklands is set to lose its accident and emergency unit, and it is Labour and the Liberals who have downgraded accident and emergency services at Queen Margaret hospital in Dunfermline. It is Labour and the Liberals who have taken away the orthopaedic trauma unit from St John's in Livingston, and it is Labour and the Liberals who have created the mess at Stobhill hospital and will take away the accident and emergency facility from the Victoria infirmary in Glasgow.

I do not accept Euan Robson's argument—which was, to be frank, facile—that we should not revisit decisions that have been taken. When decisions are palpably and manifestly wrong, we should revisit them. I return to the question of the Glasgow accident and emergency facility. I accept the minister's point that nobody seriously argues that five units should be retained, but two units are too few, and their locations are too disparate to be other than a potential life-loser for many people.

The minister lives fairly near Glasgow and knows what the traffic is like in the south-west of the city. At rush hour, or if a game is on at Hampden or Ibrox, how on earth will we transfer a trauma case—for example, a patient who has had a coronary—from the Cathcart or Newlands areas of Glasgow to the Southern general? I do not know whether the minister has recently travelled through the Clyde tunnel at rush hour, when it is wall-to-wall metal. Such issues have never been addressed.

The consultation process was also appalling. As Margaret Mitchell and Alex Neil said, it was clear from point 1 that the solutions were pencilled in in biro. The consultation process was nothing but a total sham.

In Glasgow, opinion was not split: it was always exclusively recognised that problems would exist under the new proposals. The minister may describe the Opposition's views as "jaded" and "ill-informed", but does he apply that description to the views of the hospital consultants who queued up to point out the dangers of his proposals for the Glasgow area? The minister lacks credibility in that respect.

Like Alex Neil, as I listened to the debate unfold, my mind went back to 1997, when there were only 72 hours, 48 hours then 24 hours to save the national health service. We must accept the minister's argument that investment now is much higher than it was then, because the figures are there. However, if the units had closed in the days of the Conservative Government, Andy Kerr, Hugh Henry, Karen Whitefield et al would have patrolled up and down outside hospitals to demonstrate against the evils of the hospital closures. The stench of hypocrisy that surrounds the debate is palpable.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

John Scott said that there would be blood on the hands of Andy Kerr—

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Those are not my words.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Or that people would die as a result—

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Those are not my words.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

John Scott said that in the chamber. He said that people would die as a result of the move—

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I said—

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I am making an intervention. John Scott cannot intervene on an intervention.

John Scott said that people would die as a result of the move from Ayr to Kilmarnock. People said the same when the Conservatives decided to move Law hospital's facilities to Wishaw. Has what they said been true?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I seem to be responding to the intervention as a third party. John Scott did not use the phrase "blood on the hands", but he made the point that deaths could follow. That is a fair summation of what was said. The fact is that people could die as a result of delays in transferring them, although I do not for one moment suggest that the minister must budget and plan on the basis of extreme events—of course he should not. However, the figures to which Jean Turner referred show clearly that in Glasgow, two accident and emergency units and the hybrid facility that is being considered will be totally inadequate and that problems will be inevitable.

I ask the minister to examine the situation again. We are far from satisfied that the information on which the decisions were based—in good faith, I have no doubt—was accurate. It seems to be wide of the mark. As I said, the events at Stobhill hospital earlier this week show that clearly.

I will end with a quotation that appeared under the heading, "Cuts are accident waiting to happen".

"The irony is that in England, John Reid has produced an excellent strategy paper, Keeping the NHS Local, which challenges many of the centralising assumptions behind health policy in Scotland".

Who do members think that came from? It was certainly not a Conservative health spokesman. The quotation was from the late Robin Cook in an article for the Edinburgh Evening News shortly before his death. I need say no more.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

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

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to encourage young people to live and work in the Highlands. (S2O-11594)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Our key strategies, which include determined to succeed, our targeted support for people in the not in education, employment or training group and our funding of thousands of modern apprenticeships, aim to maximise the opportunities that are available to young people throughout the region.

