Scottish Parliament, 28 June 2007

355 contributions from 81 members. The official report.

Official Report 28 June 2007

Strategic Spending Review

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a statement by John Swinney on the approach to the strategic spending review. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions. Mr Swinney, you have 10 minutes—I beg your pardon, you have 15 minutes.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Thank you for that heart-stopping moment, Presiding Officer.

I will make a statement about this year's Scottish strategic spending review and the context in which our future spending plans are set. Before I do so, I am required to look back at the previous financial year by announcing the provisional outturn figures for 2006-07.

The agreement with Parliament states that the Scottish Government should report the outturn position against each of the budgets authorised by the Parliament in the spring budget revision. The outturn position for 2006-07 will be reported against the final budgets authorised by Parliament in the spring budget revision in January 2007. Further details of the underspend for 2006-07 are contained in a supporting document entitled "Provisional Outturn 2006-07", which I have published today alongside this statement. Copies are available in the Scottish Parliament information centre, which is the normal arrangement.

Before I provide details of those numbers, it is worth reminding members why we have end-year flexibility. The process originates from the parliamentary principle of authorising budgets annually. The Parliament approves the Government's spending plans for only one year. If we do not undertake all the spending by 31 March, we need to return to Parliament to have that expenditure reauthorised in the following financial year.

The provisional outturn supporting document shows that last year the Scottish Government spent £106 million less than the budget that the Parliament approved in the spring budget revision. Arms-length bodies, including bodies such as Scottish Water and the Forestry Commission Scotland spent a further £136 million less than their approved budgets.

Taken together, this year's shortfalls total £242 million against the spring budget revision. However, the end-year flexibility mechanism operates only on the departmental expenditure limit portion of the Scottish budget. In 2006-07, the unspent portion of the total DEL budget was £135 million. That is part of the £242 million underspend against the spring budget revision.

My Cabinet colleagues and I have decided not to allocate any of this year's end-year flexibility to portfolios at this time, with a view to considering those resources alongside decisions that are to be taken as part of the forthcoming 2007 strategic spending review. Those resources will be used to benefit Scotland in line with the new Government's priorities. They will be added to the cumulative balance of end-year flexibility that is held at HM Treasury, which the previous Scottish Administrations have allowed to build up over the past seven years.

At the end of 2005-06, the Scottish Executive's cumulative balance of EYF at HM Treasury was £1.454 billion. Last year, the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform indicated that he planned to reduce the balance of money at HM Treasury from £1.45 billion by drawing down £780 million by the end of 2007-08. The fact that, one year into that two-year period, the balance has in fact increased slightly to £1.5 billion suggests that that target is unlikely to be met.

Those resources are Scottish resources and the Government will expect to obtain access to them when and where they are required to enable us to deliver on our commitments and priorities. The money can be used to help us to meet existing pressures; to contribute towards our priorities for Scotland; and to help us to manage during the period of lower budgetary growth that we expect from the 2007 spending review. I am reviewing what resources need to be drawn down in 2007-08, with a view to maximising flexibility during the spending review period to 2010-11.

As I set out in the approach to government debate, we must expect a period of lower growth in public spending in the next spending round. Since devolution, we have seen large increases in public spending in Scotland, from a high of 11 per cent in real terms in 2000-01 to around 5 per cent for most of the following years. In this financial year, the real-terms increase was 2.4 per cent.

Annual increases for this spending review will not be of the level to which we have become accustomed but will be significantly lower. That will mean that to deliver on our manifesto and achieve our strategic objectives we will have to make tough strategic decisions. However, we will not be making the difficult choices in isolation. We are already involving more people in reaching these decisions, which is shown by our early publication of the budget review report, which is commonly known as the Howat report.

All of that is telling us that we will require to demonstrate good financial discipline to deliver our strategic objectives in this more constrained fiscal environment. As part of our drive to get the most value from the money that we spend, we will take forward a sustained programme of efficiency and reform. That will come partly through a new efficiency programme to deliver a minimum of 1.5 per cent annual efficiency savings from across the public sector, providing a more streamlined, effective and efficient public service. We will ensure that public service workers are better placed to meet the needs of front-line services. The public sector must be able to use and share its own resources and skills better to ensure that they are redistributed to where they can be used most effectively.

Last month, I told Parliament that we would be taking action to declutter and simplify the landscape of public sector organisations. Reforming public services is essential if we are to maintain a sustainable public sector.

As members know, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is now the Prime Minister, has announced a delay to the United Kingdom comprehensive spending review announcement. That means that we will find out the Scottish settlement three months later than we would in a normal spending review year, probably in mid-October. We will finalise and publish our spending plans as soon as possible after we know our overall budget.

I have already had a helpful discussion with the convener and deputy convener of the Finance Committee to maximize the opportunity available to scrutinise the Government's budget within a timescale that has been shortened due to circumstances outwith our control. Although time for the overall process of a spending review and consideration of our budget by Parliament will be three months shorter than normal, I have recommended a timetable that protects the two-month period of detailed scrutiny that is normally available to parliamentary committees. I look forward to discussing that approach with the Finance Committee after the summer recess.

In addition, the Parliament will play a critical role in scrutinising the Government's spending plans after we have announced them later in the autumn. The Finance Committee and the subject committees will have a full opportunity to examine the detail of our spending plans following the publication of our plans and the draft budget document. Those documents will at the same time be under the scrutiny of the people of Scotland. The process will be drawn together and will conclude with the Finance Committee report and recommendations on our spending proposals, which are likely to be published in late January or early February.

The spending plans for 2008-09 will receive further examination by the Parliament through the annual budget approval process, which will allow additional debate and scrutiny to be undertaken. That demonstrates clearly the transparency, openness and consultative nature of the Scottish budget process.

I acknowledge that the timing of the announcement of the strategic spending review outcome will impact on the notice that we can give delivery bodies of their allocations for 2008 to 2011. It is essential that, despite the delay in announcing the CSR, we still have a budget in place timeously in early 2008 to fund our public services properly. We will work with our delivery partners to minimise any disruption so that they can maintain a smooth service to their customers.

We will set three-year spending plans that take us to the end of this parliamentary session—2008-09 to 2010-11. Along with my cabinet secretary and ministerial colleagues, I will be in dialogue with a range of stakeholders over the summer to gather evidence and views on how we can use the spending review to set spending plans that will enable us to fulfil our purpose and achieve our strategic objectives.

A key focus of those discussions will be to establish a new relationship with local government—one in which we can work together in partnership and in which we recognise local government's central role in the governance of Scotland, there is less prescription from central Government and local government has greater freedom to exercise its responsibilities.

We therefore intend to ensure that there is a settlement and a financial framework for local government over the spending review period that will let it deliver across the range of its functions and will, in return, help us to deliver on our strategic objectives and key commitments, including freezing council tax rates at 2007-08 levels while we work to introduce a fairer system of local taxation to replace the council tax. The appropriate funding for local government will therefore be an important outcome of the 2007 spending review.

I want to describe the direction that we will take to the strategic spending review. Our move towards smaller government will assist us in undertaking the spending review in a more strategic and focused way. The outcome of the review will be an important step in allowing us to fulfil our purpose: to focus government and public services on creating a more successful country, with opportunities for the whole of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth.

