Scottish Parliament, 25 January 2007

438 contributions from 81 members. The official report.

Official Report 25 January 2007

Business Motion

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Good morning. The first item of business is consideration of business motion SM2-5464, in the name of Margaret Curran, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Crofting Reform etc Bill. I call on Alasdair Morgan from the bureau to move the motion.

Motion moved,

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

Groups 1 to 5: 55 minutes Groups 6 and 7: 1 hour 15 minutes Groups 8 to 11: 1 hour 35 minutes.—[Alasdair Morgan.]

Motion agreed to.

Crofting Reform etc Bill: Stage 3

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is stage 3 consideration of the Crofting Reform etc Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have with them the bill as amended at stage 2, which is SP bill 57A, the marshalled list, which contains the amendments that I have selected for debate, a supplement to the marshalled list, which is printed on pink paper and contains manuscript amendments that were lodged yesterday, and the revised groupings that have been agreed. For the first division on an amendment, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The first group of amendments is on the discharge of functions of the Crofters Commission. Amendment 26, in the name of Maureen Macmillan, is the only amendment in the group.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Amendment 26 would reinsert an important phrase that appears in previous crofting legislation, such as the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. The phrase was removed from the bill when sections of the bill that dealt with the role and restructuring of the Crofters Commission were deleted at stage 2. The Environment and Rural Development Committee requested the removal of those sections to address concerns that many crofters had expressed to it and so that a committee of inquiry could be set up to consider the future role and structure of the Crofters Commission.

Crofters are concerned that the removal of the requirement for the commission to

"have regard to local circumstances and conditions"

will prevent, until the inquiry's recommendations pass into law, the flexibility in regulation that is necessary for different types of crofting community and different types of crofting and family circumstances. I seek an assurance from the minister that flexibility will be exercised in manner similar to the way in which it has been exercised previously and that it will not be laid aside for the duration of the inquiry. The matter is of great importance to the crofting community.

I move amendment 26.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I support amendment 26. I realise from my visits to crofting communities and from the evidence that the communities gave us that sensitivity by the commission is important. The current regime in Inverness wants to pick up local issues in a more focused way than they have been picked up in recent years. Amendment 26 underlines that approach and would give our blessing to the commission trying to deal with the worst abuses that may occur before the inquiry reaches its overall views.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Before I speak to amendment 26, I want to apologise to the Presiding Officer and to members for the late lodging of manuscript amendments yesterday. The late lodging of manuscript amendments always causes concern, which is understandable. Unfortunately, following stage 2, during which a large number of amendments were lodged, the process of ensuring that the sections were renumbered and contextualised was not properly completed. That was picked up at a rather late date. However, I assure members that none of the amendments in question has any policy implications whatsoever; they are entirely directed at ensuring that the numbering and contextualising of amended sections is correct. I apologise for the matter being picked up so late.

I fully understand the issue that Maureen Macmillan has raised, and sympathise with her. As she said, the 1993 act provides for ministers only to give general directions to the commission. It is clear that the intention of amendment 26 is to address criticisms that may possibly arise that ministers are not setting clear priorities. I think that that is what Rob Gibson was getting at.

The bill sets out the functions that the commission must discharge and how it must discharge them. The discharge of those functions may be varied by general or specific directions from Scottish ministers. Adding words that would further qualify how the commission should discharge its functions would not improve the clarity or precision of the provision on the discharge of functions; rather, there would be a risk of diluting or compromising the intention of the provision. In other words, it would be difficult to leave in the words

"have regard to local circumstances and conditions"

if they follow the words

"directions of a ... specific character".

Their effect would be to dilute the specific nature of ministerial directions.

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

If the minister is arguing that ministers will have the power to give

"directions of a general or specific character"

and that, in carrying out its functions, the commission shall have regard to local circumstances and conditions, will he give such directions?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I was coming to the undertaking on that matter. If the words in question were added to section 2, they would qualify how the commission should discharge its functions. We should consider the range of functions that are specified elsewhere in the bill.

On whether circumstances will arise in which such directions will be given, if local circumstances are the key issue, they will undoubtedly form part of any ministerial direction. Therefore, I see no reason why ministers could not, when giving the commission a general or specific direction following the enactment of the bill, require that the direction be carried out with regard to local circumstances and conditions if that proves to be necessary and appropriate. That said, it would be difficult for the commission to regulate without having regard to local circumstances, as each regulatory case throws up different local issues and concerns.

I ask Maureen Macmillan not to press amendment 26; if she presses the amendment, I ask the Parliament to resist it.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I take comfort from what the minister said, but emphasise that the eyes of crofters will now be on him to ensure that there is flexibility. I seek to withdraw amendment 26 as a result of the reassurances that I have been given.

Amendment 26, by agreement, withdrawn.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 2 is on town and country planning. Amendment 39, in the name of John Farquhar Munro, is grouped with amendment 40.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

Amendment 39 was lodged to ensure that Maureen Macmillan's amendment 26 would be strengthened as a result of support for amendment 39.

As we have heard, it is hoped that the bill will ensure that the Crofters Commission will be a statutory consultee on planning applications that affect croft ground.

I suggest in amendment 39 that, in its response to a planning authority, the commission should have

"a presumption against the development of croft land which appears ... to be capable of agricultural use"—

that is, either cultivation or agricultural production.

As members appreciate, the definition of croft land is complex. In simple terms, croft land, with certain exceptions, includes all inby land pertaining to a croft, but specifically excludes that area of ground under crofting tenure that is classified and registered as common grazings. That being the case, my amendment 39 seeks to protect the remaining areas of croft land that are considered capable of appropriate agricultural development. The amendment would give the Crofters Commission the opportunity to make representations on any application that affects croft ground.

Amendment 40 is in a similar vein. It is designed to apply in much the same way as amendment 39, except that it deals with the local development plan. Amendment 40 is intended to protect croft land that is incorporated in a local development plan under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The main strategy set out in the amendment is a proposal that

"there be no development of croft land"

unless proposed new section 264B(3) of the 1997 act applies. Proposed new subsection (3) would allow planning authorities that

"are satisfied that it would be in the public or community interest to permit the development ... of specified croft land."

Proposed new subsection (4) clarifies the term "croft land", and paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of proposed new subsection (4) list exemptions, such as the site of the croft house, the common grazings and

"mines, metals or minerals or salmon fishings ... pertaining to the croft."

Amendments 39 and 40 are designed to protect the remaining areas of arable croft ground for generations to come.

I move amendment 39.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I have great sympathy with John Farquhar Munro's amendments. It is absolutely crucial that we get the planning situation right. I do not know whether he is aware that the Environment and Rural Development Committee received a letter from the Deputy Minister for Communities on 11 January, in which it was made clear that the Crofters Commission would become a consultee. The deputy minister said:

"The most appropriate stage at which the issue of protecting croft land from development should be addressed is during the course of preparing the local plan."

He went on to say that the Executive would

"work with the Crofters Commission in coming to a view on its most appropriate role within the planning system."

Although that gives us great comfort, it is also up to the Crofters Commission to do its duty. There is no use in its being a statutory consultee if what comes out at the end of the consultation is a laissez-faire attitude.

I do not know whether it is appropriate to include in the bill the terms that John Farquhar Munro proposes, but I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say about the amendments.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

John Farquhar Munro raises an issue that is at the heart of the Highlands problem—the provision of affordable housing in crofting areas in a way that does not, through village plans, take crofting land away, with the best land used for building houses. It is an unacceptable use of land in the Highlands to build housing that looks like Brookside on croft land that could be used for crofting, given that we are thinking about producing more food locally and seeing a potential upturn in crofting.

We must take on board John Farquhar Munro's arguments. His amendments flag up the fact that the Parliament is not content about more good agricultural land being taken away for housing. I do not know whether the member for the Western Isles is present, but if this debate was taking place in committee, he would point out that in the Western Isles, developing housing on common grazings is one of the best means of providing affordable housing. As he is not here, I make the point. Committee members realised that we must have such amendments to allow affordable housing to be built and to protect good land. We have great pleasure in supporting John Farquhar Munro's amendments 39 and 40.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I am well aware of John Farquhar Munro's strong interest in clarifying the relationship between planning and crofting law and I hope to reassure him on some points this morning.

The intention of amendment 39 seems to be that the Crofters Commission should make representations to planning authorities to prevent croft land that is capable of agricultural use from being developed. The wording of the amendment suggests that protecting land that is capable of agricultural use should be the commission's only concern in relation to planning consultations. According to the amendment, the commission would have no other obligations or interests in planning consultations, even though crofters and crofting communities might have wider interests in a planning matter that is under consideration.

Amendment 40 is unnecessary. It seeks to require a planning authority to include a provision in the local development plan that there should be no development of croft land unless it considers that the development is

"in the public or community interest".

The concept of public or community interest is broad. When a local authority formulates a detailed statement of its proposals as to the development of land, it is clear that it will need to consider the public and community interest, irrespective of whether the land in question is croft land. There is no need to make the amendment to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 that John Farquhar Munro proposes. At best, the amendment would only make explicit an existing fundamental principle of planning policy.

Maureen Macmillan rightly referred to the debates that we had at stage 2, including a debate on the relationship between the Crofters Commission and planning. At that stage, John Farquhar Munro lodged a series of amendments whose intention was to prescribe that the Crofters Commission should respond to planning and development matters. His amendments sought to prevent better quality croft land from being removed from agricultural use, and they related to concerns about the development of and speculation in croft land. Through the amendments, he sought to give the Crofters Commission, rather than the local planning authority, the final say over whether croft land should be released for development.

At the time, John Farquhar Munro was assured publicly and formally by the former deputy minister, Rhona Brankin, and the then Deputy Minister for Communities, Johann Lamont, that when the secondary legislation associated with the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill was considered, the possibility of defining the Crofters Commission as a statutory consultee would also be considered. Consideration will also be given to the evidence submitted to the Environment and Rural Development Committee and the debates at stage 2.

Rob Gibson made an absolutely vital point about the need to ensure that we identify sufficient land for housing in our rural communities. The best way to do that is to ensure that, in the secondary legislation created under the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, the Crofters Commission is involved in contributing to the shape of local authorities' development plans. That will bring together two key objectives and ensure that we have an effective way of considering adequately and reflecting crofting issues and concerns in local planning policies for the crofting communities.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

As I said, the aim and objective of my amendments is to protect good-quality croft land and, as a consequence, the communities that depend on that land. The amendments would not block developments that were in the overall interests of the crofting community. They would, however, prevent individuals from developing some of the better-quality croft land, which is scarce. Such developments destroy an important agricultural asset that is needed by the larger crofting community now and for generations to come. Good-quality agricultural land is in very short supply in the crofting counties. Too much has already been lost, much of it in recent years.

I stress that my amendments would not prevent development of common grazing land, which is of much poorer quality. As any visitor to the Highlands will know and appreciate, an abundance of it is available for development. I suggest that the Parliament support amendments 39 and 40, and I hope that it will.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division. I suspend the meeting for five minutes.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We will proceed with the division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 45, Against 55, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 39 disagreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 3 is on amendments consequential on stage 2 amendments. Amendment 42, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 43, 6 and 44 to 50.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

At stage 2, Maureen Macmillan lodged an amendment that proposed the same provisions as are contained in amendment 6, but unfortunately it was not moved at the appropriate time. Amendment 6 is a consequential drafting amendment; it is required as a result of the decision to leave out section 8 of the bill. It removes the reference to a new section—section 41A—of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, which section 8 would have inserted.

The proposals in section 8, which would have involved the Crofters Commission requiring crofters to incur charges, proved deeply unpopular during the consultation period and with the Environment and Rural Development Committee. As a result, section 8, which required the provision of maps by crofters and allowed the commission to charge fees in connection with the maintenance of the register of crofts, was deleted at stage 2. Members therefore need to agree to amendment 6.

Amendments 42 to 50 all make technical changes that should have been made in consequential amendments at stage 2. The amendments are necessary because the existing cross-references relate to the position before substantial amendments were made at stage 2 to section 37, which inserts proposed new section 52A into the 1993 act. The amendments create accurate cross-references to the provisions of proposed new section 52A.

I move amendment 42.

Amendment 42 agreed to.

Amendment 43 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 4 is on new crofts. Amendment 28, in the name of Ted Brocklebank, is grouped with amendments 29, 30, 31, 5 and 32.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The purpose of my amendments—particularly amendments 28 to 31—is to ensure that the interests of the landlord are taken into account when a small landholder applies for crofting status. For example, in our view it would be wholly unacceptable for an owner to have to rely on the public notification scheme to become aware that part of his property was to be turned into a croft. My amendments would ensure that, as a basic right, the owner would be notified directly of the application. To me, that seems only reasonable.

I turn to amendment 32. Section 10 brings on to the political agenda the absolute right to buy back farm land. Understandably, landowners fear that traditional agricultural tenants will seek the same right to buy as their small landholder neighbours. As we all know, there are already many issues that work against the freeing up of land to enable young people to go into farming, and I am worried that section 10 will exacerbate an already serious situation.

In the evidence-taking sessions at stage 1, a number of crofting interests made it clear that an absolute right to buy would be detrimental to the establishment of new crofts. Amendment 32 would ensure that the crofter's right to buy croft land would not apply to new crofts that were created, but the right to buy the house and garden would remain. That would mirror what will happen when crofts are voluntarily created in any other part of Scotland and create a level playing field for all new crofts. The provision is necessary to help prevent further destabilisation of the let land market. I urge members to support amendment 32.

I move amendment 28.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Ted Brocklebank is concerned about notification to landlords. I do not think that we are going to agree about that. The structure and context of the bill make his proposal unnecessary. In cases in which the tenant of a smallholding wishes to convert the holding to crofting tenure, the landlord will be engaged in the process at the outset, when the tenant applies to the Scottish Land Court for a certificate. The court would not grant such a certificate without first seeking evidence from the landlord. An application to change the status of the holding cannot be made until the certificate has been obtained, so the application can be expected to follow the granting of the certificate. In my opinion, therefore, direct notification to the landlord is not required for them to be aware of the application.