Our agency, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, is also very active in encouraging young people to live and work in the Highlands. For example, it is working closely with the Executive and the Scottish Funding Council to support the development of the UHI Millennium Institute. The success of those initiatives and of the many other actions that the Executive has taken or funded can be seen in the positive population and labour-market trends for the Highlands and Islands, which compare favourably with those for Scotland as a whole.

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

Does the minister acknowledge that a major barrier to young people staying in the Highlands is the lack of affordable housing, particularly in areas of high second-home ownership? Will he please outline what the Scottish Executive proposes to do to alleviate that problem in the Highlands and elsewhere in Scotland?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I largely agree with that prognosis. We must get the fundamentals right, which means creating economic and employment opportunities. The record-high employment rate in the region and the economic activity rate of about 83 per cent, which is higher than that for the rest of Scotland, constitute almost full employment. Allied to that, we must provide places for people to live if they are to work in the region.

The public sector has invested heavily in affordable housing in the region because of the market's inability to provide affordable housing. Overall, we will spend £1.2 billion on that in the current three-year spending period from 2005 to

2008. That money is allied to schemes such as homestake, which gives young people in particular a first step into the housing market. All that adds together to provide a positive package to encourage people to live and work in the Highlands.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

It is highly appropriate that the minister who moved Scottish Natural Heritage's headquarters closer to the heritage that it is paid to monitor and protect is answering the question. Does he agree that the decision that Highlands and Islands Enterprise took five years ago to move 30 jobs from Inverness to Benbecula and the United Kingdom Government's decision to relocate 100 jobs from Whitehall to Stornoway have helped to convince the private sector to move jobs to places such as the Western Isles? Does he agree that the Scottish Executive's policy of relocation must remain in place and must continue to be pursued aggressively?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I agree. The Executive and I take pride in the decision that took Scottish Natural Heritage to Inverness. Our relocation policy represents a good example of how the public sector can influence employment patterns as well as social systems in rural areas such as the Highlands.

I agree fundamentally with the proposition that it is not simply the jobs in public institutions that are transferred; economic benefit accrues more generally. Onetel, in Alasdair Morrison's area, is a classic example of that. The expertise and skills that the public sector brings can be used by the private sector to stimulate economic growth more generally in an area.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Recent ministerial answers show that more than 10 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds left Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross in 2000-01 and it is likely that such a number has left every year. The minister agreed that housing should be built, but surely the housing programme must be linked to a commitment to job dispersal to Caithness to stimulate the economy and to offer a choice for young people who wish to stay in the far north. What job dispersal can he offer the far north?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I have referred to steps that I and people in other departments have taken to disperse jobs. The Executive remains committed to job dispersal as a whole.

A distinction must be drawn between Sutherland and Caithness in the statistics that Rob Gibson quotes. There are real challenges in Caithness. I am not one of those, like Mr Gibson, who believe that the future of the nuclear industry is in the past; rather, I believe that it has a positive future and that it and other industries can flourish in Caithness and that economic and employment opportunities can be provided to people that the Scottish National Party would deny them. Because of its blinkered approach to the nuclear energy industry, the SNP would exacerbate the problems that Caithness and Sutherland are facing.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The minister will be aware that ferry services are particularly important if we want to keep young people on our islands. Is he aware of what has recently happened on the island of Gigha, where there was a much-publicised community buy-out? On several occasions, dairy farmers have been unable to get their milk off the island and to the creamery in Campbeltown because the ferry could not get into the harbour at Tayinloan because it was too silted up. Will he please ensure that something is done about that?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I will look out my spade. To take the issue seriously, I am not aware of those circumstances, but I will discuss what has happened with the Minister for Transport.

I am a constituency member for two island communities and will not take any lessons from Jamie McGrigor on the importance of ferry services to island communities. The Executive has invested heavily in ferry services and will continue to work to protect them from privatisation. Jamie McGrigor would doubtless support such privatisation, which would lead to a diminution of services to island residents.