The review will centre on achieving our five strategic objectives: to make Scotland wealthier and fairer; to enable Scotland's people to become healthier; to enable our communities to become safer and stronger; to enable our people to succeed and to become smarter; and to enable Scotland to become greener. In the past few weeks, we have provided Parliament with the opportunity to debate each of those objectives and for members to build consensus through discussion. Where we thought that doing so was important, we have announced initial commitments, such as abolishing the graduate endowment fee and reversing the decision to close accident and emergency services at Ayr and Monklands hospitals. The spending review will allow us to set out our overall plans for the parliamentary session. We want to refocus government and public services to create a more successful Scotland and to align our resources to deliver on our purpose, strategic objectives and commitments.

We will build a performance framework around our five top-level objectives. In the strategic spending review, we will focus on a smaller number of targets than has been the case in the past, and we will make those targets more meaningful. The framework will be a further improvement on the current set of targets, and it will build on the findings in the Finance Committee's legacy paper from the previous session. The new framework will help the new Finance Committee and subject committees to understand our priorities and to hold us accountable for them. It will remove the proliferation of competing priorities.

I look forward to coming back to Parliament in the late autumn to debate our forward-looking spending plans. Our new approach will present plans that will deliver a better future for Scotland and a Scotland that is full of opportunity. Scotland deserves nothing less.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The minister will now take questions on the issues that his statement has raised. I intend to allow around 30 minutes for questions.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I welcome the cabinet secretary's statement.

On a morning on which the media are full of the virtues of substance over spin, the cabinet secretary's talk of tight financial discipline rings a little hollow. Of course, the substance of the Administration's approach so far has been to spend, spend, spend on populist promises and to stall, stall, stall on the tough issues. The statement hints at a new dimension: to stir, stir, stir with the rest of the UK. Is Mr Swinney set to become Oliver and ask for more, more, more in attempting to make his sums add up?

I have three questions. First, there was a climbdown over transport plans yesterday. Has there been another climbdown? Is the pledge to freeze council tax rates a promise or an option? Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the guaranteed cash cuts to councils currently run at £180 million to maintain the business rate reduction, £122 million to extend that reduction and £65 million to freeze council tax rates? That comes to a total of £367 million for next year. Will those promised cash cuts to local services by central Government be fully funded—yes or no?

Secondly, the cabinet secretary is anxious to burnish his reputation for prudence. Therefore, why is it right that Scottish taxpayers should look forward to only half the efficiency savings that are planned for the rest of the UK? The Scottish National Party's savings target of 50 per cent is less ambitious than the 60 per cent target that the previous Administration set and delivered.

Finally, Mr Swinney said that the public sector must use its resources more effectively. Why, then, has his Administration moved in recent weeks against private sector participation to assist in the provision of public services free at the point of use in areas such as health, education and criminal justice? How can such an approach possibly assist efficiency or effectiveness?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I thought that after the hungry caterpillar escapade Wendy Alexander might have learned something about how to approach parliamentary statements, but her approach on this occasion has been no better than it was then.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Answer the questions.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Believe you me, I will answer them.

Wendy Alexander asked about the council tax freeze. I am afraid that she is living in the past. The previous Government had a dreadful reputation with local government, but I want a complete contrast: I want to create a constructive relationship with local government. I want to work with it to establish a council tax freeze. Yesterday, I made it clear to the Local Government and Communities Committee that I want to work with councils to deliver that freeze, and that we will include a range of issues in our discussions and dialogue with local authorities, because it is better, more efficient and more effective to collaborate with them to deliver the council tax freeze that we promised the people of Scotland. That will be my priority.

Secondly, Wendy Alexander should get her story straight about efficiency savings.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Fifty per cent is not 60 per cent.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Throughout the election campaign, Labour Party members such as Wendy Alexander, Andy Kerr and Jack McConnell went round the country saying that we would traduce public services through efficiency savings of 1.5 per cent. Wendy Alexander is demanding, not for the first or second time but for the third time, that I deliver efficiency savings of 3 per cent, which we all know is the line of argument in the United Kingdom Government. However, such savings would offer no guarantee that compulsory redundancies or service cuts could be resisted. I ask Ms Alexander to work out what side of the argument she is on. If she wants me to go for 3 per cent efficiency savings, she must accept the consequence. The country would be taken in the direction of having compulsory redundancies in the public sector. That is not the Administration's policy position.

Finally, on the involvement of the private sector, the Administration has made it clear that we want vibrant and effective public services. We do not see the value of some of the previous Administration's expensive experiments. In the years to come, the country will have to carry financial burdens as a result of deals that the previous Administration got us involved in. I hear Labour members muttering about prisons. My goodness, what a mess prison contracts are in. The Administration will look in a prudent and effective way at all the issues in order to deliver value for money and effective public services for Scotland. The previous Administration failed to do that, but the current Administration will succeed.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement.

Everybody who is interested in scrutinising the Scottish Government and its spending decisions effectively will be concerned at the implications of shortening the scrutiny process this year. I accept that the shortening of the process is not directly a consequence of the Government's actions, but what action will the Government take with respect to the UK Government to ensure that what has happened does not recur?

On the substance of the decisions that the Government will take later this year, the cabinet secretary said that he was involving the people in taking difficult decisions. Everybody realises that there will be difficult decisions to take as a consequence of the likely tightening of the spending settlement. The cabinet secretary used his publication of the Howat review as evidence of his involving other people in taking difficult decisions. As a way of extending the scrutiny process and involving people in taking difficult decisions, will he publish the Government's response to each of the Howat recommendations and allow a parliamentary debate on the matter prior to the October recess?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I will explain more fully some of the implications of the spending review timescale. I said in my statement that the draft timetable that I proposed to the Finance Committee protects the two-month period for scrutiny of Government proposals by that committee and the subject committees. To make that possible, the Government is reducing the time that it would normally have to consider the implications of the spending review before publishing its own spending review decisions, from two and a half months to one month. Normally, we would have three months to prepare our budget after the announcement of the UK position, but we are reducing that to four weeks. That puts enormous pressure on civil servants to assist us in that work, but that is the timetable that I judge to be reasonable to protect parliamentary scrutiny.

The circumstances this year are unique—it is not every year that there is a change of Prime Minister and the chancellor becomes the Prime Minister. Various issues have come together to prevent the publication of the spending review as we might have liked. I cannot imagine that there will be many recurrences of the current situation. As part of the quadrilateral meeting of finance ministers, I will meet the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, whose appointment we await today, and the timescale will be one of the subjects discussed.

I said in the debate on the approach to government some weeks ago that the Government would publish the Howat report, which we did. I said that we would incorporate the Howat report and reflect on it as part of the evidence base for the strategic spending review. I am sure that it will be clear from the spending review which decisions we have accepted and which we have not. There will be plenty of opportunity in the budget process for Parliament to scrutinise the Government's decisions.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement and his presentation of it this morning. Will he confirm that all the Howat recommendations are being assessed by the Government, except the one on Scottish Water, if I remember correctly his previous statement on the matter?

On spending commitments that he and his ministerial colleagues have made since the Government was formed, if—as I heard him say—end-year flexibility is not to be used, will all such spending decisions this year and in future financial years have to come from existing resources?

Am I right to understand that some of the cabinet secretary's ministerial colleagues have ruled out using public-private partnership money—I think that he just said that to Wendy Alexander—whereas yesterday, Stewart Stevenson confirmed that PPP would be used for the M80? Perhaps the cabinet secretary will tell Parliament about the clear principle that is being followed with regard to the use of private resources.

The cabinet secretary spoke about the clutter of public bodies. His colleague Jim Mather gave fair evidence yesterday to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee about such clutter, but he did not say that legislation would be forthcoming to declutter—or whatever the appropriate word is—and reduce the number of bodies. When is Parliament to be told about the Government plans for the public sector, particularly in light of what I understand to be the decision not to shelve sportscotland, despite a previous commitment to do so?