Amendment 30 proposes a further notification process, but the Crofters Commission will be unable to make a determination until it is satisfied that the conditions in the sections to which Mr Brocklebank referred—particularly proposed new sections 3A(10) and 3A(11) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993—have been met. The commission can be satisfied only if it has consulted the landlord. It will not be able to give effect to the determination until the tenant has either negotiated with the landlord the amount of compensation—if any—that is payable or arranged for that sum to be determined by the Land Court. I see no need for the additional notification that Ted Brocklebank proposes.

Amendment 31 would require the commission to have regard to the landowner's interests in determining whether any land should become croft land. Again, we see no need for that. Proposed new section 3A(7)(a) of the 1993 act already provides that the commission shall have regard to comments that are made in response to the public notification. That makes it clear that the commission must have regard to the landlord's interest.

Amendment 32, however, is different. For tenants of smallholdings that have been converted into crofts, the amendment seeks to restrict the crofter's right to buy to the right to buy the house and garden ground. That is counter to the policy intention on small landholdings in section 10, which is to give small landholders access to the full rights of crofters.

At stage 2, Rob Gibson lodged an amendment that proposed to give the Crofters Commission the discretion to allow amalgamated small landholdings of 30 hectares or more to be designated as crofts. My then deputy, Rhona Brankin, argued that that amendment would create unnecessary bureaucracy but stated that there might be an argument for the intent behind it. We said that we would consider the underlying issue. We have done that, and our amendment 5 proposes the removal of the 30-hectare limit. If it was retained on a discretionary basis, that would make any case that arose more complicated. The removal of the limit will ensure that the tenants of holdings in designated areas have access to a right to buy, either through transition to crofting tenure or as tenants of agricultural holdings.

I invite the Parliament to agree to amendment 5 and to resist the other amendments in the group.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am delighted that, following the discussion at stage 2, the minister has lodged amendment 5. It is the final piece in the jigsaw that will allow the small landholders of Arran—and Arran Estates in particular—to come into the crofting system. They will have the opportunities to develop and improve their holdings that are already open to the holders of owner-occupied properties next door. If they wish to go down that route, so be it. Small landholders were missed out of the land reform legislation in the previous session of Parliament, so I am glad that the anomaly has been rectified at last. This is a great day for those people in Arran, who will be able to move on.

On the rearguard action by the Scottish Landowners Federation, which is more Lord Brockett than Ted Brocklebank, we must ensure that people who have faced the disadvantages of being small landholders now receive courtesy from the Crofters Commission, rather than the non-courtesy that they experienced from their landowners for many years. To accept what Ted Brocklebank says on the matter would be a travesty. I have great pleasure in supporting amendment 5 and opposing the five other amendments in the group.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Notwithstanding what has been said, I believe that equity should be exercised. Since 1883, the relationship between landholders and crofters has been a complex, tortuous and sometimes difficult one. Broadly speaking, however, equity has been achieved overall, and through my amendments I seek to ensure that that equity is retained. I do not accept the thrust of the arguments from the minister and the SNP, so I will press amendment 28.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 15, Against 87, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 28 disagreed to.

Amendments 29 to 31 not moved.

Amendment 5 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 32 moved—[Mr Ted Brocklebank].

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 16, Against 85, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 32 disagreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 5 is on the statutory conditions. Amendment 33, in the name of Maureen Macmillan, is the only amendment in the group.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Amendment 33 seeks to ensure that a crofter who neglects his or her croft, for example by not draining it or by allowing nettles or whins to grow, will not have that neglect legitimised by section 11. To some people, the provision on refraining from activity for the purpose of conserving natural beauty could be a licence to do nothing with a croft, which would lead to its becoming degraded. Amendment 33 would add the qualification that, to use that provision, the crofter would have to be acting, or refraining from acting, on the advice of a conservation body. At the very least, I seek assurance from the minister that the sly or the cynical will not be able to use section 11 to circumvent a charge of neglect.

I move amendment 33.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am sympathetic to Maureen Macmillan's point in amendment 33, but we must consider what would happen in the situation that she described. If steps were taken to remove a crofter for breach of the statutory conditions under section 5 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, the crofter could respond to the challenge by arguing that he or she was using the croft to conserve the natural beauty of the locality of the croft, or the flora and fauna of that locality. That opportunity will be afforded to crofters by virtue of an amendment to the 1993 act under section 11 of the bill. To support that assertion, the crofter would need to persuade the Scottish Land Court that the purpose of engaging in certain activity—or, as Maureen Macmillan said, of refraining from activity—on the croft was to conserve the natural beauty of the locality, or the flora and fauna. The crofter would need to support that assertion with evidence, such as a demonstration that he or she was participating in a formal conservation programme or had agreed conservation measures as part of a land management contract, or proof that they had taken advice on conservation measures on the croft. The same situation will apply when a complaint is made to the Crofters Commission under proposed new section 5A of the 1993 act about breach of statutory conditions.

Therefore, it will not be possible for the sly or the sleekit—I cannot remember the exact phrase that Maureen Macmillan used, but it was something similar to that—to squeeze through a loophole in the provisions in the 1993 act and the bill. I invite Maureen Macmillan to seek to withdraw amendment 33. If she does not, I invite Parliament to resist it.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for those assurances. It is important to have them on the record so that people know exactly what section 11 means, and that they cannot get away with doing nothing and then pleading that they were carrying out nature conservation. I seek leave to withdraw amendment 33.

Amendment 33, by agreement, withdrawn.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 6 is on consideration payable in respect of the acquisition of croft land. Amendment 34, in the name of Ted Brocklebank, is the only amendment in the group.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Agreement to amendment 34 would result in an extremely important amendment to the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, so I urge all members to support it, again in the interests of fair play and equity. The 1993 act replicates provisions in the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976 that introduced a clawback measure in relation to the exercise of a crofter's right to buy croft land. The intention was that if a crofter who had exercised the right to buy then sold the croft within five years, the uplift in value would be shared with the landlord. That was equitable, given that the intention was that the crofter or his family would be able to buy croft land to continue working it as a croft and that, in recognition of that, a nominal sum was payable to the landlord.

The legislation also entitled the crofter, when exercising his right to buy, to have a nominee take title rather than himself. The parliamentary intention, which is clear from the Hansard reports from when the proposals were considered, was that the nominee was expected usually to be a family member and that no money would pass between the crofter and his nominee. Rather, the provision was a way of enabling the next generation to take over a croft without having to pay the clawback. It is therefore regrettable that, since that time, the legislation has been abused by some who have seen fit to use the nominee provision to effect a sub-sale, generally to a developer and for an extremely generous profit, while avoiding the clawback provisions. Such practice is totally contrary to the preservation of traditional crofting in the crofting counties and has helped to fuel the speculation in croft land, which is a great concern today.

The practice has also created a hugely inequitable situation for landowners, as their property can be removed involuntarily at hugely discounted prices only for them to see it lost to developers without proper compensation. Amendment 34 would go some way finally to resolving that unfair anomaly by closing the loophole by which a nominee other than a family member can avoid the clawback procedures.

I have pleasure in moving amendment 34.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Parliament should know that Ted Brocklebank's proposed amendment to the clawback procedure would change the way in which the 1976 act was altered by a judgment in a court case that is known as the Kinlochewe judgment. The altruism of the people who made that case and won it allowed an old couple to get a house on a croft without having to pay the landlord the share that was required under the 1976 act. The wording of the act was challenged in court and was found to be defective. Fortunately, the landlord, who had evicted the old couple from a tied house, was not compensated for the house that was built for them on the croft of my friends, as they had nowhere to go. They would have spent the rest of their lives looking for somewhere to live in their area unless someone had come up with a home.

The procedure has worked in altruistic ways. Crofters told the Environment and Rural Development Committee in evidence that they do not want the legislation on that matter to be altered and that they do not think that it is at the root of the commercialisation of crofts. Ted Brocklebank's amendment 34 is an attempt to turn the clock back to the bad old days before the Kinlochewe judgment, so I urge Parliament to reject it.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The matter is simple: no matter how Ted Brocklebank dresses up amendment 34, it actually tries to fetter the rights of individual crofters to determine and decide their personal affairs and instead have someone else dictate to them how they should arrange those affairs. As Rob Gibson said, amendment 34 would turn the clock back a long way, so I invite Parliament to resist it.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sure that it will come as no surprise to the minister or to Rob Gibson and the SNP that I reject their arguments totally. I believe that we are seeing a process that will result in inequality in the relationship between landholders and crofters. I will press amendment 34.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 16, Against 87, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 34 disagreed to.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Group 7 is on the use of common grazing for other purposes. Amendment 35, in the name of Ted Brocklebank, is grouped with amendments 7 to 11, 36 and 37.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I very much welcome amendment 7, in the name of the minister, which will introduce a right of objection. Amendment 7 echoes an amendment that I lodged at stage 2. I am glad that the minister has seen the logic of including such a provision in the bill. However, further redrafting is necessary to ensure that the bill will in no way damage harmonious relations between crofters and landlords, and that it treats all parties fairly.

Amendment 35 seeks to ensure that the views of the owner will be properly heard and considered. Amendment 37 and the consequential amendment 36 go slightly further and will simply ensure that an owner is compensated for any work that has been carried out on their land between the time when a decision was approved and when it was subsequently varied or withdrawn. The amendments will in no way prevent reasonable alternative uses of common grazings, but they will be crucial to furthering on-going co-operation between landowners and crofters on a fair and equitable basis. The undermining of that co-operation would be detrimental in the extreme.

I move amendment 35.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

As Ted Brocklebank suggests, ministers agreed—in response to amendments that were lodged and withdrawn by Ted Brocklebank at stage 2—that the Executive would look again at the provisions in section 30 and lodge amendments to clarify the right to object to proposals for new uses of common grazings.

Amendments 7 to 11, taken together, will create a comprehensive right to object—the same right that applies to other regulatory decisions that are taken by the Crofters Commission. That right is available to the landlord, the crofters and the members of the crofting community. In our view, amendment 35, which is intended to create a right to object for the landlord, is superseded by amendments 7 to 11.

Amendment 36 is consequential on amendment 37. Amendment 37 reflects concerns that a new use for grazings might come to an end, requiring work to restore them to their previous use, or that grazings could be permanently changed and lose value as a consequence.

Amendment 37 is the same as one that was withdrawn at stage 2. It is founded on two misconceptions. The first is that the alternative use would be by one individual. However, that is not the case. Proposed new section 50B of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 is intended to allow for alternative use by all those who hold grazings shares, either collectively or individually. The second misconception is that new section 50B would allow development on grazings and that it would be possible to start such development but then not finish it, leaving the owner with loss of value or remediation costs.

During our stage 2 debates, Rhona Brankin explained why new uses of common grazings would be unlikely to involve physical development and why, if they did, the fears that underlie Ted Brocklebank's amendment would not materialise.

Rhona Brankin explained that the owner's right to resume use of the land would remain. That would make it difficult to borrow to finance development because, if the owner resumed use of the land, the price that would be payable on resumption might amount to no more than half the development value.

Rhona Brankin also said that, in the event of a physical development's being proposed, planning controls should deal with restoration and remediation issues. New section 50B(9) of the 1993 act will allow the Crofters Commission to set conditions to require restoration where an approved new use ceases.

In addition, I stress that new section 50B(2) of the 1993 act will provide that a new use must not be detrimental to the interests of the owner. A use that could result in a loss of value or a need for remediation at the owner's expense would clearly be detrimental and could not be permitted.

I invite Parliament to reject amendments 35, 36 and 37, and to support amendments 7 to 11.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful to the minister for her further explanation. I will certainly take what she has said into account and I will not seek to press amendment 35.

Amendment 35, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 7 to 11 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.

Amendments 36 and 37 not moved.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 40, in the name of John Farquhar Munro, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 44, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 40 disagreed to.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Group 8 is on crofting community right to buy. Amendment 12, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 41, 13 to 16 and 19 to 25.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Amendments 12to 14, 16, 19 and 22 to 25 are relatively minor adjustments to the substantial package of complicated amendments to section 35 that were agreed to at stage 2. They are required in order fully to deliver the policy—namely, that the crofting community body will be able to acquire tenants' interests in leases, but only the part of the lease that coincides with the croft land and not any portion of the lease that extends beyond the croft land.

The amendments provide for amendment to the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 to cover the situation in which the crofting community body is acquiring a tenancy that has been created partially over eligible croft land and partially over other land. Only the interest in the eligible croft land can be acquired. If there is a sublease, the tenant—being the landlord under that sublease—who has been bought out will remain as landlord in respect of the non-eligible land, and the crofting community body will become the landlord in respect of the eligible land.

Proposed new section 88A of the 2004 act provides for the allocation by a valuer of the rights and obligations under the sublease between the two landlords. The principal obligation will be the rent. The valuer's determination can be appealed to the Scottish Land Court. As part of that package, the term "the interest of the tenant" will replace references to "the real right of the tenant", which will ensure that all relevant leases and not just those that are recorded in the register of sasines or registered in the land register of Scotland would be subject to the provisions. The reference had to be changed in a significant number of places in the bill, but in the reprint of the bill after stage 2 one reference was inadvertently omitted. Amendment 20 is therefore necessary to ensure consistent terminology throughout the bill.

Amendment 21 was lodged to avoid possible ambiguity, because the words, "within 6 weeks of" in paragraph 4(6) of schedule 2 could mean six weeks before as well as six weeks after the consent date.

Amendment 15 is a technical drafting amendment that will ensure that the same references are used throughout section 35.

Amendment 41, in the name of Ted Brocklebank, would require a crofting community body that was seeking to acquire an interposed lease to prove that the lease had been devised deliberately to obstruct acquisition by the crofting community body. It would be nearly impossible to prove the intent behind the interposed lease and an attempt to do so would require extensive and difficult court action. Amendment 41 would undermine the purpose of section 35 and the associated amendments that deal with interposed leases, and would restrict the scope of crofting communities.

I invite Parliament to support amendments 12 to 16 and 19 to 25 and to reject amendment 41.