The extension of broadband and the new technological highways to employment and economic opportunities represent a great advance for island residents and the island economy more generally. Such advances have helped to boost populations and employment in island communities. They have helped to end the tyranny of distance, which has been the curse of island communities and of the Highlands more generally in the past. That said, we will certainly look into what has happened on Gigha and get back to Jamie McGrigor.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

To ask the Scottish Executive what impact the new powers to retain DNA will have on the detection of crime in communities. (S2O-11618)

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Since 1 January, the police have been able to retain for up to three years the DNA profiles of those who have been accused of sexual or violent offences. The police have welcomed the new power, as DNA has proved to be a valuable tool in the fight against crime. In future, the police will have a better chance of quickly catching offenders who have been accused in the past, because they will be on the DNA database.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I have been a victim of crime on more than one occasion, as have many of my constituents. Can the minister reassure me that the new powers are entirely compatible with our obligations under the European convention on human rights?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

The Parliament debated that matter. I am aware that there is a range of views on retaining DNA. We believe that the new powers are entirely compatible with the ECHR. Hugh Henry, who was then the Deputy Minister for Justice, said in the debate that we must recognise that people are considered to be innocent until it has been proven that they are guilty of committing a crime and are convicted in court. Nonetheless, we believe that the powers will be a useful tool in the fight against crime.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The minister is correct to say that the new proposals that the Parliament agreed and the police are implementing are welcome. People who have been charged with sexual offences are a potential danger and their DNA should be retained. However, does she agree that taking matters further and retaining for ever and a day the DNA of citizens who have simply co-operated with the police and done their duty as good citizens would undermine the trust that exists between our citizens and the state, and that doing so would represent a retrograde and detrimental step?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I appreciate that many people have concerns about that matter, but our current priority is to implement the new measures and to see them working effectively. Of course arguments can be made for extending the powers, but the matter would have to be debated in the Parliament.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Does the minister agree that DNA is simply an aid to detective work and policing and that it is not the be-all and end-all in detecting crime and bringing criminals to justice?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

DNA is one tool among many tools—I hope that I made that clear in my initial answer. Bringing criminals to justice will continue to depend on police forces having the appropriate personnel at their disposal. We are doing our best to ensure that Scottish police forces have the appropriate personnel and resources at their disposal to fight crime.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Euan Robson is not present to ask question 3.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether police forces are required to follow its guidance on recruitment, contained in police circular 8/2003. (S2O-11662)

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

As the member will be aware from answers to parliamentary questions that she has lodged, issues relating to police recruitment are a matter for individual chief constables. The guidance in police circulars is provided to chief constables to advise them in their operational decision making. It is for chief constables alone to determine which individuals are or are not suitable for appointment to the police service.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The minister is correct to say that I have received answers to my parliamentary questions. However, I have a copy of a letter from her department to a constituent of mine that intimates that the guidance became regulations—I refer to the 2004 police regulations.

Is the minister aware that Strathclyde police, alone among Scotland's police forces, discriminates against potential recruits with a minor form of colour blindness, and that that is against those regulations? Will she undertake to ensure that the one Scottish police force that contravenes those regulations amends its recruitment procedures and makes amends to applicants who have been unfairly and unjustly disadvantaged?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Ms Fabiani has lodged questions on the matter and there has been correspondence on it over a period of time. It is important to realise that I cannot comment on a case that is, I understand, the subject of employment tribunal proceedings. That said, I will give a general response. Revised guidelines have been issued to Scottish police forces that must be taken account of in recruitment procedures. However, other matters may have been taken into account when people have been recruited. It is, of course, up to chief constables to decide who the most appropriate individuals are to have in their force.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will make a decision on the business case for Edinburgh trams. (S2O-11597)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

A decision is expected next month.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The minister will be aware of concerns about tram access to the Western general hospital before the bill was passed and concerns in recent weeks about the proposed feeder bus service. Will he give an assurance that he will consider the provision of properly integrated bus and tram services when he considers the business case? Crucially, will he ensure that the dedicated feeder bus service that Transport Initiatives Edinburgh promised NHS Lothian and the Parliament goes ahead fully?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I will be happy to consider the issues relating to the dedicated bus service that Margaret Smith mentions and to ensure that they are fully taken into account when the business case is assessed. Margaret Smith will be aware that accessibility is one of the issues that must be considered under the Scottish transport appraisal guidance when any business case is assessed. The integration of heavy rail services, the tram system and Edinburgh's excellent bus services will therefore be looked at in the final consideration of the business case, which, as I said, is expected to be decided on next month.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Does the minister realise that, with the exception of one Scottish National Party council member, the whole of the City of Edinburgh Council voted in support of the whole of the tram network, including the spur from Haymarket to Granton? Does he realise that local residents often contact me to ensure that that part of the network is developed, and does he realise that the development of the Granton waterfront heavily depends on that part of the tram network being built? Will he therefore ensure that funding is made available for the whole network, including the spur from Haymarket to Granton?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