I ask the cabinet secretary to expand on his point about the new partnership with local government. Surely the principle of freezing council tax rates, irrespective of whether that is a good or bad decision, will mean that no local authority has any leeway in the decisions that it makes about its income, and that the cabinet secretary will be completely in charge of councils' resources? Is that not the principle that is being established?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Scott is correct about the Howat report: we are considering all its recommendations as part of the spending review with the exception of the provision on Scottish Water. Despite the fact that we are considering the recommendations, I would not like Mr Scott to think that we will accept them all.

I confirm that commitments that we have made since we came to office 43 days ago will be incorporated into the Government's existing financial plans. We will develop those, and any commitments beyond 2007-08 will be part of the spending review. We have to align the spending pattern with our priorities on an on-going basis.

Mr Scott asked about PPP, about which I am happy to give information to Parliament. The Government wishes to establish a Scottish futures trust to undertake more efficient borrowing and planning for projects. Parliament will be kept up to date on the preparatory work that is under way. Our view on existing PPP projects—some of which we inherited from the previous Administration—is essentially pragmatic. Ministers are taking decisions about whether to allow projects to proceed—which we might do if a PPP project is well advanced and it would be disruptive to halt it—on a case-by-case basis. In that respect, we have in mind the interests of individuals and communities in Scotland.

On decluttering public bodies, I read with great interest the comments that my colleague the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism gave to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee yesterday, which clearly reflected the Government's priorities. We are determined to reduce the number of bodies that are actively involved in delivering many of the economic development services in Scotland and to ensure that all those services are well and effectively focused. If there are legislative implications from that process, which is being examined over the summer, we will bring them back to Parliament. However, it is putting the cart before the horse to talk about the legislation before we know the exact format that we will settle on.

On the new partnership with local government, I would like the Parliament to understand that my objective is to create a shared sense of purpose between us and local government. I do not want to tell local government what to do. I want local authorities to be free to take their decisions. I think that I am entitled to exercise some restraint on behalf of the hard-pressed taxpayers of Scotland, who were roundly ignored by the previous Administration, which presided over a 62 per cent increase in council tax over a 10-year period and took eight years to reflect, moan and worry about how unfair the council tax was while it did precisely nothing about it.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

All parties have fired their opening salvos. I ask that all questions be as brief as possible, because a lot of members have asked to speak and I want to get as many in as I can.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I welcome the new strategy of tax and spend instead of tax and waste, which we had under the previous Administration. I ask the cabinet secretary to consider two points to which I know he cannot give a detailed reply today. First, on improving economic growth, eliminating poverty and dealing with the housing crisis, will the Cabinet give higher priority to affordable housing than did the previous Administration? In Scotland last year, we built only 25,000 houses, compared with the Republic of Ireland, which built 93,000 houses.

Secondly, will he examine schemes such as the excellent proof of concept scheme, which dishes out money only in the form of grant and provides no return on capital for the taxpayer? There is scope to improve private investment leverage and the return to the taxpayer in a number of areas. I urge my friend the cabinet secretary to consider those matters as well.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

First, the Government has set out its intended direction in relation to housing supply. The financial consequences of that work will be considered within the spending review process at the end of the year.

Secondly, like Mr Neil, I am a great admirer of the proof of concept scheme approach, which has successfully assisted the development of a number of innovations. Jim Mather is actively considering that area of activity in relation to Scottish Enterprise's focus. We will examine interesting proposals wherever they come from with regard to strengthening the availability of investment opportunities for new ideas in Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The cabinet secretary acknowledged in his statement that the delay in the spending review announcement, which we fully accept is not of his making, will impact on the ability of delivery bodies to plan. However, the streamlining, decluttering and simplifying that Mr Swinney has talked about will do that, too.

The cabinet secretary did not entirely address the issue that Tavish Scott raised. When will he produce clear proposals that will show what is meant by decluttering? How will that parallel and dovetail with the spending plans process that he outlined earlier? How will the Parliament, its committees and other stakeholders engage with the decluttering process? What reassurances or, indeed, guarantees can he give that that is not just code for job cuts and service cuts?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

First, there is a substantial point about the impact on delivery bodies. I am concerned about how much clarity and certainty we can give to delivery bodies, given that we will give them only relatively short notice of spending priorities. I have thought long and hard about that problem, but I cannot see an alternative way around it. However, we will work closely with delivery bodies to give as much certainty as possible.

Secondly, on decluttering, the Labour Party needs to go away for the summer recess and work out where it is going on some issues. The Labour Administration presided over increasing complexity in the government of Scotland. If members went out of Parliament and talked to any member of the public or any public organisation, they would be told that there is an enormous clutter of bodies and that the situation must be tackled. This Government is prepared to do that, difficult though it will be, and we will pursue it through an orderly process. When that has been done, we will set out proposals to Parliament, which we will align with the spending review.

Iain Gray asked whether decluttering is "code for job cuts", while Wendy Alexander wants me to double the efficiency targets to a level at which it has been proved, under the Treasury's plans for the United Kingdom, they would deliver job cuts. Frankly, they need to get their line straight.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement that he will access the £1.5 billion that the Treasury holds. Will any of that money be made available for the construction of the Aberdeen western peripheral route on the A90?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The £1.5 billion that is held at the Treasury can be accessed only through agreement between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government. Obviously, that puts certain constraints on the amount of that resource that we can access. For example, in this financial year, we have an agreed and negotiated entitlement to draw down about £550 million from the £1.5 billion, which is the maximum that we can draw down. However, this is the only year for which a negotiated arrangement is in place. Obviously, I will seek to negotiate an arrangement with the Treasury in due course to guarantee our access to the resources.

Of course, the drawn-down money will be incorporated in the Executive's spending plans. The construction of the Aberdeen western peripheral route is part of those plans, so there would be every opportunity for the money to be used for it.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to safeguard the time available to the Finance Committee and the subject committees to scrutinise the budget. I dutifully checked the text of the cabinet secretary's statement against his delivery of it, and noted that the text suggested that the council tax freeze would be at 2006-07 levels. I may have misheard the cabinet secretary, but he seemed to indicate that rates would be frozen at 2007-08 levels. Perhaps he can clarify whether that will be optional or whether it is a commitment.

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment announced earlier this month a £10 million fund to help new entrants into agriculture under the Scottish rural development programme. It subsequently emerged that that was a one-off payment. Perhaps the cabinet secretary can confirm whether that is the case and, if so, whether it is the result of pressure from him to cut back on the budget.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Liam McArthur is correct that the printed version of my statement that was given to Opposition parties at 8.15 this morning says that council tax rates will be frozen at 2006-07 levels. I did not spot that earlier this morning, but I am thankful that I spotted it before I delivered the words to the chamber. I confirm that the freeze will be, in cash terms, at 2007-08 levels. I thank Mr McArthur for giving me the opportunity to expunge the printed dates from any possible record and recollection that could be thrown back at me by anybody sitting to my right or left in the chamber.

On Mr McArthur's point on the rural development programme, I had the fortunate opportunity last Friday to visit the Royal Highland show, where I met a considerable number of representatives from the agricultural community, who told me that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment had delivered a fantastic arrangement for the rural development programme and that they were grateful for his strong and effective representation of their interests in the Government.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

The minister is a former member of the Finance Committee, so he will be well aware of the importance that it places on publishing baseline data to allow efficiency savings to be quantified. Can he confirm that the Executive intends to publish baseline budgets, so that Parliament can be assured that the promised minimum 1.5 per cent cash-releasing efficiency savings can be calculated?