I move amendment 12.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

My fellow members of the Environment and Rural Development Committee might recall that at stage 2 I lodged an amendment that would have had an effect similar to that of amendment 41. At that time, the minister dismissed my concerns—as he has done today—and claimed that it would be too difficult to prove the intent behind an interposed lease. I did not press my amendment at stage 2 and, although I have considered what the minister said, I am not convinced by his logic.

The fact remains that section 35 could have unintended consequences in that the crofting community body would be able to apply to acquire any leasehold interest, whatever the reason for its existence. Such a provision is dangerously broad. I remind the minister that many lease arrangements exist for perfectly valid reasons. Furthermore, in cases in which crofters' opinions were split over a proposed development on the land, it is conceivable that crofters who wanted to frustrate the development could use the powers to acquire the land and the leasehold interest, thereby preventing the development from taking place.

I fear that developers will not be prepared to make significant investment if a crofting community has the discretion to buy out a tenant's interest in a commercial lease of croft land, because that would create serious uncertainties. It would simply not be worth the risk of investing in a development only to be bought out at a later date.

Amendment 41 would ensure that only leases that were created to frustrate land reform would be affected. It might not always be easy to confirm that the creation of a lease had such a purpose, but that is no reason for accepting the hasty drafting in section 35. Amendment 41 would achieve the desired effect of section 35 but would eliminate the dangers that are inherent in the section as it is drafted.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Do you want to add anything, minister?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Amendment 41 moved—[Mr Ted Brocklebank].

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 14, Against 86, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 41 disagreed to.

Amendments 13 to 16 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Group 9 is on references to the Scottish Land Court by the commission. Amendment 17, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I will be brief, because amendment 17 is relatively straightforward. The Scottish Land Court has a general power under section 53(1) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 to determine questions of fact or law that arise under that act, on a reference to it by the commission or an interested party. Examples of such questions are whether a holding is a croft or what the boundaries of a croft are. Such questions of fact or law might also arise in the context of an application to the commission under the 1993 act and therefore the Land Court's general jurisdiction must be excluded in that context in order to avoid a conflict of jurisdictions. However, the commission still requires the ability to refer voluntarily to the Land Court preliminary questions of fact or law that are related to an application that is before the commission. Amendment 17 will provide for that and I invite the Parliament to support it.

I move amendment 17.

Amendment 17 agreed to.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Group 10 is on the definition of "crofting community". Amendment 18, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The deletion of "and is" in the definition of "crofting community" in section 41 is a response to concerns about the clarity of the definition. Amendment 18 makes it clear that it is the two or more crofts that are registered with the Crofters Commission and not the township. There is no legislative requirement to register townships. I invite Parliament to support the amendment.

I move amendment 18.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for amendment 18, which will remove ambiguity from the definition of "crofting community". Will he confirm that two or more crofts that are in close geographical proximity constitute a township, given that the application of a more formal definition of a crofting community seems to have been at the root of the Taynuilt decision?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

We seek to make that quite clear by deleting the words "and is". Crofts must register with the Crofters Commission, so the definition refers to two or more crofts that are registered—the township is not registered. We believe that the deletion will remove an anomaly in the interpretation of the definition and that it will provide clarity. Amendment 18 is a response to concerns that were expressed, in particular by Lord McGhie, the chairman of the Scottish Land Court, and by the Scottish Crofting Foundation. I must try to assure Maureen Macmillan that amendment 18 will make the position clear and that it will deal with the issues that were raised by the foundation, and with Lord McGhie's advice on the definition.

Amendment 18 agreed to.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Group 11 is on the Crofters Commission's chairman. Amendment 1, in the name of Rob Gibson, is grouped with amendments 38, 38A and 2. I will put the question on the amendment to amendment 38 before I put the question on amendment 38.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

During stage 2, the Environment and Rural Development Committee thought that the opportunity should have been taken to modernise crofting legislation by making the bill gender neutral. Indeed, the committee's chief poacher, who has turned deputy gamekeeper, was vehement that the language should be altered. I want to help that process by suggesting that the chair of the Crofters Commission should become its convener, to use a good Scots word. That would be the effect of amendment 1.

Turning to the complexity of the bill's wording on page 61, we cannot find the bit to which amendment 38 relates without referring back. I note that the chief gamekeeper wants to use the word "chairing", whereas "convening" would be more consistent. I look forward with interest to the response of the gamekeeper or deputy gamekeeper on that point.

I move amendment 1.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I warmly welcome the intention behind Rob Gibson's amendments. As he noted, I have been a strong supporter of clear and gender-neutral legislation—indeed, I have supported it for years. I am delighted to repeat to the Parliament the commitment that Ross Finnie gave to the Environment and Rural Development Committee: at the next opportunity, when we review crofting legislation, it will be not just modernised but made gender neutral. [Interruption.] SNP members seem to be having some fun with that, but I point out that Rob Gibson, in moving his amendment 1, exemplifies the difficulties. When lodging a well-intentioned amendment, it is incredibly difficult to avoid unintended consequences elsewhere in the bill. That is why a thorough review will be needed.

The two passages that Rob Gibson seeks to amend do not refer to the same individual. Amendment 1 refers to the title of a particular office, whereas amendment 2 refers to the function of a person—who may or may not be the commission's chair—at a meeting. Changing the expression to "convener" in both places could cause confusion.

Although I am extremely happy to support amendment 1, I urge Parliament to resist Amendment 2. Amendment 38, in the name of Ross Finnie, will have the same effect as Amendment 2, but it will not risk causing the same confusion that I spoke about earlier—Rob Gibson himself appeared to cause some confusion. Amendment 38A is unnecessary.

I appreciate what Rob Gibson is trying to do and I support his amendment 1. For the reasons that I have given—and in the spirit of harmony and of trying to take us forward—I invite Parliament to support amendments 1 and 38. I ask Rob to consider the comments that I have made and not to move amendments 2 and 38A. If he does seek Parliament's support for those amendments, I urge members to resist them.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I support the intention behind Rob Gibson's amendments. As an ex-English teacher, when I looked at amendment 38A I realised that we could not substitute "convening" for "chairing" and retain the same meaning. I will therefore not support that amendment.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am glad to hear that we will have a chance to modernise the bill totally "at the next opportunity". As it has been more than 10 years since the last crofting legislation, people will wonder how soon that might be. It would be a good thing if the Crofters Commission's next chair or chairman instead became the convener. I am delighted that the minister is prepared to accept amendment 1. In the spirit of optimism and co-operation, I am happy to concede on amendments 38A and 2.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 97, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 38 moved—[Ross Finnie].

Amendment 38A not moved.

Amendment 38 agreed to.

Amendment 2 not moved.

Amendments 19 to 25 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.

Crofting Reform etc Bill

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5335, in the name of Ross Finnie, that the Parliament agrees that the Crofting Reform etc Bill be passed.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I will deal with the formal part first. For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Crofting Reform etc Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill.

At the start of this session, the partnership committed itself to bringing forward a crofting reform bill as a continuation of the established commitment to a programme of significant land reform measures. In an extensive and complex reform agenda, the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 took priority. The reform of crofting legislation was always—including during scrutiny of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill—a key element of the whole process, and the Crofting Reform etc Bill is the final step of that process. Having said that, a further process is now in hand.

I am extremely proud that the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 has had such a profound effect on the fortunes, futures and confidence of so many crofting communities. Only two weeks ago, yet another crofting community announced that agreement had been reached to acquire its crofting estate—the Galson estate. In a few short years, the 2003 act has liberated and inspired crofting communities. Renewable energy has been a catalyst in some cases, but it is the 2003 act that has made it possible for those communities to benefit from all forms of renewable energy, and that has built the prospect of a sustainable future.

The Crofting Reform etc Bill was introduced to promote even more sustainable crofting communities, more local involvement in crofting administration, simplified crofting regulation and more active crofters by giving crofters greater scope to diversify their activities. In some ways, it is fortuitous that the Crofting Reform etc Bill has followed the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, as we have been able to address in the bill the threats that are posed to crofting community estate buyouts by interposed leases. Those leases, which attempt to frustrate crofting communities' attempts to buy development rights, have emerged as an issue only since the passage of the 2003 act. We will significantly amend that act as a result of stage 2 amendments to the Crofting Reform etc Bill.

Since 2001, the Crofters Commission, in its development role, has demonstrated in Jura, Islay, Colonsay, Eigg and Ardnamurchan that creating new crofts through the reorganisation of croft land can play a vital role in developing remote communities and bolstering populations. That work has reinforced our conviction that the bill's provisions on new crofts can contribute to rural development both in the Highlands and Islands and in other areas of Scotland, such as Arran.

The Environment and Rural Development Committee published a comprehensive report on the bill at stage 1, which identified some issues that it thought needed further consideration before the bill could go forward, in particular the role and constitution of the Crofters Commission. The Executive, recognising the strength of feeling on issues surrounding the Crofters Commission, withdrew the sections of the bill relating to the role and constitution of the Crofters Commission and gave a commitment to establish a committee of inquiry on crofting to consider the commission's role as well as the wider issues around market forces and crofting's role in rural development.

That committee of inquiry has been established under the chairmanship of Professor Mark Shucksmith, a well-known and respected academic whose work as co-director of the Arkleton centre for rural development research at the University of Aberdeen will be known to many people in the crofting counties. The committee of inquiry will commence its business in earnest in the next few weeks, and it is expected to report by the end of 2007. I look forward to reading its conclusions.

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

Can the minister clarify a matter in the interests of the staff who work for the Crofters Commission? Originally, the bill proposed that the commission should become a quango, which would mean that the staff would lose the civil service status that they treasure and do not wish to lose. Will the issue of whether the civil servants would lose their status be considered by the committee of inquiry?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

As always, I am reluctant to anticipate the conclusions of an independent inquiry. Obviously, there will be no change unless the matter comes before Parliament. The proposal was contained in the bill, and I respect the position that Mr Ewing has consistently maintained on it.

If the committee of inquiry came up with a radical way in which the Crofters Commission should be run, if evidence was led that the vast majority of those in the crofting counties were in favour of it, and if it would result in a change of structure such that the status of the civil servants would be changed, we would have to consider it. Inevitably, any change in the status of the Crofters Commission could involve that prospect. However, we are not seeking to give an instruction to bring that about. The matter will emerge only from the evidence that is taken by that committee, which will soon commence its work in earnest and will report by the end of 2007.

Following stage 2, we now have a bill that commands a high degree of support. When the bill is enacted, it will be possible to register new croft tenants at any time of year and not just twice a year, at Whitsun and Martinmas. That will allow new crofters to get started on bringing neglected crofts back into use or allow them to start building new croft houses for their families when it suits them rather than up to six months after an assignation has been approved, as happens under current legislation.

In future, if crofters are in dispute with each other over croft boundaries and the Land Court is asked to determine the boundaries but finds that the evidence is inconclusive, the court will be able to take a pragmatic view and declare the boundary to be that which it considers appropriate. The intractable and endless disputes that we currently see between crofters over boundaries should, therefore, be avoidable.

If a crofter should wish to subdivide his or her croft to enable the parts to be assigned to sons or daughters who wish to establish themselves in their community, the landlord will no longer be able to prevent that subdivision.

There are many significant and valuable changes in the bill that will improve the operation of the law in relation to crofting. Crofting legislation will always be complex and what crofters need from legislation will continue to change over time. Rob Gibson referred to the length of time in terms of modernising the situation. However, as I said to the Environment and Rural Development Committee, there is a need for some consolidation. I am sure that Rob Gibson agrees that there is a need for consistency across the large number of pieces of legislation if we are to bring about the necessary changes.

I hope that the bill will be good for crofters and the crofting counties and that the work of the committee of inquiry will further improve that position. This important bill represents a major step forward. I commend it to Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Crofting Reform etc. Bill be passed.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish National Party welcomes the final stage of the bill. The bill is equitable and achieves fairly small administrative changes that benefit crofters. Importantly, it makes a clear statement that it is possible to create new crofts, which we all agree is welcome.

The process has taken 10 years and, as the minister has just indicated, we have come a short way down a long road towards a consolidating bill. We need to find ways to speed up the process. I hope that we will be able to do that.

It is impossible to consider crofting seriously without considering the fabric of life in the crofting counties—that has been the SNP's policy for the past 30 years. That is why the crofting inquiry that will be undertaken later this year has a huge task in agreeing new priorities that have been raised during the consideration of the bill but which the bill was not designed to deliver.

Crofters face a gaggle of acronyms when trying to get support. However, the rural support scheme, the less favoured area support scheme, the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme—the RSS, the LFASS and the CCAGS—and the bull hire scheme are rather underfunded and, it is feared, begrudged. That is not the European Union's fault. If Scotland had full fiscal powers, it could invest in crofting as a nature-friendly element in a buoyant, sustainable economy in the Highlands and Islands. In the meantime, however, if we are to succeed, our ministers with responsibility for transport, enterprise, agriculture and health must all get in harness. If they do not, home production from crofts and public health will suffer.

It is important that we try to stem depopulation. The key question that must be asked in relation to the bill is whether it will stop further depopulation in areas that have great potential.

Speaking to the Environment and Rural Development Committee on behalf of active crofters, John MacKintosh, the former president of the Scottish Crofters Union, said:

"I think that the reason why you get dereliction of crofts is that there is a complete and utter lack of realistic support for crofting and what crofting is about. Until we get that...fewer and fewer people will work those crofts...There are quite a few crofts that make a loss, so the crofter is left with one option, which is to start looking at the market and thinking of getting out."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 14 June 2006; c 3349-3350.]

That view is widely held, and we must be able to dispel it. If the bill can help that to happen, so much the better.

Crofts are small pieces of land surrounded by large amounts of legislation. However, bureaucracy must not be allowed to strangle initiative. We need to restore the ability, the power, the will and the resources to rebuild our economic and social life across the crofting areas. Crofting needs young, new entrants and must try to use the experience that has been built up by small farmers organisations in Europe. If that mood is about, I am glad that this bill will be passed. The UHI Millennium Institute, broadband for all and croft-run renewable energy investment can all help us to turn the corner. Lessons from Norwegian communities show that small farms and crofts can earn huge electricity revenues to invest in local needs. However, that needs to be in the hands of the crofters.