As Mr Chisholm knows, the current funding is for the first phase of the project. However, I understand what he has said about Granton and the later phases of the project. He also knows that further developer contributions would help that element of the project. Significant investment is already taking place in private sector housing and business opportunities by a number of organisations and companies, including Forth Ports plc, which I met recently met to discuss the matter.

I, too, noticed that the SNP was the only party in the council chamber that opposed the project. That approach is in line with its transport policy of flip-flopping on everything.

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

Is the minister aware of the 17 November communication from the assessor of the Lothian Valuation Joint Board that said that rates relief has been agreed for businesses that will be affected by the construction of the proposed tram system, and that it has been estimated that that relief will cost £18 million? Does he agree that that figure does not appear in any of the costings or in the business case; that the cost would be borne by the Scottish taxpayer; and that, until now, the Executive, although it has been informed of the issue, has chosen to keep quiet about it? Does his predecessor's undertaking that the Executive's contribution to the scheme will not be increased still stand, or will there be hidden extra costs to the taxpayer, as was the case with the Parliament building?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Mr Ewing works himself up into righteous indignation on the tram project, as he does on all projects. It would be great if he concentrated on keeping to the positives. I notice that Mr Ewing, the Scottish National Party's transport spokesman, did not concentrate on that party's policy flip-flop on the issue: the SNP used to support the Edinburgh trams project, but it is now opposed to it. On every transport project, Mr Ewing tries to find some small issue so that he can say that the project is good or bad and so justify the SNP's policy of changing its mind. The only consistent thing about the SNP is that it changes its mind.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I welcome the progress that has been made on what will be an ambitious step forward for Edinburgh's transport infrastructure. I also welcome the minister's statement that further developments will take place. In that regard, I seek an assurance from him that he will continue to work with the City of Edinburgh Council to ensure that the city gets a third tramline to serve the south-east of the city in the future.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I hope that we can make further progress on this exciting project, not only for Edinburgh, but for the whole of Scotland. I give Susan Deacon the assurance that she seeks. One important aspect is to consider what is happening internationally, which some parties are keen to do. If we examine the Luas scheme in Dublin, we find that the project is now making an operational surplus and is transporting people throughout the city of Dublin. The scheme has achieved that by expanding and by levering in more developer contributions. That is an exciting possibility for our capital city, too.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what knowledge it has of complaints that Glasgow Housing Association's acquisition of commercial properties in 2003 was in breach of competition law. (S2O-11655)

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I am aware that a petition has been sent to the European Parliament alleging an infringement of European Community procurement law. At this stage, the Scottish Executive does not believe that there was any breach of EC competition law in the Glasgow stock transfer in respect of the commercial properties that are referred to in the petition. We will of course be happy to assist the Parliament and/or the European Commission in any inquiries.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The minister is aware of the petition, but is he also aware of correspondence from the European Commission to United Kingdom authorities regarding the transfer, to which as yet it has received no reply? Has the minister or the Scottish Executive entered into correspondence on the matter and, if so, what does that entail?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The Executive has received an administrative inquiry from the Commission about the GHA and has answered the Commission's questions. I repeat that, at this stage, we do not believe that there has been any breach of EC law in relation to the Glasgow stock transfer.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it intends to include statistics on the Irish community in Scotland on the website of its one Scotland, many cultures campaign and what the reasons are for its position on the matter. (S2O-11633)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The one Scotland, many cultures website includes statistics on the Irish community in Scotland: there is a link to the "Analysis of Ethnicity in the 2001 Census: Summary Report" in the ethnicity data section, and there is a section on Irish migration in the section on the history of migration.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I want to make the minister aware that I and many others in the Irish community in Scotland are concerned that the Scottish Executive's claim on its one Scotland, many cultures website that the Pakistani community is the biggest ethnic minority in the country is factually inaccurate. We are also concerned that its recognition of only non-white ethnic minorities undermines the excellent aims of the campaign. Does the minister acknowledge that as 50,000 Irish-born people and 100,000 people who have an Irish parent live in Scotland and as the multigenerational Irish community in Scotland has almost 500,000 people, the continuing failure properly to acknowledge the existence and importance of the Irish community in the country prevents the development of a proper understanding of the problems of racism and sectarianism in Scotland?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I make it clear that racism is absolutely unacceptable, whomever it is directed at, including invisible minorities in Scotland, such as the Irish, the English or new communities arriving from the new European Union accession states. That is one of the key messages of the one Scotland campaign. Racism and discrimination are experienced by a number of different racial and ethnic groups in Scotland. The awareness campaign cannot attempt to address all those groups individually. However, although the campaign does not deal specifically with racism toward Irish people, the fundamental messages are the same. The key issue is to tackle the underlying attitudes and behaviours, whomever they are directed at and however they are manifested.