Can the minister clarify whether all existing PPP arrangements, including those in which preferred bidders have been announced but contracts have not been signed, will be allowed to continue?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

On baseline data, I am considering what can be done to strengthen the availability of that data to ensure that we have a robust examination of efficiency savings.

On PPP contracts, I said earlier that the Government will take a pragmatic look at every PPP project. Some are at a more advanced stage than others. The Government will ensure that, where commitments have been given and projects are at such an advanced stage that it would be disruptive not to proceed with them, the Government will honour them.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Can the cabinet secretary confirm that growth will be essential to the Scottish Government's ambitions for creating a wealthier Scotland? Can he give us further information on how he intends to ensure that the spending review will help Scotland's businesses to grow, particularly small business? Can he indicate the extent to which that will have a beneficial impact on town centres, such as Alloa town centre, which were so disparaged by the former First Minister during the election campaign? Further, can the minister say something about the current plethora of performance reporting? Does he intend to do something about that to relieve the burden on local authorities from inspectorates, audits and performance reporting?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Economic growth will be central to the Government's decisions. I said in my statement that the spending review will focus the Government and public services on creating a more successful country, with opportunities for all Scotland to flourish through increasing sustainable economic growth. That will be at the heart of our decisions and it will be supported by our five strategic objectives.

On supporting small businesses in town centres, I have much sympathy with Mr Brown's view on the position of small towns. I represent a constituency that is a collection of small towns that have far too many vacant premises in their centres. I hope that the Government's stated intention to reduce business rates for small companies as part of the spending review will help.

On the plethora of performance reporting, investigation, examination and review that is carried out in local authorities and other public agencies, everybody realises that there must be reporting and monitoring of some form, but there is a ridiculous level of investigation of local authorities. I have been utterly persuaded of that by representations from local authority leaders, who say that they are overinspected and overreviewed by numerous bodies that duplicate what each does. If that is not an argument for decluttering, I do not know what is.

I was greatly heartened by the interim report of Professor Lorne Crerar, who is looking into the burden of regulation. I look forward to receiving his proposals later in the summer and to taking early action to pursue the issues that he raises.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I am pleased to hear that the cabinet secretary will continue to award three-year spending settlements to local authorities. I understand that he does not want to be prescriptive, but will he be proactive in encouraging local authorities to award three-year funding settlements to the voluntary sector organisations that they contract to carry out vital local public services?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

It would be good practice if that were delivered. As part of my discussions with local authorities, I will take forward that approach, because it gives organisations sustainability, continuity and clarity about where they are going. One of my worries about the period between now and the start of the next financial year is that there will be less time for us to put some of that in place, but I will pursue that objective with local authorities and other bodies.

George (Labour, Lothians)

I want to be helpful. Does John Swinney remember the rates rebels in Troon who panicked George Younger, Michael Forsyth and Margaret Thatcher into bringing in the poll tax? Does he also remember the riots in Surrey, which forced them to get rid of the poll tax and bring in the council tax? Does he recall that just transferring from rates to the poll tax cost hundreds of millions of pounds, none of which went to local authorities and all of which was used administratively to change from one system to the other? Then, when they changed from the poll tax to the council tax, hundreds of millions were spent again. Moving from the council tax to the so-called local income tax—which is not local—will cost at least £100 million, and probably many more hundreds of millions. That will be the cost just for moving from one system to the other, without any benefit to the council tax payer.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question, please.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Can John Swinney in all conscience not think again about his plans to change from the council tax to another form of financing local government? It will cost huge amounts of money and benefit no one. Can he not think again?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am not sure what has happened to George Foulkes's cheery disposition that I always used to see. What a terrible tale of woe that was.

The Government is absolutely committed to replacing the unfair, oppressive council tax with a fair system of local income tax. One of the great joys of the many in the past 43 days in which we have been in office has been the co-operation that we managed to put together with our friends in the Liberal Democrats to secure the first parliamentary majority in favour of the abolition of the council tax and the introduction of a local income tax. It was a welcome piece of political co-operation, and I look forward to the will of Parliament being respected by everybody on that important point.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

The cabinet secretary has acknowledged that he will consider the Howat report as he prepares for the forthcoming spending review. On transport, I am sure that he welcomes the fact that the number of bus journeys has increased by 5 per cent since 2000-01, therefore will he give an assurance that he will treat with extreme caution the Howat report recommendation to remove £57 million from bus company subsidies, as that would increase fares by 17 per cent and hinder the progress that is being made in support of public transport?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I said in response to Tavish Scott that we are considering all the options in the Howat report but that we will not implement all of them. Clearly, a number of propositions in the report are more developed and credible than others, and the Government will apply a number of tests before we make any decisions on them. I note the points that Mr Kelly has raised.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

The cabinet secretary made an intemperate passing reference to the prisons budget earlier. I understand that his colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Justice got a bit of a shock when he asked how much it would cost to renationalise Kilmarnock prison and buy out the Addiewell contract. However, I am concerned about Low Moss prison in my constituency, the contract for which is at the second stage of bidding. Four private companies are involved in the expensive process. Can the cabinet secretary tell me today whether a new Low Moss prison will be built?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

At my most generous, I would have to say that I do not think that the existing contracts for Kilmarnock and Addiewell were particularly well negotiated by the previous Administration. On replacing Low Moss prison, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will make appropriate announcements when he is ready, in the considered fashion that Mr Whitton would expect from the new Administration.

Health and Well-being

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on the health and well-being of the people of Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

This is the fifth and final debate on the Government's strategic objectives. We have had some constructive debates in the past few weeks, and I hope that we will continue in the same vein this morning.

The Government knows that, to the people of Scotland, good health and a first-class national health service are of the utmost importance. I am sure that all members agree with that. In today's debate, I want to set out our overall approach to health and well-being and to outline in general terms our programme for the first year. However, I make it clear that today is also about listening: I want to hear the views of other members of all parties, and I undertake to respond positively whenever possible.

As members know, the Government has five strategic objectives. I have primary responsibility for the objective of making Scotland healthier—although this morning I would settle for making myself feel healthier—and that responsibility has two key elements. First, we have a commitment to improve health and tackle inequalities and, secondly, we have a clear commitment to deliver a first-class national health service.

We all know that Scotland still faces significant challenges in health improvement. Our life expectancy is poor in comparison with other developed nations and we have an ageing population. We have seen, and continue to see, growth in long-term conditions, and we face growing health inequalities.

Some progress is being made. Deaths from heart disease have fallen by 30 per cent since 1999 and there has been a steady increase in life expectancy. However, in spite of those whole-population improvements, the health gap between the richest and poorest people in our society has widened. That is not acceptable in any country, but it is particularly unacceptable in a country as rich as Scotland.

There is no doubt that smoking and alcohol continue to be key contributory factors to poor health. That is disproportionately so in our most deprived communities, which is why we have already announced that we will legislate to raise, from October this year, the age of purchasing tobacco from 16 to 18. We will also publish by spring next year a far-reaching smoking prevention action plan that will build on the success of the ban on smoking in public places and continue to reduce overall levels of smoking, which is the single most damaging activity to health in Scotland.

We will honour our manifesto commitment to clamp down hard on those who sell alcohol to underage children, but we also want to encourage a much wider dialogue about Scotland's relationship with alcohol—a dialogue that extends across all age and socioeconomic groups. We will look to develop a long-term strategy to deal with alcohol misuse in Scotland by building on the political and public consensus that I believe is growing on the issue.