The SNP has consistently supported land and seabed reform and crofting community buyouts. We want the role of the new crofting landlords to be examined carefully, because it is quite different from the role of the old private landlords. Ted Brocklebank's amendments touched on that matter, and I am glad to say that they were unsuccessful.

We welcome new crofts and forest crofts and ways in which small landholders can be welcomed into crofting tenure in places such as Arran. Those will be achieved, at last, by the bill.

The reforms have to tackle the lack of affordable housing that is

"the great Highland scandal of modern times",

as James Hunter writes in the brochure for the exhibition "Fonn 's Duthcas: Land and Legacy". Crofting can provide land for house building. I am sorry that we did not pass John Farquhar Munro's amendments this morning, as they would have emphasised the role of common grazings in achieving that.

Crofting underpins Gaelic and Norse cultures, whose confidence can play a vital part in reversing depopulation to retain and attract working families. If we can do that, we can integrate the north into the mainstream of Scotland's social, educational, agricultural and industrial life, with the help of ferry, rail and road links that are fit for this climate-change age. If crofting communities are to succeed, that has to happen. The bill has a small part to play in that.

The crofting communities have a big role to play in a sustainable future for our remarkable land. The bill, which has been too long in the making, is but an early instalment, but the SNP is, nevertheless, happy to support its passage.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Members will be aware that the Conservatives opposed the bill at stage 1. We agreed with the Environment and Rural Development Committee's fairly devastating report that the original bill did not address the core problems facing crofting, including the role of the Crofters Commission and issues surrounding the market in crofts.

Although we welcomed the Executive's decision to disembowel the original bill, we would have preferred a totally new bill. We welcome the decision to set up an inquiry into the key aspects of crofting legislation, and we recognise that today's bill is far from the last word on crofting, which it was originally intended to be. What a pity that the inquiry was not held prior to the bill's introduction.

We sought to improve what was left of the bill at stage 2. We are pleased that the Executive listened to our concerns on a right of objection for landlords on the use of common grazings for other purposes, and today we were glad to support amendment 7, in the name of Ross Finnie, which seemed to bear an uncanny resemblance to an amendment that I lodged but did not move at stage 2.

A number of concerns remained, which is why I lodged amendments for today. There is little point in refighting earlier arguments, but I genuinely believe that, had our concerns been accepted on section 10—we sought to restrict the right to buy to only the house and garden of crofts that are created from small landholdings—that would have gone some way to helping to prevent further destabilisation of the let land market. Perhaps even more important was my amendment to close the loophole that allows nominees other than family members to avoid the clawback procedure. Had the minister taken on board those legitimate points, we would seriously have considered supporting what is left of the bill.

We have fundamental problems with extending crofting outwith the seven counties unless the absolute right to buy is suspended in those areas. If that is not done, the current problems will merely be exacerbated. Also, I am concerned that the Executive simply has no idea of the financial commitment that it might be taking on by extending crofting. Indeed, we have that on record. In a written answer to a question that I submitted, Ross Finnie stated:

"The Scottish Executive does not hold information on which to base any estimate"—[Official Report, Written Answers, 30 November 2006; S2W-30089.]

of how many small landholders outside the crofting counties will qualify for crofting status under the bill.

Once again, as has become the pattern with the bill, when a key question is asked, official clarification comes there none. It is simply not good enough—and existing crofters do not believe that it is good enough—to introduce legislation to extend crofting when we have no idea how much it will cost or whether funding for existing crofters will be affected by the introduction of new crofts.

Conservatives have nothing to be ashamed of in their support for crofting over the years. There was some good-natured heckling—I took it to be good natured—when I sought to achieve a level playing field for landholders and crofters with today's amendments. As Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth and Ian Lang both introduced legislation that has greatly benefited crofters in recent times. Indeed, contrary to what my friend and that well-known historian the minister's Lib Dem colleague Jamie Stone claimed at the end of the stage 1 debate, Conservatives did not vote against the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886. The key division took place on 10 May 1886, and the House of Commons divided 219 in favour with 52 against. The Conservatives, including Balfour, Richard Cross, Henry Fowler and other prominent landowners, all voted in favour of reform.

Scottish Conservatives believe that the rump of the original bill has been improved since it was introduced, but following today's stage 3 it remains essentially flawed, and certainly incomplete. We look forward to the crofting inquiry report later this year, and we anticipate supporting a comprehensively amended and inclusive crofting bill that takes on board the concerns of crofters and landowners alike. We hope that that bill will be introduced early in the new Executive's legislative programme. The Crofting Reform etc Bill is not that bill and, accordingly, today the Conservatives will abstain.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

It is good to see the Crofting Reform etc Bill completing its passage through the Parliament.

It is important that we have legislation that is fit for purpose, and the minister, the former deputy minister, the present deputy minister in her role as convener of the Environment and Rural Development Committee, the committee itself and the Parliament have worked hard to ensure that crofting communities will be sustained, neglect will be dealt with and new crofts will be created. The bill is still a substantial bill that will deliver substantial benefits.

The Labour Party has always argued that crofting is not a purely commercial enterprise but is about communities; that crofting should in no way be driven by market forces to the detriment of the crofting communities; that the Crofters Commission should do its duty; and that we must make crofting affordable and available to new young entrants, hundreds of whom are waiting for their chance to rent a croft.

It is important that we address the neglect of crofts, which the tighter rules in the bill should do. It will not prove comfortable for absentees or others who do not keep their land in good heart—"use it or lose it to someone who is prepared to work the croft" must now be the key phrase.

The Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department has a responsibility, too. Crofting support schemes must be adequate to deal with the challenges of remoteness, poor land and harsh weather conditions, otherwise, as Rob Gibson said, land will perforce be neglected through lack of resources. SEERAD should be proactive in ensuring that those who qualify for grants are encouraged to take them up. I am particularly concerned to ensure that elderly crofters who are not used to filling in new forms are not penalised for making genuine mistakes in their application forms for grants, which could result in them losing money. SEERAD needs to be more helpful in that respect.

I do not exaggerate when I say that these are exciting times for the crofting counties and crofting communities. We are seeing history being made thanks to our land reform legislation, of which the bill is part. We see crofting community buyouts, the establishment of trusts, the huge potential for regenerating communities and the sustainability that can come from renewable energy projects, which are now supported by the bill's provisions on interposed leases. We see, too, the possibility of diversification into woodland crofts, perhaps to supply community biomass, or into vegetable growing, to supply local schools, hotels and local authority canteens, as demand grows for home-produced food.

There is still unfinished business. The committee of inquiry has been set up to examine the role of the Crofters Commission, in particular its structure and status and the way in which it uses its regulatory powers. That will be painful for the commission, but it is necessary. The process will be like removing a sticking plaster from a cut to let the fresh air heal it or stripping layers of wallpaper to repair the wear-and-tear cracks in the plaster in preparation for a perfect coat of paint—well, we hope so anyway.

The inquiry also needs to deal with the regulation of owner-occupiers, so that owner-occupier neglect can be dealt with. We must find robust ways of preventing croft houses and croft land from becoming the developer's dream or holiday hideaway.

I welcome the appointment of Mark Shucksmith as chair of the committee of inquiry. That was a brilliant stroke, considering his expertise in rural housing and other rural issues. Moves are already being made to bring the commission into the planning consultation process, which I hope should mean no more Taynuilts.

It remains for me to urge ministers not to let bad decisions be made between now and the implementation of the inquiry's findings and, in closing, to thank the committee clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre researchers, who supported us so well.

I support the bill.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Crofting tenure has sustained rural communities in the crofting counties since the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886 was passed and the legal concept of a croft has developed through several reforms since then, but there has been widespread consensus in recent years that further reform is needed to ensure that crofting tenure continues to sustain crofting in the face of modern pressures on the system.

The Scottish Liberal Democrat manifesto in 2003 made a commitment to implement a crofting reform bill while supporting the retention of a grants scheme for crofting counties. We accepted that action was essential to re-establish a firm foundation for crofting that would help to sustain and enhance the population of rural Scotland, to improve economic viability and to safeguard our physical landscape and biodiversity and, as Rob Gibson said, our cultural landscape and diversity.

The bill's passage has highlighted the difficulties of meeting the aspirations of a widely diverse crofting community, but the situation has moved forward with the crofting community, Parliament and the Executive working together. I thank all the people who engaged with the Environment and Rural Development Committee and the Executive on a complex series of issues.

The Executive responded to concerns about aspects of the bill and dropped some provisions. A committee of inquiry will tackle issues that include the market for crofts and the Crofters Commission's status, role and functioning. A substantial bill is left and it contains measures that are widely supported and welcomed. The bill will allow the creation of new crofts, clarify and extend crofters' rights to use their land, facilitate renewable energy development on croft land, simplify regulation, give extended rights to appeal decisions of the Crofters Commission and modernise conditions of tenure.

The bill provides a mechanism to allow new crofts to be created outwith the crofting counties, which has been widely welcomed on Arran in particular and which may deliver substantial benefits in other parts of Scotland. I wait with interest to see how the new ability will be developed. Crofting community bodies will be able to purchase tenants' rights in leases over the land that they have bought or are buying under part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.

It has not always been acknowledged that a lot of work, thought and consultation was undertaken before the bill's introduction. A lot of work has been done during the bill's passage and the bill achieves much, despite the Tories' carping comments. More remains to be done and we have established the mechanism to take that forward.

In the meantime, we can welcome the bill. We can welcome what it has achieved and consolidated and what it will do to support crofting in a modern environment. We look forward to the committee of inquiry dotting the i's and crossing the t's on some issues that have been rightly postponed. In the main, the bill is a good piece of work that should be welcomed and supported.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

A week last Friday, I attended the celebrations in the community of Ness when Galson estate, which covers some 54,000 acres and includes some 20 townships, moved from private hands to community ownership. That truly was a great day—the culmination of many hours and days of hard work by the trustees.

It was also the culmination of a struggle and political agitation that straddled three centuries. The first time that the words "land reform" appeared in what we call today a manifesto was when Keir Hardie penned his list of desired legislative and social change for the United Kingdom at the end of the 19th century. Through the decades since, Highland socialists have kept the flag flying for land reform when it was not a fashionable cause to embrace.

If we fast forward to the latter end of the 20th century, it was with the election of a Labour Government in 1997 that an age-old aspiration became a legislative reality. In my constituency today, some 70 per cent of the Western Isles population live on community-owned estates and some 40 per cent of the Western Isles landmass is in community ownership. It is worth remembering that politics ensured that people and communities consigned the dead hand of landlordism to history.

In recent years, I have had the privilege of attending the first and subsequent meetings in four communities in my constituency at which people have gathered to discuss the possibility of buying their land. Thankfully, three of those communities' areas are now in community ownership—North Harris; South Uist, where the position was finalised at the end of last year; and, as the minister mentioned in his speech, Galson, where the situation was finalised 12 days ago. I hope that Pairc in the district of Lochs will join the ever-expanding family of community-owned estates.

The intention following the passing of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 was to complement land reform legislation with appropriate reform of crofting legislation. As we know, crofting is a regulated form of tenure. One deficiency of the existing regulation system is that the regulator—the Crofters Commission—has failed to intervene. Over the years, it has allowed the marketisation of crofts to continue unabated.

One of the clear and straightforward issues that witness after witness presented in community after community that the committee visited at stage 1 was the concern throughout the crofting communities that land that should be subject to proper regulation was and is being bought and sold as if it were freehold. To its credit, the Scottish Executive recognised the weaknesses in its first draft. That took some time, but at least we got there. It is right that the bill was subjected to major surgery.

What we are passing makes eminent sense. The minister, Nora Radcliffe and Maureen Macmillan have listed the issues that will be properly addressed. For example, creating new crofts but not giving people who will have tenancy of those crofts the right to buy them is laudable, particularly in the island of Arran, where we are righting an historic wrong. It is also encouraging that ministers will—if they have not already done so—direct the Crofters Commission and urge it to get on with exercising its existing responsibilities and rights to regulate the sale of crofts.

I am delighted to support the bill in the sure and certain knowledge that a committee of inquiry is being established. As Maureen Macmillan said, Professor Mark Shucksmith will chair that committee. He comes with an excellent pedigree as he was the adviser to the Justice 2 Committee when it considered the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. The committee of inquiry will engage with those of us who live in the crofting communities and crofting counties and will present properly constructed proposals to a subsequent Parliament.

Rob Gibson—the dear fellow—wittered on and claimed to be an expert on matters crofting. It is interesting to note that he has yet to attend one meeting in the Western Isles at which communities have set about putting in place historic changes. It is also worth noting that he never fails to issue a press release on the day when a community celebrates. He does so with great expertise and oozes vomitgenic bilge as is his wont.

It is worth recording that the Environment and Rural Development Committee's stage 1 report led to major changes of emphasis in the Crofting Reform etc Bill. That is a credit to the committee's former convener, who will literally have the last word on the bill. I am delighted to support the bill.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I ask members please to ensure that their mobile phones are off.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I add my thanks to everybody who has been involved in the bill—the committee clerks, people from the Scottish Parliament information centre and the people from the crofting community who engaged with the committee. During consideration of the bill, the cross-party group on crofting met frequently and had the bill as a permanent agenda item.

This is an occasion when the stage 3 debate is different from the stage 1 debate, because we were quite critical of the bill at stage 1. Some criticisms were justified—of the bill, of the process and perhaps of the people who drafted the bill as introduced. The bill provides an example of the parliamentary process working. The committee considered the bill and produced its stage 1 report, which the Executive, to its credit, took on board. I give an honourable mention to the former deputy minister, Rhona Brankin, who engaged realistically and genuinely and sometimes with great courage with the crofting interests and with the cross-party group on crofting and the committee. She took on board what was said and that should be acknowledged.

As has been said, the process resulted in the removal of many controversial bits of the bill, such as those which related to the Crofters Commission, which I will not go into. The committee also supported an amendment by Alasdair Morrison to remove a reference to market value. There was some hyperbole at stage 1 about the entrenchment of market value by the bill in its original form. As has been said, the market-value issues are still there. I hope that the bill, as it is about to be passed, will help to dampen them down, perhaps by improving the regulation of crofts and by increasing the supply of crofts.