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2641)

I wish the First Minister a happy new year.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

I wish Nicola Sturgeon and yourself, Presiding Officer, a happy new year.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Since Parliament last met, Malcolm Chisholm has been forced to resign from the Cabinet. Will the First Minister explain why?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I think that Mr Chisholm explained his reasons for his decision in his letter to me of—I think—21 or 22 December. I want to put on record my gratitude to Mr Chisholm for his work as a minister during the years when I have been First Minister. He has served this Parliament well as the Minister for Health and Community Care and the Minister for Communities, in which posts he made a real difference. I wish him well in his constituency and on the back benches of the Parliament.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

That begs the question, if Malcolm Chisholm was such a good minister, why was he given, in his words, "no choice" but to resign from the First Minister's Cabinet? Is not Malcolm Chisholm's sacking from the Cabinet just one more example of the First Minister's words not being worth the paper that they are written on? I remind the First Minister that, on 7 December, he said that there is no collective responsibility among ministers on the issue of Trident. He continued:

"I expect people in my own party as well as in the Executive to speak from their consciences and to speak their own minds".—[Official Report, 7 December 2006; c 30168.]

However, two weeks later, when a minister took him at his word and did just that, that minister was sacked. For clarity, what is the position? Are Labour members and ministers free to follow their conscience on Trident or are they now all expected to ignore their conscience, ignore what is best for Scotland's schools and hospitals and meekly toe the London Labour line, just as the First Minister has done?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Although, due to bronchitis, I was absent on the day of the debate on Trident, I was proud of the way in which Labour members openly and honestly expressed a variety of views on the subject. I welcome that and continue to encourage it as part of the national debate on this issue.

The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have differing positions on this issue. It is, therefore, correct that there should not be an Executive position on the issue. However, the individual political parties are perfectly right to hold their own positions in this chamber. We should all do so and we should do so vocally.

On the more general issue that Ms Sturgeon moved on to, this major debate that faces our country demands a degree of consistency among us all. That consistency is absolutely clear in relation to my position and in relation to the position that Labour members and others should be encouraged to express their view. It is not evident on the part of the Scottish National Party, which, again this week, has expressed a different view about what it would do with the money that it claims would be saved as a result of not renewing Trident. It is simply not acceptable for the SNP to continue to say different things in different months or—occasionally—in the same week in order simply to win votes. That is something for which we will expose the party in the months to come. Indeed, I will do so today if Ms Sturgeon wants to give me the opportunity.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The First Minister's answer might make some sense if he had not sacked a minister for voting against Trident in this Parliament. He talks about consistency, but is it not the case that no one can believe a word that the First Minister says? He promised to listen to the debate on Trident before making up his mind but he fell into line with Tony Blair on day 1 of that debate. He promised that ministers would be free to speak their own minds, but sacked the first one who did that. He said that he respected those who demonstrate against Trident but is now totally silent when those on the extremist wing of his party condemn peaceful protest. Is it any wonder that, according to yesterday's newspapers, senior members of the First Minister's party now think that he has "completely lost the plot"?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The first assertion is simply not true. I think that the Government is making the right decisions in reducing the number of warheads; in ensuring that, at the next Westminster Parliament, there will be a vote on the replacement of the entire warhead system; and in ensuring that, in the meantime, there will be a debate before the vote in the Westminster Parliament. I support that position on the basis of the announcement that was made, and I do so absolutely consistently.