It stands to reason that, if we are to close the health divide, we must drive improvements further and faster in our most disadvantaged communities and we must do more than just offer equal access to health care. We must be proactive in getting health care and advice to those who need it most, so to that end I am determined to build on the anticipatory care work that was started under the previous Administration.

We also recognise that the biggest challenge of all is to break the intergenerational cycle of ill health. We must do more to prevent the same problems occurring in future generations as have blighted past and current generations, which is why as a Government we will focus more on children's earliest years by ensuring that they get a healthy start in life and helping to prevent problems developing later at home or in school.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Will the minister respond to the opinion that was voiced recently at a conference organised by Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People to the effect that the training and appointment of at least 1,000 health visitors would do more for the most disadvantaged children in our society than almost anything else the Government could do?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I agree with that sentiment. The member will recall that in our manifesto we made much of the importance of health checks in schools. We plan to pilot such checks in our most disadvantaged areas, in particular. Such action is characteristic of the approach that we will take to improving health.

Robin Harper's intervention leads on appropriately to my next point. Clearly, the environment in which people live and the prosperity that they enjoy have significant impacts on their health and well-being. That is why it is so important that responsibility for housing, regeneration and tackling poverty lie within my portfolio. The work that Stewart Maxwell is leading to tackle problems of housing supply and quality is just as important for our country's health and well-being as it is for our economy.

The Government does not presume that it has all the answers to tackling inequality—that challenge will require collaboration and willingness to learn from what works elsewhere. That is why I have asked the Minister for Public Health to convene a short-life task force to refresh our thinking on the best approaches. I intend to invite health ministers from the United Kingdom and Europe to a Scottish summit on health inequalities early in the new year, so that we can share best practice and learn from one another.

The second key component of my strategic objective is the delivery of first-class NHS health services. I acknowledge that we have inherited an NHS that is in good health and that it is, through the good work of its staff, delivering quality services. However, much remains to be done. As an ambitious Government, we want to continue to drive through improvements to deliver even better NHS services in the future. We are determined to make swift progress.

I have already announced the continuation of accident and emergency services at Ayr and Monklands hospitals; a review of free personal care, to be headed by Lord Sutherland; the abolition of hidden waiting lists by the end of this year at the latest, and earlier if possible; the opening of discussions with general practitioners about more flexible access to primary care services; implementation in full of the NHS pay award from July this year; the extension of contracts for junior doctors who have yet to secure a training post; and a commitment to shape a recruitment system for the future that better serves Scotland's interests. We have also made clear our firm intention to phase out prescription charges, starting in April next year, and to introduce the HPV vaccine against cervical cancer. Of course, we are committed to using taxpayers' money to build up the national health service, not to expand the private sector.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I share the minister's sentiments about many of the honourable things that the Government has done so far. However, will she tell me the size of the private sector in health in Scotland? How many beds and operating theatres does it have, as compared with the number of beds and operating theatres in the NHS?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The private sector is minuscule compared with the NHS, but it was the policy of the Administration of which the member was part to build capacity in the private sector so that it could compete with the NHS. This Government will not continue that policy, because we believe in investment in the national health service to meet the needs of the Scottish public.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

rose—

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I will not take another intervention at the moment.

I have set out that proposals for service change will in the future be subjected to robust scrutiny by an independent panel and that, when taking final decisions, I will operate a policy presumption against centralisation. All in all, that is not bad for our first six weeks in office.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the minister give way?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I would like to make some progress.

For the longer term, I intend to develop and to publish by the end of the year a refreshed action plan to implement the principles for health care policy and delivery that were outlined in the Kerr report; I refer to David, not Andy, Kerr. The new action plan will outline the Government's health care strategy and key actions for the next three years and will focus the NHS on key targets for 2008-09 and beyond. The plan will be developed—as I believe is right—through widespread public and clinical consultation, but I confirm today that it will include a new and ambitious target for NHS waiting times: a new whole journey waiting time target of 18 weeks from general practitioner referral to treatment. I hope that all members will agree that that will represent a step change in the reduction of waiting times and that all patients will notice the difference. It will drive the transformation of NHS services and will put NHS Scotland at the forefront of international best practice. The action plan will set out how we intend to meet the target by December 2011.

The new Government has hit the ground running with a series of initiatives. The Cabinet will maintain that momentum by continuing to meet weekly over the summer to make further progress. After the recess, the Government will publish a programme setting out our proposals, which will include legislative and non-legislative measures. In the health and well-being portfolio we plan to develop legislative proposals to support some of our key objectives.

The Commonwealth games bid has the whole-hearted support of Parliament and the nation. Legislation is necessary to support the bid—the consultation for that starts today. We will build on existing consultation to modernise Scotland's public health legislation, which dates from the 19th century and needs to be updated. Our manifesto also promised greater involvement of local people in the planning of health care, and an element of direct election to NHS boards. We will consult on the legislation that is necessary for us to meet that aim. Those and other measures will form the Government's ambitious programme for Scotland.

So far, I have concentrated on issues that are specific to my portfolio, but the Government wants to usher in a new way of working. I cannot achieve a healthier Scotland and first-class health services without working with other portfolios. That cross-portfolio work is necessary to tackle the scourge of drugs in our communities, to tackle the misuse of alcohol and to focus work on early-years intervention.

In addition to working across Government portfolios, we want to build consensus in Parliament and across Scotland to deliver our key objective. I will outline briefly two specific areas in which we can reach out across the chamber and make common cause for Scotland. One challenge that we face is our ageing population, which is why the Government is committed to making services for dementia a national priority. I hope that we can count on members' support on that. Likewise, I hope that we can work together to improve the position of carers in Scotland, who play a significant and often underappreciated role in health terms. We want to make rapid, significant and sustainable improvements in support for carers, including in respite care. I hope that there will be a cross-party consensus on that.

Today I have set out a serious programme for health from an ambitious Government, and I have signalled clearly our ambition and intent. I hope that I have made it clear that we want to work with all of Scotland, in and outwith Parliament, to deliver a healthier Scotland and first-class health services.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Labour set out a clear vision for our health service in Scotland—a vision based on the work of David Kerr, the team around him, and members of the public, patients and the teams of experts from the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association and other bodies who participated in the Kerr review process. The process drew on evidence from Scotland and abroad, and involved public meetings up and down the country. If the minister is in search of a vision, it already exists; I recommend it to her.

Although the Kerr report said that the NHS must change—I agree with what the minister said about many of the challenges that it faces in Scotland—it also said that that should happen not because there is a crisis in the service but because the health needs of our communities have changed over time. At the end of her speech, the minister reflected on some of those changes, such as the growth in the elderly population and in the number of people who are living longer with chronic long-term conditions. Other issues are the changing use of our accident and emergency services and the need to tackle health inequalities and to bring about health improvement.

The vision that David Kerr set out is supported by a consensus throughout Scotland, with the exception of the current ministerial team. A preventive, anticipatory model of care is required. We must get into the communities that are most in need of health care and face up to the challenge of the inverse care law—the fact that those who need our health service most are those who currently do not use it. The previous Labour-led Administration was doing exactly that, which is why prevention 2010 and the keep well programme existed and were working.