That brings me to the important provisions that are still in the bill. The creation of new crofts has been mentioned by other members, and I think that it is crucial. There are communities in Shetland and in other parts of Scotland that are keen to grasp the opportunity, so the extension of crofting beyond the crofting counties is important. The opportunities for forest crofts are also crucial.

I attended a reception that was held last night by the Forestry Commission Scotland. It is clear that the Forestry Commission is on board with the idea of forest crofts. The Executive has also set up a steering group to consider forest crofts. Applying the crofting ethos to forestry by using forest land as common grazings have been used will create opportunities in rural areas.

Also important is the empowerment of the Crofters Commission to be proactive in cases of neglect. That will perhaps bring some other crofts into the hands of tenants who will work them properly. The Scottish Crofting Foundation has raised the issue of what the Crofters Commission could do under existing legislation. The SCF's concern is that the Crofters Commission has not been using the powers that it already has. I hope that the spotlight that the bill process has turned on the Crofters Commission will stiffen its resolve to use the powers that it currently has and those that have been augmented by the bill to more effect. In the eyes of crofters, those powers have been underused, particularly in dealing with neglect or absentee owners.

I believe that crofting has a future and a huge contribution to make in such areas as local food production, delivering environmental goods in the crofting lands and energy production—to name but a few. Crofting has a great future, and the committee of inquiry will show what it has to offer. As has been said, the bill is not the end of the process. It is clear, from the setting up of the committee of inquiry, that it is not meant to be the end. It is one step in the Parliament's reaffirmation of its support for crofting and its desire that crofting should be able to work better and offer still more to the areas in which it has sustained the communities for so long.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

This is an historic day and a debate in which I am delighted to be involved. Even the elements are kind to us today. The sun is shining down on us, so somebody is happy. The crofting community up in Galson, which Alasdair Morrison mentioned, must have switched on the renewable energy. I thank all those who were involved in bringing the Crofting Reform etc Bill to this stage. The bill has had a stormy passage or has travelled a rocky road—whichever metaphor we choose to use—but it has survived and we have a bill that I am sure is going to sustain crofting for many years to come.

The ministers, Ross Finnie and Rhona Brankin, had the unenviable task of introducing what was always going to be a difficult piece of legislation. We did not often agree, but I think that we can agree today that we have reached an equitable compromise. I also thank the Environment and Rural Development Committee, which was ably chaired by Sarah Boyack. She took the committee out into the crofting communities on the periphery to listen to their views and concerns. I thank all those people from the crofting communities who gave evidence to the committee on its travels around the country.

The report that was produced by the committee clerks—I make special mention of Mark Brough—is an excellent document, which has resulted in an acceptable and appropriate bill being presented today. I think that the bill will be welcomed by the crofting communities and I hope that it will sustain their viability for many years to come. I also thank the Scottish Crofting Foundation, especially Patrick Krause and Becky Shaw, as well as all those who came along to the cross-party group on crofting. They all helped us to arrive at where we are today. The assistance that the members of the cross-party group gave me in chairing the group and the evidence that the group received were invaluable.

A major outcome of the introduction of the bill has been the establishment of a committee of inquiry on crofting that is chaired by Professor Mark Shucksmith. The hope is that the inquiry will address all the issues that have been of concern to the crofting counties over many decades. In my view, a positive outcome from the committee of inquiry would be that at least 50 per cent of the board of the Crofters Commission would be democratically elected by the crofting community. That would help to ensure that crofting communities throughout Scotland had far more confidence in the body that is tasked to oversee crofting and the legislation that governs it.

Much of the controversy surrounding the bill was brought to a head by the development of housing sites in a small crofting township at Taynuilt, near Oban. The amendments that I lodged were designed to prevent that type of development, which was destroying good agricultural land. The amendments were designed not to prevent development, but to prevent its using so much good agricultural land, as had happened at Taynuilt. There is an undeniable need for housing in the Highlands but, over the past 20 years, far too much housing has been developed on what was considered good croft arable land. In my view, if local authorities or housing associations are to provide housing, it should be built, as far as possible, on the less desirable common grazings land. Also, if crofters are to be expected to provide land for housing, private landowners with huge estates—of which there are plenty in the Highlands—should also be expected to release some of their vast acreage for new affordable housing.

The bill was fairly contentious in its early stages and had a rocky passage. However, it has survived and will make a worthwhile contribution to a successful crofting sector in the years to come. I commend the bill to the Parliament.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It is sad that John Farquhar Munro's sensible amendments to do with building on the common grazings and not on the arable parts of crofts were knocked back. They were good amendments and it is a shame that they were not agreed to. A great many of the people from the 17,785 crofts in the crofting counties will see the bill as a missed opportunity because it has not enabled a true improvement of the whole crofting set-up. That is because no proper review was undertaken beforehand into the value of crofting to the Scottish economy and to the communities where it takes place.

The well-known former Labour minister and Highland journalist, Brian Wilson, entreated the Executive to

"go listen to the crofters".

He stated in the West Highland Free Press that the Napier commission had done so in the 1880s but that the present Government had not done so and was not doing so, despite the fact that the Scottish Crofting Foundation and the Scottish Crofting Association, which preceded it, continually asked for that type of investigation. The Scottish Crofting Foundation told the committee:

"We have consistently asked for the social and economic benefits that crofting has delivered to be measured—to be quantified and qualified from 1886 to the present day."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 19 April 2006; c 3041.]

That work was never undertaken.

Instead, the bill that was written for the Executive expressed, frankly, an outsider's agenda rather than one that came from the heart of crofting. The first time that the crofters were listened to was when the committee took to the road to the isles. At that point, it was a question of waking up and smelling the heather. By that time, however, it was a bit late. The bill had been written. The cart had been put before the horse. Next time—if the crofters get another go at crofting reform—I hope that whoever is in government gets things the right way round.

In the meantime, I impress upon the minister the importance of ensuring that the many crofting issues that are not dealt with in the bill and that require urgent resolution are not put on the back burner. For example, the bull hire scheme is important to the quality of crofting livestock but, despite a promise of action by the then Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development during a members' business debate that I secured two years ago, no effective new scheme has been put into place. On top of that, crofters have had to deal with crippling new transport regulations without any replacement so far for support schemes such as the crofting counties development scheme. Like other agricultural schemes such as the countryside premium scheme and the rural stewardship scheme, the CCDS is currently in limbo while we await advice on the future for farming in the Highlands and Islands. Ross Finnie often mentions, very wisely, the need to add value to crofting products to bring value back up the food chain, but what incentives does the Executive provide for local abattoirs and local marketing groups?

Will the SCF be funded to help it to take a leading role in the future crofting inquiry? After all, the SCF represents the crofting industry's most important element, which is the crofters themselves. During the inquiry, the SCF must have the wherewithal and strength to put forward a good case on what is needed in crofting. How will that happen? The inquiry must not simply degenerate into an argument between the Crofting Foundation and the Crofters Commission. The minister must instruct the commission to address now, under existing legislation, the neglect of crofts that has taken place.

I reiterate that the bill as introduced did not address the problems facing crofters. Although what remains contains little with which we disagree, it would have been better to have scrapped the bill to allow a new bill to be introduced after the inquiry.

If we want the crofting system to continue to play a part—as it has done since the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886, which was, incidentally, strongly supported by the Tories—in the social and economic fabric of remote communities by linking urban activity in crofting areas to rural and agricultural activity, if we want to ensure that important agricultural skills and knowledge are kept alive and if we want locals to continue to have the opportunity to produce local food, we will continue to need crofting and we will have to treat crofting land as a special asset. We need to pay attention to how crofting can best be used to support the Highlands and Islands economy in the present day. Basically, crofting is the use of a basic agricultural system in a manner that helps social and economic development in communities. It has worked in the past and it can still work in the future.

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

I, too, thank the Scottish Crofting Foundation for its help and support throughout the bill and pay tribute to the cross-party group on crofting. Of all the cross-party groups in the Parliament, few can have played as significant a role as the one that is chaired by John Farquhar Munro.

I also thank the staff of the Crofters Commission. Due to their position, they were not able to speak out, yet they are the people who deal with crofting issues every day and they possess among them great expertise. They no doubt experienced tensions at some points, but rather than dwell on those I want to look forward. I express gratitude to the former Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Rhona Brankin, for taking the decision that Crofters Commission staff will retain their civil service status. That is to be welcomed.

As the minister said, the terms of reference of the committee of inquiry will include looking at the role and function of the Crofters Commission. We accept that. I hope that, as part of its work, Professor Shucksmith's committee will consult in detail the individual Crofters Commission members of staff, who basically keep crofting on the road. I hope that the committee will go out of its way to do that so that it can put right the wrongs of the past, when failure of consultation led to the tensions to which I alluded.

The major power in the bill is the capacity to create new crofts. When I attend the opening of Forest Enterprise's new offices in Inverness on Monday, I will discuss with its staff the huge potential that that power has. I know that forestry staff are up for it. They want to be able to use the new powers, alongside their existing powers, to create new housing in the Highlands. If any landowner has the capacity to do that, it is the Forestry Commission.

However, one problem that must be overcome is that the existing schemes by which the Forestry Commission is encouraged to create new housing are, in my view, incredibly complex and unnecessarily bureaucratic. Another problem that is perhaps more pertinent than the rules of the schemes—those could be changed—is, to speak directly, the difficulty of nimbyism, which is always with us wherever we try to create new housing. If the Forestry Commission could designate parts of its forests for housing, that would go a substantial way to overcoming nimbyism, which is—let us face it—a facet of human nature. According to the old story, the difference between the conservationist and the developer is simply that the developer wants to build a house in the woods whereas the conservationist already has one. I hope that the Forestry Commission will be able to create many more such conservationists.

I pay particular tribute to the former Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Rhona Brankin, for the way in which she took some difficult decisions. Crofting has many friends. The fact that substantial changes were made to the bill as introduced is proof positive of the influence and power of those friends, who are to be found across the political spectrum. For her decision to make fundamental changes to the bill, she should be commended. Rather than crow over what might be said to be a climbdown or U-turn, we should congratulate her. I can assure Rhona Brankin that she has many friends on this side of the chamber.

Personally, I hope that the committee of inquiry will look carefully at the situation in Strathspey. The concerns of the Strathspey farmers, who were led ably by Hamish Jack, were not fully considered by the committee. I recognise that the committee did a good job in giving careful consideration to the problems in Arran, but I think that the problems in Strathspey have not yet been fully addressed.

I agree with Jamie McGrigor, Maureen Macmillan and others that SEERAD must take a more proactive approach to enabling crofters to access the loans scheme. Like Mr McGrigor, I think that the bull hire scheme is perhaps the most complex scheme with the least money available to it that God has ever invented in the public service. The scheme must be sorted out. I suspect that ministers want to do that, so I hope that positive progress will be made.

A fundamental problem that the Parliament is still to address—although I do not believe in any of the conspiracy theories about venal or malign forces at work subverting decisions—is the treatment of inadvertent errors that farmers and crofters make in filling out their forms. Genuine mistakes in integrated administration and control system forms are still being penalised. The tribunal that Mr Finnie set up was somehow supposed to address that. At the time, I argued that setting up a tribunal would not of itself alter the rules that had to be enforced. I understand that, in a recent case, two members of the three-member panel found that a crofter should not have been penalised for a mistake, but the minister overruled the majority decision and supported the SEERAD member on the panel. I am perplexed as to why that should have happened—

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

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

I will in just a minute.

I am genuinely perplexed about that and I am profoundly concerned about the implications of the decision.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I can understand the member's concern. I think that that was the only occasion on which I personally had to make the decision. It might help the member to know that my preference was to look at the matter of law as there was a possibility that the committee had in fact misdirected itself. My intention was to refer the matter back to the committee. I regret that the independent members of the committee, who had been part of the process and whose period of service had ended—not all members serve for equal periods of time—declined to reconvene. That placed me in a much more difficult position.

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

I am grateful to the minister for that clarification, but I am still unclear about why he felt bound to take the decision that he did. Perhaps he and I can pursue the issue at a meeting.

I welcome the fact that the terms of reference of the committee of inquiry are extremely wide ranging. It is clear from those terms of reference that the committee can consider all the problems that members from various parts of Scotland, especially the Highlands, have brought to the debate.

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

Fergus Ewing and Jamie McGrigor have set out a worthy list of priorities for the committee of inquiry. However, although we can hope that there may be no more Taynuilts, the same thing is happening in many other places, as we speak, and raw market forces are prevailing. Surely that is the key issue for the committee of inquiry.

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

No one disagrees that that is a major issue for the committee. I am sure that it will examine the matter thoroughly, as Jamie Stone has advocated.

I would prefer to see an elected board. At a meeting that the Scottish Crofting Foundation arranged at Lochaber in my constituency, the only topic on which there appeared to be clear agreement was that there should be an elected Crofters Commission. I do not think that the objections to that proposal are insuperable; they are largely legalistic and technical—the sort of objections that the civil service might come up with on a quiet day. I hope that in future we can have an elected Crofters Commission and that Professor Shucksmith will heed the cross-party pleas for one that have been made in the debate.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Sometimes life takes unexpected twists and turns. Who would have thought that, after convening the Parliament's Environment and Rural Development Committee, which gave the Crofting Reform etc Bill such a grilling at stage 1, I would be standing before the Parliament today closing the debate on the motion that the bill be passed? However, the committee did its work extremely thoroughly and engaged extensively with crofting communities. The bill now contains important provisions that will make a real difference to the lives and fortunes of crofters and crofting communities for many years to come.

I record my thanks to committee members, for their hard work; to the clerks, for the able support that they provided to members; to Executive officials; and to all those who contributed their views to the process, which was extensive. A large amount of evidence was put before the committee. Our consideration of the bill was a very good example of the Parliament's work, with the committee and ministers listening to, and reflecting and acting on, the representations that were made.

The bill is not the last word in crofting legislation.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

rose—

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Would Jamie McGrigor like to agree with me?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

No. I suggest to the minister that it might have been more appropriate for the Executive to listen before the bill was written.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

There was a fair amount of consultation before the bill was introduced. If Jamie McGrigor reads the committee's conclusions, he will find a deep analysis of the issue.