What Ms Sturgeon says on the second issue is not true. No one was sacked.

On the third issue, I say to Ms Sturgeon that there is a world of difference between people genuinely having a consistent view—on Trident or on any other issue in Scotland today—and expressing that view peacefully in protest and politicians deliberately setting themselves up to get arrested at a military base and wasting police time. Police officers, who could have been used elsewhere in Scotland far more effectively, had to waste their time at a military base in trying to prevent politicians who wanted to get themselves arrested from disrupting legal activity.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

That is sheer and utter hypocrisy. If Labour was not going to replace Trident, there would be no need for any police at Faslane and we would have £25 billion more to spend on police, schools and hospitals. Is it not the case that the First Minister is in disarray on Trident and now presides over a Government that is in total disarray? Is it not clear that sacking a minister of principle and replacing him with a minister who is immediately rubbished by the First Minister's own back-bench and front-bench colleagues is not a sign of strength, but a sign of weakness? Is not that why so many people think that it is time to get rid of a Labour Government that is tired, divided and negative and replace it with a new SNP Government that is united, ambitious and positive about Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Where do I start? I repeat that there is a world of difference between supporting peaceful protests that are designed to make a point and to influence Government decisions, and politicians from the nationalist party, the Green party and the Trotskyists deliberately setting out to create and attend a demonstration at which people will be arrested and police time will be wasted.

In relation to consistency of approach on the issue, there is a world of difference between listening to the decisions of the UK Government and expressing a view on them and saying something different this week from what was said back in the autumn. Back then, Angus Robertson, the SNP's defence spokesperson, made it absolutely clear that the SNP would spend any money that was saved from nuclear weapons on conventional defence forces in Scotland. However, this week, in this chamber, Ms Sturgeon claims that the SNP would spend the money on health, education and police. The truth is that SNP members will say anything to win votes in Scotland. They will say anything to anybody, depending on what they think will be popular from one week to the next. That is why the SNP is unfit to be the Government of Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2642)

I wish the First Minister a happy new year.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have not met the Prime Minister yet this year. When I do so, I will wish him a happy new year.

I wish Ms Goldie a happy new year and I wish her all the best.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

On Monday—a working day for most Scots—a group of MSPs, who are paid by Scottish taxpayers to represent them on the issues that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, chose to mount a demonstration on an issue that is reserved to Westminster.

Of course, Scots have the right to protest, and I might add that a nuclear deterrent helps to retain that right. Does the First Minister agree with his Labour colleague, Duncan McNeil, as I do, that those MSPs are self-serving self-publicists and that they owe an apology to Scottish taxpayers?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will be very clear. I support the right of peaceful protest and the right of politicians and others to demonstrate their views and to seek to influence Government by doing that. I do not support elected politicians who have a responsibility for the criminal justice system of this country deliberately seeking to waste police time by making and then carrying out the obvious threat that they will try to get arrested. The parties in this Parliament that actively encourage such protest should be ashamed of themselves, particularly as it directly contradicts what they say in public at other times. They should be consistent and stand up for the police and the communities of Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for that answer. He well knows the true cost of the actions of people such as the leader of the Scottish branch of the SNP, Miss Sturgeon. While her main aim is to get her picture in the paper, the true cost of her actions and those of her socialist brothers and sisters is a multimillion-pound policing bill. That means diversion of police resources, increased vulnerability for victims of crime, an unnecessary use of precious court resources and more overcrowding of our prisons. Does the First Minister think that that is a good advertisement for the Parliament?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Not at all, and perhaps it shows what might happen if one of the coalitions that the SNP is fantasising about was ever to run the Government in Scotland.