I listened to the minister's war on words, but I believe that the consensus on the future of our health service has been put at risk by the narrow, partisan interests of the Scottish National Party. I will develop that point, although I acknowledge what the minister said about the legacy that Labour has left. We have the shortest waiting times in the history of the NHS, but I share the minister's view that there is more work to be done. Labour has delivered the highest-ever investment in our NHS and the greatest-ever number of nurses, doctors, allied health professionals, consultants and health team staff to support them. It has delivered more hospitals and equipment; the smoking ban; the hungry for success initiative in our schools; the healthy working lives programme in our workplaces; the sexual health strategy and the investment that goes with it; and supervised toothbrushing in communities. All those initiatives are making a difference and require continuing support, as the figures for coronary heart disease, stroke and cancer that the minister highlighted make clear.

However, we still face many challenges in relation to, for example, smoking, alcohol, obesity, mental and sexual health and, of course, people's lifestyles. I am pleased that the SNP shares many of Labour's ambitions with regard to how we should tackle such issues, and I will work constructively with the cabinet secretary in that regard.

As the cabinet secretary pointed out, the real challenge is health inequality. That is why we developed the keep well programme, for example, which, through the investment of additional resources in the most challenged communities and by ensuring that the NHS went out into those communities or brought people to the service, has made a real difference. In the programme, which is based on prevention, individuals and their families are analysed and risk assessed and intervention to resolve their problems through primary and secondary care takes place at local level. The programme has been particularly successful in Lanarkshire where, of the thousands of patients who have either been brought to or been visited by the NHS, almost half have been referred to other NHS services. I hope that the minister will allow that anticipatory and preventive model to continue to deliver in the communities that need those services most.

If, as I believe the minister indicated, the SNP shares our analysis of health inequalities, we need to target resources not only at the health services but at the wider interests in her portfolio. As a result, I was pleased to hear her comments about housing, regeneration and the links between education and other matters, which should help to solve some of those problems.

The way in which we fund our national health service is central to our ability to tackle the problems, but I am uncertain whether the cabinet secretary is willing to take the tough decisions that will be needed to move the health service's resources to the communities that are in most need. As I said, Labour set out a clear and shared vision for the NHS, which I believe has been undermined by some recent decisions. For example, the rational and evidence-led health policy has gone, to be replaced by a policy in which votes, petitions and the SNP's short-term interest might hold sway over other arguments. In fact, I fear that the cabinet secretary might well have squandered what I believe was a unique opportunity that was presented by the coalition of interests around, and passion for, David Kerr's report to develop a progressive health service for Scotland that would be led by preventive, anticipatory measures, that would tackle ill-health and that would consciously shift the balance of care from secondary care services, such as are provided in the big acute hospitals, to the primary facilities that will make a real difference in changing the people of Scotland's life opportunities, life chances and health and wellbeing.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I reassure Andy Kerr that I am willing to take tough decisions. However, I will not knowingly take the wrong ones. I think that he is skirting around the issue of accident and emergency services at Monklands and Ayr. I ask him to reflect on the fact that my decisions were supported not only by members of my own party but by members on his, the Tory and the Liberal benches. On that issue, Andy Kerr is in the minority, not me.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

If that is the case, I am in good company, because that minority includes the area clinical forums in NHS Ayrshire and Arran and NHS Lanarkshire; the weight of evidence in the Kerr report supporting the specialisation of A and E services; and consultants such as Gavin Tait and John Browning from Lanarkshire. The cabinet secretary fails to understand that the Labour benches supported the move from three to two A and E units in the area and the need to specialise in accident and emergency as well as in other services in Scotland. There were differences on our benches over whether the two units should be located at Wishaw and Hairmyres or at Wishaw and Monklands, but we understood the absolute necessity to move from three to two. I do not know whether the minister has read the wealth of international evidence on the matter—I can certainly pass it on to her—but it shows that patient survival rates in relation to neuroscience, heart and other treatments improve in a specialised A and E environment.

I was not going to skitter—or whatever word the minister used—around the issue of A and E, because it lies at the heart of our belief that she is radically undermining the Kerr report and the delivering for health strategy. The fact is that on this matter the SNP has failed the test of leadership.

Let us consider the SNP's record so far. Despite all the talk about hidden waiting lists, the minister has not put forward one bit of evidence—even in her responses to recent questions in Parliament chamber—to prove that there has been any abuse of the availability status codes system or that anything has been hidden. Moreover, despite the headline-grabbing moves on cancer, the measures simply continue the previous Executive's work. The same is true of nurses' pay.

Furthermore, let us return to the key decision to reverse earlier decisions on A and E departments. Although we have not heard much about them this morning, the minister has, in the past, mentioned independent scrutiny panels. Why does she not use one of those panels to test her arguments about A and E services in Lanarkshire and Ayrshire? She seems to be saying that they can scrutinise her instructions to the health boards on how to implement her decisions, but not the decisions themselves. She is simply abdicating her responsibility to the people of Ayrshire and Lanarkshire to be fair and transparent.

Gavin Tait has already asked whether Ms Sturgeon will take responsibility for the future crisis that will emerge in emergency care, and for the lives that will be damaged or lost—for want of the best specialist care—in a second-rate A and E department. The clinical community has put forward compelling arguments on this issue, and the evidence supports the view that was set out by David Kerr in his national framework document. Indeed, during the very process of putting together that report, patient groups also supported his view. They understand the need to specialise in A and E, because, as with other NHS services, the most important issue is the outcome for patients.

The minister's strategy is simply a repetition of initiatives that were introduced by the previous Labour Administration and it is an undermining of the Kerr report's approach to health care. We have heard nothing about, for example, the SNP's promises to restore services at St John's hospital, Stobhill hospital and Queen Margaret's hospital or what will be done about the Vale of Leven hospital. That suggests that the health strategy's focus is based on narrow party-political interest, not on the interests of patients.

I want the minister to support our national health service, because it is a precious organisation full of committed people. However, I do not believe that what has been done up to now protects it. There have been warm words and hypocrisy, but the decisions that have been made undermine the whole approach to health care that I have outlined.

Earlier this morning, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, alleged that he was pro-business, but he has said no to any private sector involvement in the NHS—which is, at the moment, minimal. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing might say that she listens to clinicians, but she ignores them when she makes key decisions. She has also said that she supports the Kerr report, although the indications are that she does not.

Our warning to the cabinet secretary is that she should not mess up our precious NHS in pursuit of her own narrow political interests. We will support her when she is right, and hold her to account when she is wrong.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will raise three main issues in this wide-ranging debate. However, I want to start by commending the previous Government on reducing the number of blocked beds which, according to figures that were released just this week, has fallen from about 3,000 to 755. We were very critical of the practice of bedblocking, so it is only right that we commend the actions that were taken to reduce it.

However, we also note that it has taken £30 million a year over three years to provide the community and care places for people who leave hospital. I ask the new Government: is that level of funding, which was highlighted in the Howat report, needed to bring down the bedblocking figures even further or does it indicate the extent of underfunding of the personal care package?

My first point is about the independent sector. In that respect, I must acknowledge Andy Kerr's very innovative initiative at Stracathro hospital. Last week, however, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing stated that the independent sector was in conflict and competition with the NHS and that no NHS money would be put into building it up. In response to that statement, I must highlight the work of the Scottish regional treatment centre at Stracathro, which Jackson Carlaw and I visited on Monday. In this pilot project, the private sector neither conflicts nor competes with, but co-operates with and complements, the NHS. Instead of the NHS putting money into the private sector, the sector puts money into the NHS by utilising theatre capacity after 6 pm and at weekends, when the theatres would be lying empty. The facilities are leased to Netcare, which is being stringently quality audited. In this example, patients benefit through reduced waiting times and top-quality investment is maintained within the NHS at Stracathro and Netcare's facilities. There is no building up of private sector capacity—the sector itself is simply more fully utilising existing NHS resources which, as I have made clear, would otherwise be lying unused. The fact is that the private sector is helping to build up NHS access and treatment.