The bill is a good example of working together, but it is by no means the end of our work on crofting. It is part of a long-term commitment by the Executive to the future of crofting, crofting communities and some of most fragile island and rural parts of Scotland. Alasdair Morrison was right to note that, by passing the bill, we will allow many valuable provisions to be implemented and provide a platform on which to build further action, once the committee of inquiry on crofting has reached its conclusions.

In today's debate, we have heard broadly positive views expressed about the important provisions in the bill—for example, those that tackle interposed leases, simplify the regulation of crofting and tackle the underlying bureaucracy. We heard from Eleanor Scott that for the first time the Crofters Commission will have the scope to challenge the neglect of croft land. We heard from Rob Gibson, Fergus Ewing, Maureen Macmillan and Nora Radcliffe about the importance of establishing new crofts and extending crofting tenure to Arran and other parts of Scotland. The Minister for Communities, Rhona Brankin, is now considering how the Crofters Commission can best contribute to the modernised planning system. I note that she has remained in the chamber for the entirety of the debate, which demonstrates her continuing interest in the topic.

The bill will deliver big headline changes but, as Ross Finnie illustrated, it also includes many detailed provisions that will have a positive impact on day-to-day matters for crofters. I will give members some examples. Earlier this morning, we debated an amendment from Maureen Macmillan, which stipulates that the Crofters Commission should discharge its functions with regard to local circumstances. The insertion in the bill at stage 2 of the word "specific" will allow ministers to be very clear and precise about what they expect the commission to achieve and prioritise, and to set out how they expect the commission to conduct its business. Much of the rest of the bill and existing crofting legislation is about how the commission should handle local circumstances. By adding the ability to give specific ministerial direction, we have provided sufficient scope to ensure that local circumstances are considered. That may have seemed a modest amendment at stage 2, but it will be important.

There are other detailed changes that we have not had time to debate today. The existing protections in crofting legislation for the spouses and partners of crofters who die without a will, which ensure that they have rights over their croft house, have been extended to give them rights over the croft as well. That simple provision should avoid distress and disputes in crofting households at what are, inevitably, difficult times for people.

The tighter definition of what constitutes family members will prevent croft collectors from gathering up their so-called cousins' crofts. It will be much more difficult to avoid the formal assignation process and to claim that the croft has been assigned within the family. As a result, young people and others who would like to gain access to a croft should stand a better chance of getting one.

One of the more important features of the bill is that, in the future, the register of crofts that is maintained by the Crofters Commission will be a public record that is accessible to anyone. It will be a more comprehensive record and, significantly, if a croft has been registered or recognised as a croft for more than 20 years the matter of whether it is a genuine croft will no longer be open to dispute. In future, it will be possible for land that is apportioned out of common grazings for use by an individual to be returned to common use. Neglected and unwanted apportionments will now be capable of being returned to common use.

Grazings committees, which are important to the effective management of common grazings, will in future be able to challenge a shareholder who breaches grazings regulations and may ask the commission to suspend that shareholder's rights.

It will no longer be viable for a single shareholder to ignore the wishes and intentions of the majority of shareholders. The Scottish Land Court and the Crofters Commission will have a definition of a crofting community on which to base their judgments. The importance of that was only too evident in the now famous Taynuilt case.

In mentioning the details and explaining their importance, I do not underestimate the significance of some of the more complex and involved provisions. I agree with John Farquhar Munro that our passing the bill today will be historic for our crofting communities. It will be recognition of the fact that we needed to modernise crofting legislation in the 21st century and that there is more to come from the Executive and the Parliament.

The provisions in relation to schemes for development have the potential to facilitate large-scale developments on croft land that might otherwise be frustrated. I refer to developments such as renewable energy projects, which—if they secure planning approval—could benefit crofters and crofting communities enormously. Some developments have the potential to create something akin to the Shetland oil fund, which was negotiated in the 1970s and has sustained massive economic and infrastructure development and social progress in those islands for decades.

This is an important bill. I know, because I heard all the evidence. I commend the motion to Parliament.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

That concludes this item of business. For the benefit of members of the public in the gallery, I note that business has finished about five minutes early.

Point of Order

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wish to raise a point of order under rules 5.5 and 5.9 of standing orders in relation to the Business Bulletin . In today's bulletin, the words "Not Lodged" appear opposite question 4 in the list of general questions in the section announcing oral questions lodged for 1 February. That follows a similar offence—if I may use that word, Presiding Officer—by the same Labour back bencher in relation to question 1 on the list of enterprise, lifelong learning and transport questions asked on 18 January.

Presiding Officer, you will be aware of rule 5.5, which empowers the publication of a daily business list, and of rule 5.9, which includes the statement that

"the Business Bulletin may include any other information which the Clerk considers appropriate."

In the light of those powers, will you suggest to the clerk that, when the words "Not Lodged" are used in the Business Bulletin, they be followed by the name of the member who did not lodge the question? That would allow other members, the public and the press to identify more readily members who may be neglecting their duties and, in particular, to pull down a degree of public opprobrium on the heads of serial offenders such as the culprit in this case, Ms Wendy Alexander.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I thank Mr Stevenson for advance notice of his point of order, which I take seriously. For some time now, the Presiding Officers have monitored the issue of questions not being lodged and are concerned that procedures are being misused. The Presiding Officers will reflect on your suggestion of naming members in the Business Bulletin . However, in the meantime, I remind all members of their responsibility and duty to ensure that, when they succeed in the ballot, they lodge questions.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action is being taken to reduce MSSA infection rates in hospitals. (S2O-11795)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

An overall target has been set for Scotland to reduce bloodstream infections caused by staphylococcus aureus as a result of health care-associated infection by 30 per cent by March 2010. Recently published figures show that MRSA and MSSA rates in Scotland have been stable, and the increase in numbers reported in the quarter from July to September 2006 is almost certainly due to the introduction of mandatory reporting.

The HAI task force has set in place wide-ranging measures such as a media campaign to raise awareness amongst national health service staff, patients, visitors and the public of the benefits to public health of improved hand hygiene. Local health board co-ordinators are being appointed to help to implement and monitor compliance. Moreover, the task force's delivery plan includes additional training courses for NHS staff and robust monitoring of cleaning standards in Scotland's hospitals.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I thank the minister for his helpful and detailed answer and welcome a number of the measures that are being taken. However, does he think that measures specifically to combat MSSA need to be introduced? If so, should further guidance in that regard be issued to health boards?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

First, I should reassure the member that, as the World Health Organization and others have recognised, we are probably one of the leading nations in the world with regard to measures that have been introduced to tackle health care-associated infections. Secondly, to reassure the member further, I point out that we can separate out MSSA from MRSA, which allows us to track that particular difficulty.

Our overall strategy remains consistent in its focus on hand hygiene, with the availability of alcohol hand gel at every front-line bed in our health service; in the involvement and work of NHS staff, particularly the cleanliness champions; and in the measures that we are taking in relation to hospital visitors and the public. That is how we will defeat this particular cause of infection. We are also taking other measures, particularly in relation to the prescribing of antibiotics by general practitioners, to deal with the problem comprehensively throughout Scotland.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

What are the reasons for cases of MSSA being up by 100 in the past three months? Does the minister believe that the extended use of pre-admission screening in elective cases has a major role to play in combating hospital-acquired infections? Will he give the chamber an indication of whether the use of pre-admission screening has gone up in each health board area? If he cannot give us that information today, will he provide it at a later stage?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I repeat what I said in my answer to Euan Robson. I am absolutely sure that the reason for the increased number of cases being detected is that our health service in Scotland has probably the best and most internationally verified detection measures. In the identification of, and ways of dealing with, health care-acquired infection, we sit well in relation to other world nations. Our situation is unlike that in other parts of the world. The increase over the quarter—the 100 cases to which the member referred—shows Scotland's success in monitoring and tracking these infections. We have to understand the rationale that lies behind the numbers.

The Golden Jubilee national hospital continues to maintain its rate of zero in terms of health care-acquired infection. In addition to using pre-admission screening, the hospital is able to separate planned elective care from accident and emergency admissions. Those are significant factors in reducing health care-acquired infection. The use of pre-admission screening offers lessons that the rest of the health service can learn with regard to the reduction in health care-acquired infection.

I will come back to the member on the specifics of each NHS health board. I do not have the detail at this time.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to make a submission to the United Kingdom Government's consultation on the post office network and, if so, when. (S2O-11749)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

We are considering carefully the terms of the UK Government's proposals for the future of the post office network, and how best to respond. We will make that submission prior to the closing date of 8 March 2007.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

On Monday evening, in Elgin, I met representatives from nearly 20 post offices from across Moray. I was told that many of those who run post offices continue to fear for their future. That said, all of us welcome the reprieve that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry offered last night. It would seem that some rural post offices in Scotland will come under that reprieve; they will not have to close under the Government plans.

Does the minister accept that the big challenge for all the post offices in Scotland that are under threat lies in generating new business? What assistance will the Scottish Government offer in that regard? Post offices are mooting ideas such as bringing together tourist information services under the post office network and issuing local authority bus passes through post offices—a development that is already happening in some local authority areas. Is the minister looking at such proposals?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Yes, certainly. First, we are looking at the precise detail of the provisions that the Department for Trade and Industry announced, one of which included the prospect or possibility of the sort of new business to which the member refers. When the First Minister responded to a question in Parliament on the subject, he said that one of the key criteria that the Executive wanted to establish was the extent to which the Post Office and the United Kingdom Government would make efforts to promote innovative means of service delivery that could be used to augment and enhance the business of the Post Office. In the assessment that we are making, that is a key criteria against which we will test the matter.

However, the first and fundamental issue is for the UK Government, which has responsibility for such matters, to set out its financial support. We will assess that before reaching our decision.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive what estimate it has made of the percentage of prisoners who will be detained in private prisons if both Addiewell and Low Moss are operated by the private sector. (S2O-11753)

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

The estimated figure is approximately 24 per cent.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does the minister realise that that figure is more than three times that of the United States of America? If the Executive goes ahead in that way, Scotland will be the world leader in the use of private prisons, ahead of not only the US but countries such as Australia and South Africa. Should not Scotland be ashamed of doing that? Surely some matters, including the safety of our communities, are too fundamental to be put into the hands of those whose first priority is private profit?

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

I want Scotland's criminal justice system, and our prison system, to be at the forefront of developments in reducing reoffending. The plans that we have put in place will do that. However, the public expect value for money. I strongly believe that we need to see a 21 st century prison estate with the right prison buildings and the right programmes to reduce reoffending.

The question that the SNP has to answer—which it has not answered as yet—is whether it will decide not to use the private sector anywhere in the criminal justice system. Would the SNP put the public at risk by not having the right facilities in our prison system? The SNP has threatened to do that with our schools and our health service. The SNP's sums simply do not add up.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister join me in paying tribute to the staff and all those who are associated with Kilmarnock prison for the excellent service that the prison gives to the prison estate? [ Interruption. ] Will she take account of the situation whereby the thieves and felons who are incarcerated at Kilmarnock could well benefit from the fact that they will miss voting in the Scottish Parliament elections? Will she give us an assurance that not one penny of taxpayer's money will go into their pockets?

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

As I am sure Mr Gallie is aware, the Scotland Office Minister, David Cairns, was robust on the issue of prisoners and voting when he spoke about it this morning.

There has perhaps been a first in the chamber today: Margaret Jamieson, the MSP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, was cheering on Phil Gallie in the background. That may never be repeated.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive, in circumstances where a general practitioner partnership is dissolved, whether there is a statutory requirement for the national health service board to seek to tender the services provided openly to non-general practitioners. (S2O-11742)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

NHS boards have a statutory duty to ensure that all patients have access to GPs and primary medical services.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

Again, we do not get a straight answer from the minister. Perhaps I can help him. The minister was responsible for introducing the Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2004, which the Scottish Socialist Party was the only party to oppose. Section 4 of the act inserted new section 17L into the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, under which

"A Health Board may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, enter into a general medical services contract with ... a medical practitioner ... a partnership, where"

at least one partner is a GP, or

"a company limited by shares,"

where the only condition is that

"at least one share in the company is ... owned by a medical practitioner".

That is the crucial difference—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

And your question?

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

My question is: will the minister finally refute the statements that his department made to the media that NHS Lanarkshire had no option other than to tender openly, including to non-GPs? Will he confirm that, according to the legislation, the board may not have had to do that?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The actions of NHS Lanarkshire are entirely appropriate in terms of the provisions in the legislation. A very rare set of circumstances are involved, which is that two GPs cannot agree on the future of their practice. We offered a partnership split that would have allowed them to work as single-handed GPs, but they would not agree even on that proposal. We therefore find ourselves in this situation.

What is important in all this is that the people of Harthill who are patients of that practice are given access to GP services. That is exactly what the board will do. As I have said many times, there is no reason why the traditional model of GP provision should not continue. The circumstances in which we find ourselves are very rare. I understand that the board is looking at the matter today and that it will shortly make known its views on the future of the practice.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Does the minister agree that it is vital that patients of the Harthill medical practice should be represented on the decision-making panel? Does he also agree that the approach that NHS Lanarkshire has taken in this regard has not been as inclusive as it should have been? Does the minister further agree that the primary focus in the process must be on providing the best possible GP services, in which the health care needs of the people of Harthill, Greenrigg and Blackridge are recognised?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Of course, patient need is at the heart of what we do in the NHS in Scotland. The work of GPs in our communities is absolutely vital.

With regard to the consultation process, I understand that all people in the area were lettered, public meetings were held and patients are represented on the panel. Nonetheless, if the member has specific concerns on the way in which the process was conducted, I am happy to look at them. The matter is the responsibility of NHS Lanarkshire, but I want to learn any lessons that should be learned from the process that was undertaken.