I repeat my position; I do not want to add any more to my views on the subject. I support the right of peaceful protest. I encourage people across Scotland to express their views on this subject. However, I object to elected politicians disrupting the legitimate activities of others in Scotland with the sole aim of getting themselves arrested and wasting police time in order to get publicity. They should be condemned for that and they should think about doing it again.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I will let Miss Goldie ask her third question, so that there is a sequence, and then I will take your point of order.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am delighted to say that no Conservative MSP protested at Faslane and no Conservative MSP will. The priorities of the Scottish people are not submarines. They are to tackle crime and offences, which are up under the Executive; to reduce drugs abuse, which is rising under the Executive; to provide more affordable housing for those who are struggling to get a foot on the ladder, which is an increasing problem under the Executive; and to save local health and dental services from being cut by the Executive. Does the First Minister agree that whatever our political differences on those issues, they are the issues and they are why we are here?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I certainly agree that they are the issues. However, I will be very clear with Miss Goldie. First, crime has come down considerably since the dark days when the Tories were running Scotland. Secondly, the action that has been taken by the Executive to support affordable housing in Scotland is delivering houses for young families who need a first step on the property ladder, and we need to do more of that. Thirdly, in Scotland today there are more drug treatment centres and more people getting drug treatment than ever before. Fourthly, across Scotland, at long last we have seen improvements in the provision of dental services following the disastrous decisions of the Tories in the mid-1990s to close down dental schools and reduce the amount of dental training in Scotland. I agree that all those areas are among the priorities for this Parliament, but I also say that Scotland is now moving in the right direction and we intend to build upon that.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Frances Curran may make her point of order now.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Will the Presiding Officer give us the right to reply, given that our conduct is being questioned in the chamber by several members, including the First Minister? In a democracy, we should have the opportunity to reply.

We took part in a completely peaceful protest. No criminal charges were brought against any of those who took part in that protest, making it clear that we were upholding the right to protest in this country—a right which the First Minister and others would like to prevent us from having. I ask the Presiding Officer to give us the right to reply.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

You have just taken that right by making your point of order. I was considering you for a supplementary question, but you have given a clear statement of your position, so I intend to move on. I will take two further supplementaries.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. With the greatest respect, I suggest that if we had less argy-bargy and more accountability and more questioning rather than commenting, we would not have reached the situation in which Frances Curran had to do what she did.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Is the First Minister aware of the discussions that are taking place as we speak with the workforce at NCR in Dundee about the future of its plant? Although we are not yet sure about the extent of the redundancies that may be announced, it is possible that the impact will be severe, especially given that there could be knock-on consequences for hundreds of jobs in the supply chain.

At this stage, will the First Minister commit to using all the powers at his disposal, including regional selective assistance, to minimise the impact of any jobs that may be lost and the devastating blow that that would be for Dundee? Will he ensure that the Deputy First Minister visits NCR as a matter of urgency to discuss what assistance can be provided?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I understand that the situation, which is potentially serious, is being discussed with the workforce at this very moment, so it is difficult to provide a precise response other than to say, first, that NCR is a valued employer in Dundee and elsewhere in Scotland; that we wish it to retain a maximum presence; and that we will continue to work with it to secure that. Secondly, over the past 10 years, the company has contributed to the 15 per cent increase in employment in Dundee since 1997 and it is very important that we maintain that improvement in employment and in the Scottish economy. Thirdly, it is important that we also look to new employers and expansion in new industries. I was delighted by the Deputy First Minister's announcement on Monday of this week about the expansion of the employment base of Alliance Trust in Dundee and I hope that that will be the first of a number of announcements that will help to alleviate any difficulties that are caused by any announcement that might be made later today.

I give an absolute commitment to the people of Dundee and the surrounding area that I and fellow ministers take the matter and the future prosperity of the city seriously. Of course there will be early meetings to discuss the situation. I expect to speak to Kate Maclean, who is the local constituency MSP, on the issue within the next half hour. She is in Dundee at the moment and expects to be briefed on the spot.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for the reassurances that he has given to Shona Robison. Kate Maclean, who is the local constituency MSP, is on her way to Dundee to meet the workers and unions after the noon meeting.

I express the hope that if today's meeting at NCR is followed by an announcement of job losses, the First Minister will do everything in his power to ensure that the workforce has a smooth transition into alternative employment. Given that some members of the workforce have been employed by NCR for decades, I ask that special consideration be given to Dundee.