As a result, I ask the cabinet secretary to ensure that ideology will not stand in the way of improving patient care, greater utilisation of NHS resources or the investment of private sector money in our NHS for the benefit of NHS patients in Scotland.

Now that I have got that off my chest, I will move on to my second topic, which is mental health. I am pleased that mental health is on the agenda of the Government and of the Health and Sport Committee. When preparing for the debate, I was shocked to read that, over the past 40 years, there has been no reduction in the number of people suffering and dying from mental illnesses such as depression and schizophrenia. That contrasts starkly with the huge reduction in the number of deaths from diseases such as stroke, heart disease and cancer over the same period, which has been achieved through prevention and treatment. Late diagnosis and late intervention are still issues.

The Scottish Conservatives are committed to the inclusion of the voluntary sector—and, when appropriate, the independent sector—in the delivery of health care. In that context, I commend the excellent work of Depression Alliance Scotland, which uses self-help groups to enable people to learn useful skills for overcoming stress and anxiety, to build confidence and, importantly, to learn new ways to tackle difficult situations. Groups also cover problem solving, relaxation and how to overcome reduced activity and to change unhelpful thinking. Given that the estimated social and economic cost to Scotland of mental health problems is £8.6 million, surely there needs to be even more focus on ensuring that there is more funding for, and greater recognition of and access to, groups such as Depression Alliance.

My third topic is alcohol. I appreciate that it is on the Government's agenda and that its importance was acknowledged by Andy Kerr. The recent figures on alcohol-related liver disease are quite shocking. A death due to alcohol takes place in Scotland every four hours and the rate of alcohol-related death in Scotland is double that of the United Kingdom as a whole. There are 100,000 children in Scotland who live with a parent who has a drinking problem—we cannot lose sight of that. Furthermore, drinking by 13-year-olds has doubled in the last decade. The cost to Scotland, from the point of view not only of health and social care, but of the economy and families, is almost immeasurable.

I look forward to an extensive debate on the issues that I have raised and many others. I appreciate that we differ from the Government on the independent sector, but I hope that the cabinet secretary will visit Stracathro and keep an open mind about what is happening there. We are supportive of measures such as early intervention and the provision of high-quality support and treatment, and we look forward to working with the Government on the alcohol strategy.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Liberal Democrats are always keen to participate in discussion and debate on health and well-being and we are particularly keen to do so in the 65 th year following the publication of the excellent report by Beveridge, who was a well-known Liberal in his time.

I welcome some of the principles that the cabinet secretary set out, which I will come on to. We know what the general aim is—we simply want to improve the population's health; that is the fundamental purpose of the NHS. I hope that the best outcome for the patient will be the test that the Government will apply; that is why, like Mary Scanlon and Andy Kerr, I am disappointed by the possibility of that test being set aside in favour of a dogmatic view against private providers, even when they represent the most appropriate solution for individual citizens.

We will support measures that seek to transform our health service so that it becomes not simply a service for people who have become sick, but a service that puts increasing effort into preventing people from becoming ill in the first place. To that extent, we agree with the general principle that our policies for housing and the environment in which we live must be designed to produce better health outcomes, as must our sporting and leisure activities.

As Liberal Democrats, we share the view that a key priority is the need to reduce health inequalities. The cabinet secretary mentioned the role that tackling smoking and alcohol plays in that. We must adopt the principles of preventive and anticipatory medicine, with targeting to ensure that people in deprived areas have better opportunities to be seen and have their problems dealt with at an early stage. We must not ignore the inequalities that result from the significant difficulties that arise in the provision of health services in our remote and rural communities—we must ensure that that is part of our programme to address inequalities.

The Kerr report pointed the NHS in the direction of sustaining safe local services, but it acknowledged that we must be prepared to take bold steps and difficult decisions in redesigning services to meet local needs. It asked us to view the NHS as a service that is delivered predominantly in communities rather than in hospitals.

The cabinet secretary has made a presumption against centralisation, but I say to her directly that, contrary to popular belief, the previous Executive was also opposed to centralisation. She will understand that it is not easy to give substance to that approach. Only this week, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde announced that it was centralising the anaesthetic services and the unscheduled medical care and rehabilitation services that are currently provided at the Vale of Leven hospital and moving them to the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley. It is depressing that health boards continue to act in that way, even after the cabinet secretary issued her dictum and when previous health ministers had made it clear that that was not the direction of travel.

Even more incredible was the announcement by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde of its proposal to close the recently established community maternity units at Inverclyde royal hospital in Greenock and the Vale of Leven hospital and to transfer them to Paisley. The proposal, which is not supported by clinicians or by local communities, simply beggars belief. That shows how difficult it is to translate into reality the wish to deliver services locally, when the people who run our health service seem to take a contrary view.

If we are to progress the more local agenda, we must expand the capability of our community hospitals and invest more in our local health centres. We must improve the availability and speed of diagnostic services and give other health providers, such as local pharmacists, powers to prescribe and to treat patients. There is also a need to increase the capacity of dental services and our ability to attract and recruit more people. I welcome this morning's announcement on the action plan to deal with waiting lists and the adoption of a whole-life waiting time schedule, which was close to the proposal in my party's election manifesto.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

You have one minute left.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I do not have time to deal with the key issues that other members addressed. It is clear that mental health must become a national clinical priority. Alcohol and drug abuse remains a serious problem in all our communities. In preventive care, children's health must be the focus. Children's obesity rates are of genuine concern to us all.

The underpinning issue is what we do about the people who work in our health service and in health care generally. I welcomed yesterday's announcement by the cabinet secretary, which sought to address the problem that some of our junior doctors face. I hope that the extension of their contracts will assist them with their specific career pattern and will mean that there will not be many drop-outs among the very able people in Scotland who wish to devote their time to helping. Nurses and allied health professionals are among those who perform that key role.

The Liberal Democrats endorse many of the general principles that the cabinet secretary set out this morning, but that should not be taken as a blank cheque. We will measure progress towards the improved outcomes. If they are achieved, we will be prepared to work with the Government on delivery, but if they are not—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

You must wind up, minister.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am grateful for that elevation at this early stage.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

You still have to wind up.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Indeed, but I do so in a much better state, if I may say so.

If the improved outcomes are not achieved, we will undoubtedly hold the Government to account.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We move to open debate.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

Given my rapidly expanding waistline, I might not appear to be much of a maiden, but appearances can be deceptive. I am reliably informed that, for the purposes of today's debate, I am indeed a maiden.

It is an enormous privilege and honour for me to represent Livingston, which is the constituency in which I grew up. To the best of my abilities, I will endeavour to give back in kind what I have received from the community that has shaped me.

It is highly significant for me, at political, professional and personal level, to contribute to a debate on the health and well-being of our nation. None of us will go through life untouched by the NHS. Advancements in medical science and clinicians' expertise have given me and my loved ones much to be thankful for.

I welcome the cabinet secretary's speech and her explicit remarks about her dedication to tackling health inequalities in Scotland. I was surprised that a recent Federation of Small Businesses Scotland study ranked West Lothian in a poor position relative to other areas. West Lothian is a thriving and growing community, but the study gave significant weighting to the health problems that are endemic in parts of the community that I represent.