I repeat that we are dealing with a very rare set of circumstances. I see no reason why the traditional model of GP provision should not continue in Lanarkshire. It comes down to the fact that two independent GPs—who are not employees of the national health service—could not continue to agree on the way in which the partnership should operate in the future. They could not even agree on the proposal to run the practice as a two single-handed GP set-up. We therefore find ourselves in this very rare situation. The board is doing the right thing: it is ensuring that the community gets access to good-quality GP provision.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the minister confirm on the record that NHS Lanarkshire could have chosen not to invite a tender from a non-GP company limited by shares? The 2004 act says that such tenders "may" be invited, not that they must be invited. If it is difficult for the minister to answer that question now, will he send a letter to interested members that provides an interpretation of the law?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The member has chosen to ignore what I have said. Given the circumstances at Harthill, NHS Lanarkshire has acted entirely appropriately. The provisions of the legislation in question and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 ensure that boards have sufficient flexibility to discharge their duties to provide primary medical services. How they do so in accordance with the needs of local populations and local circumstances is a matter for each NHS board. I repeat: what the board has done is entirely appropriate and in accordance with the legislation.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive which ministers plan in their official capacities to attend constituency events organised by MSPs from their own parties in the period up to dissolution and what guidelines apply to such visits in a pre-election period. (S2O-11745)

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The requested information is not held in such a format. Ministerial diaries retain a record of engagements that have been carried out. However, I assure the member that ministers will give due consideration to all invitations from members of the Scottish Parliament to visit their constituencies.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for his interesting answer.

Recently, I asked the Minister for Justice to attend a public meeting in Milton. I am still waiting for a reply to my request. She was able to attend a public meeting in Kelvin; prior to that, she attended a Labour Party election campaign meeting in Kelvin. Will Mr Lyon allay the fears of Scottish people who do not want ministers to be used as electioneering tools? Will the relevant minister accept an invitation from a member of the Scottish National Party to come to a public meeting to allay the concerns and fears of the many people in Glasgow who are affected by the operations of Glasgow Housing Association? I assure him that there will be a full house at that meeting.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Sandra White's allegation is inaccurate. Ms Jamieson attended the Labour Party meeting that she mentioned in her capacity as a Labour representative, and not as a minister.

I repeat: ministers will give due consideration to all invitations from members to visit their constituencies.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will consult on the need for a full dental school for Aberdeen in line with its commitment to do so in the partnership agreement. (S2O-11801)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

In the partnership agreement, we committed to establishing an outreach dental training centre in Aberdeen and to consulting on the need for its development to a full dental school.

On 6 November, I opened the Aberdeen dental institute, which will bring together on one site an outreach training centre for dental students, postgraduate education for practising dentists and a general dental practice that will register up to 6,000 national health service patients over the next two years. We will consult on further development early next year, once the institute has been in operation for sufficient time to inform the consultation process.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The partnership agreement is clear. It states:

"We will expand the capacity of dental training facilities in Scotland by establishing an outreach training centre in Aberdeen. We will consult further on the need for its development to a full dental school."

The agreement will last until May. Why is the minister so reluctant to implement a Liberal Democrat manifesto pledge, which the Labour Party agreed with in the 2003 coalition negotiations and which would directly benefit people in his own constituency of Aberdeen Central?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I am delighted that in opening the Aberdeen dental institute, we have gone beyond the commitment that was made in the partnership agreement and put in place a centre for dental education, training and treatment. I look forward to being in a position in Government from which we can consult on the further development of that institute once it has been proven that it has made a significant contribution to dental education and to access to NHS treatment for dental patients in north-east Scotland. I have no doubt that that will be proven.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the minister agree that not only the new dental institute's training role should be considered in such consultation, but that its treatment role for thousands of patients who have been deregistered by dental practices that went private and who are now receiving NHS services again should be considered? Does he expect that treatment role to develop as we encourage more dental practices to provide more NHS treatment?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Absolutely. That is an important part of going beyond the partnership agreement. The dental institutes and outreach centres in other parts of Scotland are scheduled to come on stream in the next year or two. It is important that we are addressing not only the numbers of dentists, but access to NHS dentistry, which is a critical matter for patients. I expect that in future consultation on how we develop the dental estate further, the success that we have had in improving access to dentistry through salaried services, such as the Aberdeen institute, will be a key part of that consultation.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Before questions to the First Minister, members will want to welcome a delegation from the Government of Tanzania, led by Dr Hussein Ali Mwinyi. [ Applause. ]

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-2667)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not intend any disrespect to the many distinguished members who will retire this May but, given Dennis Canavan's family circumstances, it is appropriate today to record our appreciation of his work over a very long career. In 1979, Dennis Canavan was the first parliamentary candidate I ever voted for. In my view, he was an outstanding parliamentarian over a long period, both as a Labour representative and as an independent member. As, I am sure, everyone else does, I wish him a long and happy retirement with his family and I hope that they enjoy it as much as he will. [ Applause. ]

At next week's Cabinet meeting, we will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I echo the First Minister's comments about Dennis Canavan. Dennis is a man of principle. He has had an incredibly difficult time of late. I know that we all wish him and his family the very best for the future.

Today is Burns day. The bard said that we should

"see oursels as others see us"

because that would free us "frae monie a blunder". Talking of blunders, I refer the First Minister to yesterday's court ruling on prisoners' voting rights. We are told on page 3 of the court's judgment that the Scottish Executive was given notice of the appeal when it was lodged back in 2004, that under the Human Rights Act 1998 it had a right to become involved, but that it chose not to become a party to the case. Why did it make that choice?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Because there is no constitutional responsibility. The matters in front of the court are rightly the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government, which has a legislative and statutory responsibility for the conduct of Scottish elections. Despite what Ms Sturgeon might wish to imply to the contrary, it has been made very clear this morning by the UK Government through the Scotland Office that the Scottish elections will go ahead and that yesterday's judgment does not affect that in any way. In fact, I received a written confirmation to that effect from the Secretary of State for Scotland this morning.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I suggest that the First Minister reads the judgment, which makes it clear that under the Human Rights Act 1998 the Scottish Executive had a right to get involved in the case but opted not to do so. I say to the First Minister that that choice represents an abdication of his Government's responsibility, even on reserved issues, to ensure that the Scottish interest is taken fully into account.

Is it not the case that, according to the judgment, the UK Government was slow, bungling and acted with complete disregard to the imminence of the Scottish elections?

Does the First Minister agree with David Cairns, who spoke on the radio this morning, that the Government's failure to find an acceptable solution before the Scottish elections opens the door to the appalling prospect of criminals suing for breach of human rights? Surely, after the slopping-out fiasco, that should never have been allowed to happen again.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is for Mr Cairns to answer for himself on such matters. I think that he did so quite clearly this morning. No attempt by Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish nationalists to whip up an issue in an inaccurate way that misrepresents the facts of the situation can take away from that.

Mr Cairns made it clear this morning that the Scottish elections will go ahead. He made it clear that despite what was said by the nationalists yesterday, any financial compensation that might—and only might—need to be paid would be the responsibility of the UK Government and not of this devolved Government in Scotland.

Because the UK Government is responsible for the conduct of the elections to the Scottish Parliament, it is its responsibility to fight this case in court. That is what it did. The UK Government must examine the court's judgment, but it has made clear that the elections in Scotland will go ahead. I would like Ms Sturgeon to get on with the business of fighting the election campaign and give us some issues to talk about instead of this sort of nonsense.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I sometimes wonder what planet the First Minister lives on. I do not think that many people in Scotland consider the issue of criminals suing the taxpayer to be nonsense; I think that they consider it to be a grave issue.

David Cairns said this morning that there will be a bill to deal with the matter. Is it not the case that most people in Scotland, me included, do not think that prisoners should have any right to vote, but if the Government believes—as it said in court—that the law must change, was it not incumbent on it to sort something out before the election and to find a solution acceptable to the public and to the courts? Instead, we have a catalogue of incompetence and delay, as a result of which taxpayers—many of whom are struggling to pay their own council tax—will have to foot the bill for legal aid and compensation payments to criminals. Do Scottish taxpayers not have an absolute right to be furious with the First Minister and his colleagues?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I think that if Scottish taxpayers are listening to what goes on in the chamber every week, they will be furious with the SNP because of its consistent attempts to say anything to try to win votes and gain support at the election in May.

The truth of the matter is that Mr MacAskill was squirming last night on the television as he tried to get himself off the hook in relation to who should and should not go to prison and what the SNP's position on the matter was. The position of the UK Government is certainly the same as my position. I do not necessarily speak for the whole Executive on the issue, but certainly my position is that the UK Government's position is absolutely right. It is against the right of prisoners to vote. However, it has to take account of a ruling about the European convention on human rights. The reality is that it is doing that properly by consulting the people who matter most: the voters of the UK and of Scotland, who will ultimately be affected through tax and through the position at elections.

As we move forward on the issue, we all need to know not only what the UK Government's position is but what the SNP's true position is. If the reality is that the current position on prisoners' right to vote contravenes the European convention on human rights, will the nationalists comply with the convention or not? Will this simply be yet another example of the SNP using an issue in an attempt to break up Britain, to create independence and to create a constitutional issue out of a social or legal one? The nationalists ultimately have to answer some questions on those matters, rather than simply try to garner votes.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

The First Minister said, in his answer to the deputy leader of the SNP, that he is not speaking for the Executive. This is question time on the First Minister's role as leader of the Scottish Executive. Will you confirm that he should be speaking for the Executive?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The general tenor of the First Minister's remarks was such that they were within his responsibilities as First Minister. I remind Ms Sturgeon that she predicated her remarks on representations by the First Minister and that her final question should be about matters that impact on Scotland or for which the First Minister has responsibility.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I suggest to the First Minister that he does not seem to know who he is speaking for or what he is saying. If he had bothered to read the SNP's submission to the consultation, he would know our position. We believe that prisoners should not have the right to vote, but that if change is necessary it should be kept to an absolute minimum. Is it not the case that the problem is that the Government has done nothing and has exposed Scottish taxpayers to the bill? Is it not the case that this is the second time in a week that the Westminster Government has been shown to disregard completely Scottish interests and the Scottish Executive has been shown to sit back and let it do that? Is it not time that instead of a pack of cowran, tim'rous beasties for an Administration, Scotland had a real Government that would stand up for the Scottish interest?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will make two points. First, it is interesting that, this afternoon, Ms Sturgeon makes clear a position that Mr MacAskill was not willing to make clear on "Newsnight" last night. He was squirming last night, attempting to claim that the nationalists would have a blanket ban. Today, we have a confirmation that, even before that, the nationalists had a different position and one that would comply with the convention. Unlike the SNP's position on the issue, my position has not changed. It does not change from day to day. It remains that prisoners should not have the vote.

I hope that my second point will in some way answer Mike Rumbles's point. The reality is that Nicola Sturgeon does not want to talk about devolved issues in the Parliament because the SNP does not have the policies on education or health, or any consistent policies on transport. It has nothing to say about the interventions in the Scottish economy that will make this country prosperous and successful in the future. SNP members flip and they flop. They say different things on different issues from one week to the next. That is why, week after week, Ms Sturgeon brings to the chamber issues that are the responsibility of another Parliament. She does not want to debate the issues that matter here in the chamber. When she does, she will get far more respect from everybody else.

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-2668)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The First Minister will, no doubt, be aware that his Labour colleague, John Reid, has ordered English judges to stop sending prisoners to jail, except those who commit the most serious offences. It is clear that Labour in England has given up on the fight against crime. Can the First Minister guarantee that neither he nor any member of his Executive or the civil service has ever, whether in writing, verbally or by implication, ordered or asked a judge or sheriff in Scotland to consider prison space before passing a custodial sentence, or suggested that they should do so?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

To the best of my knowledge, which I imagine is complete on the issue, no member of any Executive that I have been part of here in Scotland since 1999 will have sought to issue a formal or informal instruction of that kind. We preserve the independence of the judiciary in Scotland, and we have enhanced that in our proposals for the more independent nomination of members of the judiciary that we have agreed with the appointments board and which I hope we will put on a statutory footing in the next session of Parliament.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am sure that Scotland's judges and the public will find that an intriguing answer from a Lib-Lab pact whose attitude, frankly, is, "To hell with the victims. Let's pander to the prisoners." If we needed more proof of that, yesterday, the First Minister's Labour colleague, Pauline McNeill, effectively conceded that some prisoners will get the vote.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I did not.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Indeed, his Lib-Lab pact colleague Jo Swinson said that prisoners have a fundamental right to vote. In relation to the fiasco about prisoners' having a right to vote, which is completely unacceptable, the First Minister is seeking to blame the European convention on human rights, Westminster, Tony Blair or anyone else he can find, but he has already tried that trick with slopping out. Conservatives allocated the money to end slopping out, but Jack McConnell used it for something else. He cost the taxpayer £58 million—

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

rose—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Let Miss Goldie finish the question. Ms McNeill, I will come to you. Briefly please, Miss Goldie.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

How much will the latest botch up cost?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As I said earlier, it will not cost the devolved Government any money whatsoever. Miss Goldie's last point—that money that could have, as she put it, ended slopping out was reallocated—is completely untrue. I have said that in the chamber before and I repeat it today.

I and my party are against allocating to prisoners the right to vote. The United Kingdom Government has made its position on the issue clear. Although the Opposition parties may wish to attempt to misrepresent that, it remains the position.

Court judgments have been made on which the UK Government is currently consulting to try to find a solution within the convention on human rights—that is its duty and responsibility—but it is clear that the objective of ensuring that prisoners lose some of their rights, including the right to vote, when they are incarcerated is absolutely correct, because prison should act as a deterrent as well as a place for rehabilitation.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I listened to the answer, but the trouble is that there is a credibility issue at the heart of the First Minister's position because, just last year in Westminster, Labour and the Liberal Democrats rejected a Conservative proposal to keep the ban on prisoners voting. Scotland's justice system has lost its way and the First Minister has lost control. Criminals are having money chucked at them to compensate for slopping out; convicts are sauntering out of jail halfway through their sentences; the Labour Party is begging judges to empty the prisons; and now prisoners are to be given the right to vote. It is little wonder that ordinary Scots are asking, "Why are criminals in Scotland getting off scot free?" Answer that, First Minister.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Conservatives and the nationalists want to talk about the issue and distort and misrepresent the situation because they do not want to talk about crime and the issues that affect people in Scotland today. They do not want to talk about the way in which the devolved Government's policies have reduced crime in Scotland, increased the clear-up rate, increased the number of police officers on the streets and improved sentencing. They do not want to talk about the fact that we are toughening up the provisions on bail and those on sentences for the most violent and serious offenders or that we have introduced new offences and new restrictions on sex offenders and violent offenders. All those measures, which the devolved Government has introduced in the Scottish Parliament, were measures that people were crying out for back in the 1990s, when Miss Goldie was apologising for a Conservative Government that was doing nothing.

I remember, back in the election campaign in 1999, meeting future constituents who had been let down as victims and witnesses in the court system of the 1990s. They came to me to plead that the new Scottish Parliament should do something for them. That is precisely why we now have victim support units in every area in Scotland and new provisions to look after witnesses and ensure that they receive the proper respect in our courtrooms, and why police officers do not now waste time in our courtrooms as they used to do. It is because of all those improvements and the impact that they are having in Scotland that the Tories and the nationalists want to talk about something else.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Pauline McNeill may either make a point of order or ask a supplementary question to the First Minister.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Does the First Minister agree that it is not acceptable for members to misquote other members? In no way have I ever conceded that prisoners will get the right to vote. Like, I am sure, other Labour members, I have made clear my view that it is not right for prisoners to have the right to vote. However, we are dealing with a court judgment that tells the UK Government what it has to do. Does the First Minister agree that we have been forced into this situation because we have been instructed by the European Court of Human Rights that there is an issue, and that it is right for the UK Government to take its time to work out the meaning of the judgment?

I ask for a retraction from Annabel Goldie for misquoting me in the Parliament.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

You can let that question go, First Minister, as it was really a statement.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I regret to say that I am not going to get the First Minister out of jail. My question derives from a ruling by the Court of Session this week that the Scottish information commissioner should have the internal papers that relate to the commencement of sections 25 to 29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. My reason for raising the issue is that, in September 2005, I was given an assurance by the then Minister for Justice that the commencement would come along shortly, and the next Minister for Justice repeated that in January of last year, when I was told that the commencement was imminent. When will the measures be commenced? If that will not happen as soon as possible, why not, and might that have anything to do with the ruling in the Court of Session? If not, why are we spending so much money on keeping internal papers on the matter from people who wish to know about it?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am happy to spell that out to Margo MacDonald in some detail in writing. [ Interruption. ]

If members would stop shouting and listen, they would hear what I hope will be a constructive answer. My understanding is that the original provisions in the act that was the subject of the court ruling this week were updated by provisions in an act recently passed by this Parliament. My understanding is that the provisions of that act will be enacted as of April this year—2007. I am happy to clarify all that in writing to Margo MacDonald, but that is my understanding of the position.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what further action the Scottish Executive will take to address the essential needs of senior citizens who are currently living below Government-defined poverty levels despite previous initiatives which provided free bus travel, free central heating and free personal care. (S2F-2670)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As John Swinburne recognises, we have taken significant steps to address pensioner poverty, lifting 120,000 pensioners from relative poverty since 1997. The work will continue, as is evidenced by the recent expansion of the free central heating programme.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

Does the First Minister agree that fuel poverty among the elderly is a national disgrace? Fuel bills have doubled over the past three years. Since June 2006, wholesale prices of gas have dropped by more than 60 per cent, but no reduction has been offered to the consumer. Fuel suppliers in Scotland have diverse schemes whereby senior citizens can obtain rebates or deductions if they meet certain criteria. Senior citizens call that "the well-concealed kindly face" of the fuel companies. Will the First Minister consider calling an urgent meeting of the chairmen and chief executives of the main fuel suppliers in Scotland with a view to getting an across-the-board collective agreement for a 20 per cent reduction in the tariff charges to every pensioner household in Scotland, effective immediately, in return for doing away with their "well-concealed kindly face" schemes? Such an agreement could save countless lives this winter.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

When fuel prices at source go down, the fuel and energy companies should reflect that in their prices—not only because of the positive impact it would have on pensioners but because of the positive impact it would have on hard-working families too.

I will reiterate something I said to the chamber before Christmas. The previous Minister for Communities met the energy companies about this issue. I will be happy to ensure that the new Minister for Communities supplies Mr Swinburne with information on the outcome of those meetings and on the actions that the companies have promised to undertake.

I am sure that discussions with the companies will continue, as will our efforts, in our own right and under our own responsibilities—yes—to put pressure on private companies to get their pricing systems right and to ensure through our public responsibilities that we provide the sorts of services for elderly people that not only ensure they are looked after well, but ensure that they are able to look after themselves well.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

My final question is on a positive note. Will the First Minister consider fast-tracking a bill to means test prisoners? Senior citizens are currently means tested and regularly lose their homes to pay for residential care. If prisoners were means tested and they were awarded £1,000 for losing the right to vote or £3,000 for having to slop out, it could be pointed out to them that it costs more than £30,000 a year to have them incarcerated and that the sums awarded to them could simply be deducted from the £30,000, reducing their debt to society. Let the no win, no fee lawyers handle that one.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

John Swinburne perhaps speaks for many of us in the sentiments behind his question.

I believe in the principle of ensuring that we can pursue those who are responsible for the most serious crimes in our society. That is precisely why there are new provisions, for example on the proceeds of crime, whereby we can ensure that the profits that drug barons and others have made from their crimes are recovered for the public purse and invested in communities, to ensure that the communities that have been damaged are assisted in being repaired.

Although the member's suggested scheme might not be conventional—it might not be legal—in expressing the principles that lie behind it and his emotional reaction to what seems to be an exceptionally unfair ruling that is bemusing victims and witnesses across the country, perhaps John Swinburne speaks for the whole land.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

To ask the First Minister whether any recent steps have been taken in conjunction with the United Kingdom Government to improve the effectiveness of Scotland's representation within the European Union. (S2F-2675)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have commissioned a report on those matters. It is currently in draft form and when it is finalised I will consider the recommendations with colleagues.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I take it that the document I have in my hand is the report that the First Minister commissioned. The report was sent to him and his Cabinet colleagues on 27 September and confirms that, in European negotiations, Scotland is undermined, sidelined and ignored by Whitehall and the UK Government.

Will the First Minister tell us what his response was when he and his colleagues received the report on 27 September? Is it the case that the report makes such uncomfortable reading for him and his colleagues, given that it vindicates the Scottish National Party's arguments for independence in Europe, that he dismissed it when he received it and he and his fellow ministers are now trying to discredit it? Will he explain to members and to Scotland why Lib Dem and Labour ministers circle the wagons to defend the reputation of Whitehall and the UK Government but do not stand up for Scotland and help the civil servants who are fighting for Scotland in Brussels?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The SNP's only contribution to the matter over the years, as I am sure Mr Finnie will testify, has been to undermine negotiations and Scotland's representation in Europe. We know that that has been consistent practice on the part of the SNP.

We also know that the draft report states:

"There is no more effective a position for Scotland than having one of the most influential Member States representing Scotland's interests within all 3 of the EU institutions."

We also know that when the President of the European Commission, President Barroso, was in Scotland last year, he said:

"I believe that Scotland has a voice and is heard in Brussels. They have a great respect for Scotland."

It is precisely because of the way in which Scotland's interests have been represented over the eight years of devolution, in this devolved Government and at UK level, that we have seen the many successes through changes in European Union legislation and decisions that have been important to Scotland. At the same time, as First Minister of Scotland I have a responsibility to ensure that that representation is further improved. That is precisely why the report was commissioned. In Europe, in London and here in Edinburgh we can make improvements. That is our duty and responsibility and it is what I intend to do and will do, no matter what the SNP tries to do to distort the position.

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive intends to take to ensure the continued existence of One Plus. (S2F-2677)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am very disappointed that One Plus, which has a terrific history that stretches back over a few decades, went into voluntary liquidation earlier this week. Perhaps because of that history but certainly because of our commitment to the services that One Plus runs, we have worked hard in recent weeks with local authorities and voluntary agencies to put in place contingency arrangements, which mean that the vast majority of services that One Plus delivered will be preserved.

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

Does the First Minister agree that if 600 jobs were being lost anywhere else, the issue would have been the headline question in the Parliament today? I ask the Opposition parties to search their consciences and consider why that was not the case.

Does the First Minister agree that One Plus has supplied an invaluable service for 25 years? Some offers have apparently come in from Glasgow City Council and others, but they are offers of possible provision, so provision is not in place. The problem is that if the organisation is fragmented, the holistic approach that we talk about in the Parliament will be lost. We will lose the advice, which links to training, which links to child care—and other aspects of the organisation. It is imperative that the organisation is held together—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

End your question, please.

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

Is the First Minister concerned about that? Does he acknowledge that the Executive spent more than £2 million on a campaign to teach us how to wash our hands? Will he wash his hands and cough up £2 million to save an incredibly important organisation?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I was about to say that I am grateful to Rosie Kane for raising such an important issue and doing so in such an impassioned and constructive way—until her last comment, which was frankly ridiculous. People sometimes die as a result of hospital infections. Helping to ensure that such infections are minimised is a serious requirement.

I agree with Rosie Kane that the services of One Plus are very important. I absolutely agree that it is important that the services that replace those that have been delivered by One Plus are of at least the same quality. It is important that the services that are being lost as a result of the liquidation should not simply be taken over by local authorities. One of the strengths of One Plus has been its nature as a voluntary agency and the way in which it has worked with parents and youngsters over the past two or three decades to improve services. I strongly believe that the services that are being transferred or taken over should, as much as possible, be transferred to or taken over by voluntary bodies. I recognise, however, that there may be a role for local authorities in the meantime to establish some continuity.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

As we started question time two and a half minutes late, I will use my discretion to include Alasdair Morrison's question.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

To ask the First Minister how the introduction of broadband is progressing across Scotland. (S2F-2672)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Executive has made highly significant progress in broadband deployment over the past few years. At the end of 2005 we met our commitment to deliver broadband to every Scottish community. With broadband now available to more than 99 per cent of the population, Scotland is ahead of most of the world in terms of coverage, and we are now investing in closing the remaining gap in hard-to-reach locations.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I am pleased to hear from the First Minister that we have established broadband coverage to more than 99 per cent of the population. It will come as no surprise to him to hear that I wish him and his agencies to continue to press for 100 per cent coverage.

Will the First Minister continue with the policy of the Executive and the United Kingdom Government of relocating civil service jobs outwith centres of population, given the advent of broadband installation? He will be pleased to hear that the example that has been set by his Executive is now encouraging the private sector to do likewise and locate and create jobs in such places as the Western Isles. On his next visit to the Western Isles, will the First Minister join me and colleagues from the council and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to discuss how we can build on recent successes?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I normally meet local representatives when I visit the Western Isles, and I am sure that the issue Alasdair Morrison has raised will arise in discussions. I would wish to ensure—as, I am sure, would Alasdair Morrison—that we paint a positive picture of the recent developments that have taken place in the Western Isles and of the strategic approach that Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the authorities in the Western Isles have adopted to reverse population decline, to improve the level of services on the islands and to strengthen the economy of the islands. Those are important developments that, in the longer term, will not only secure an increase in the islands population, but ensure prosperity for those who live there.

Scottish Executive — Finance and Public Services and Communities

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what powers it or local authorities have to set a levy or tax on employers, in addition to non-domestic rates, to support local public services such as transport, as happens in France. (S2O-11741)

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Neither the Executive nor local authorities currently have the power to set a levy or tax solely on employers to support local public services, other than existing powers in relation to non-domestic rates. Any new local levy or tax would require additional powers to be given by legislation. That would be limited to local taxes that fund local authority expenditure in terms of the Scotland Act 1998.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

I suggest that the minister read the Burt report, which his Executive commissioned, and which says that the Executive does have the power to levy a national tax, provided that it is for local government services. As a stepping stone to free public transport, will he consider learning from France, where a 1.7 per cent payroll tax on business is ring fenced for local public transport?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I disagree with the member's assertion, and I have read the Burt report in some detail. Taxation is a very sensitive issue. It can have a significant impact on economic performance. The Burt report mentions that taxation above a certain level could be a disincentive to work. Given the economic performance of our country at the moment, and the record number of people who are now in employment, that is the last thing we want here in Scotland.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action has been taken to address any problems arising from the handover of management of the central heating programme. (S2O-11786)

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Regular meetings are held between officials and Scottish Gas representatives to ensure that progress is being made and the requirements of the contracts are being met. That includes any issues that might have arisen from the management handover.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

The warm deal is an excellent programme, and many of my older constituents have taken advantage of it. However, there is a long waiting list. I have constituents in their 80s who have been told that they will have to wait at least three months, until the summer. That is not good enough. Will the minister consider some way of prioritising need when dealing with waiting lists?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Cathy Peattie is well aware that approximately 80,000 people will have benefited from our programme during the past several years. That is a major achievement. After assessing eligibility, the current waiting list that was inherited from the Eaga Partnership has been reduced to about 4,500. All those who are on the revised list have been contacted and Scottish Gas has given a commitment that they should all receive their heating systems before 31 March. I hope that Cathy Peattie will regard that as good news.

On prioritisation, the Eaga Partnership operated a good system for dealing with people with particular priorities. The priority system was not about health generally because so many of the people who qualify for the central heating programme are of an age at which they might have a health qualification. Where the circumstances arise, Scottish Gas will implement a system that will allow some people's circumstances to be taken into account and people to be moved up the list.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does the Scottish Executive have in place an accurate record of complaints against Scottish Gas? Is it monitoring the response times to such complaints and, if so, what is the maximum response time?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I cannot give the member a straightforward answer to that question, but I will investigate the matter and write to him with the information about response times. However, every complaint that is made to the Executive is looked into, and complaints from Scottish Gas are regularly monitored. I will try to find out what the position is on response times.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I refer the minister to his written answer of 12 January to my question S2W-30516, in which he said:

"We are on track to deliver our target of 17,500 Warm Deal installations between April 2006 and March 2007."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 12 January 2007; S2W-30516.]

As of today, how many installations have taken place? What is the average waiting period between a positive assessment and installation?