If we are serious about tackling health inequalities, we must continue to advocate that today's NHS is for everyone, irrespective of whether a person is a smoker, an alcoholic, a drug user, a teenage mother or someone who has mental health problems and, consequently, challenging behaviour. Even offenders require treatment. I am a former mental health officer, so I am painfully aware that mental health care is the Cinderella service—I am talking about mainstream mental health services, let alone the forensic settings in which I worked. There is little focus on targets or on reducing waiting times for people who use mental health services.

If we are to address health inequalities, we must start by addressing the democratic deficit in health. For that reason, I would welcome the introduction of a local health care bill in the Parliament.

I will never talk down the NHS—as I said, I have much to be grateful for—but it has been all too easy for health boards, fuelled by the centralisation agenda and their dependency on private finance initiatives, to take action without taking adequate account of the views of the community. Such an approach has been to the detriment of St John's hospital in Livingston, which is at the heart of the community that I represent. The hospital has lost vital services, which has threatened its viability as an acute hospital.

Equity of access is at the heart of efforts to tackle health inequalities. It is not acceptable for a few managers and clinicians who have vested interests to dictate where and how the rest of us receive health services. I endorse the Government's presumption in favour of local services. The Government has drawn a line in the sand. I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to meeting me and local campaigners and stakeholders to discuss what we can do to secure and enhance the future of St John's hospital as an acute hospital.

The cabinet secretary is aware that I have corresponded with her on car parking charges at St John's hospital. I call for a moratorium on the proposed increases in charges at St John's, pending a full review. I am alarmed and concerned that NHS Lothian is in breach of Government guidance, given its recent admission that the proposed increases of up to 100 per cent are designed in part to offset the costs of transport, which is required only because vital services have been removed. It is ironic that there is free parking at the McArthurGlen shopping centre, council buildings and the Livingston Football Club, but not at the local hospital. The car parking charges are nothing short of a tax on the sick and those who visit them or spend their lives treating them. I look forward to the cabinet secretary's response.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The health agenda was a significant policy area in the previous parliamentary sessions—and rightly so. The huge task of redesigning the health service to give patients the best specialist care when they need it, the redirection of resources to the primary care services at the front line, and the pursuit of targets on the reduction of waiting times and the incidence of heart disease and cancer, were important priorities. Tough decisions had to be made, but they were supported by the clinical community, which argued the case for those decisions, even though it had not always been on the front line with us.

Targets on waiting times are a necessary mechanism, for two reasons. Clinicians, who do not generally support targets, are driven towards treating patients sooner and are not prevented from selecting on a needs basis. Targets also empower people, who know the outer limit of the period in which they should be treated. I do not think that anyone can deny the pace that the previous Administration set.

Our policy was not to grow the private sector—I correct the cabinet secretary on that point—but to expand public sector capacity. That is why we bought the Health Care International hospital, which is now a public facility. However, the overall focus should be on patients and their health. We should use all available capacity to do the best for patients.

Significant progress has been made in the Scottish health service. The Beatson oncology centre in Glasgow, which the cabinet secretary visited recently, was once described by a consultant as a "slum", but it is now, I hope, the leading cancer centre in Europe. The new Stobhill hospital and Victoria hospital are being built as we speak, as are a new secure unit and a 21st century mental health hospital on the Gartnavel royal hospital site. Glasgow, in particular, is making steady progress in its modernisation programme.

The cabinet secretary knows that a decision was made to reduce the number of accident and emergency units in Glasgow from five to two. I and many members, including Jackie Baillie, argued that there was a clear case for a third A and E at the Western infirmary or Gartnavel. I am sure that Jackie Baillie agrees that it is not too late to consider that option, which could provide a solution, particularly for her constituents who are currently faced with having to travel south of the Clyde, but who might be able to choose to go north. I suspect that the cabinet secretary is not prepared to consider the matter, but I ask her to consider whether it is viable to have only two A and E units in Glasgow, given that three such units will remain open in Lanarkshire.

I disagreed profoundly with the recommendations by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde that the Queen Mother's hospital, in my constituency, be closed—as did the cabinet secretary. I welcome the new hospital that is being built in the cabinet secretary's constituency, but I seek assurances from the cabinet secretary that the Queen Mum's will remain open until a new service is available and that she will ensure that the health board provides proper antenatal facilities for mums-to-be in the west end and not at Gartnavel, as is planned. That is important, if women are to lose the unique facility that they have at the Queen Mum's. Will the cabinet secretary fight, as I have fought, to ensure that that unique child and maternity service will be replicated at the new children's hospital?

I urge the cabinet secretary to consider making children's health a national priority, not least because I have an interest in child health, as I am sure that she does, in the light of the building of the new children's hospital. The case has been made for early intervention and we need to focus on children's needs.

My colleague Paul Martin has talked many times about child dental health, and we have made significant progress through the child smile campaign. There has been a 54 per cent increase in the number of primary 1 children showing no signs of tooth decay, and 100,000 children across Scotland have taken part in the daily toothbrushing scheme. There are lessons to be learned there: although more dentists are needed, it is children's toothbrushing that seems to make the difference. I hope that the cabinet secretary will consider that point carefully.

The starting well project focuses on deprived families and the wee bit of support that they need to get through the early stages when young children are born into the family. I hope that the cabinet secretary will continue to support such projects. I tend to agree with Scotland's commissioner for children and young people when she says that it is worth considering what health visitors can do to help families.

I know that it is not within the cabinet secretary's brief to enact any changes on free school meals. However, if we are to improve the health of children, the threshold for eligibility should be increased now. There has been a commitment to consider the issue as part of the comprehensive spending review, but I ask the cabinet secretary to lobby her colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, to lift the threshold so that all the poorest families can benefit from free school meals.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

What a fantastic opportunity the cabinet secretary and her team have. Although that is true for every department, it is truer still for health: the SNP Administration has no record to defend, no legacy and no baggage. It has an opportunity but also a testing challenge, for at the end of this session of Parliament the public will judge the Government on the results achieved and the decisions reached. The SNP members' period in charge of Scotland's NHS will then constitute a permanent record for which they will be held to account. They can bet on that.

The Government's early actions are encouraging, and we share its concern about the progressive centralisation of services that galloped ahead with rampant abandon under the previous Administration. For me, it was one of the most peculiar paradoxes in political life that a party that marched in the streets against phantom hospital closures when I was a teenager should, when it was in Government, lead the charge to downgrade so much hospital provision.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The member talks about downgrading, and he has talked about accident and emergency units, but it is interesting that he does not mention the seven community casualty units in Ayrshire and Arran and the five in Lanarkshire, which are local.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The member interrupted me when I was only about three sentences into my second paragraph, so he did not give me time to mention those things. I do not deny the Kerr report, or the investment that has been made, but accepting that key major trauma services and other services should be centralised is not the same thing as accepting the need for a headlong rush to centralise, even where Scotland's geography and an unconvinced public demand an alternative solution.

We support the Government's approach to Ayr and Monklands and we continue to support the people elsewhere who are working hard to ensure that the very real concerns for public safety in their communities are not sidelined. As regards the Victoria hospital and Stobhill hospital in Glasgow, the public remain largely unconvinced, despite all the platitudes that they have been offered. The same is true in Edinburgh as regards St John's hospital, and it is especially true as regards the Vale of Leven hospital, as Ross Finnie has said.

Time does not permit me to discuss this at length today, but although I appreciate the minister's difficulty—unpicking a strategy that she and her team did not support in the first place is a huge if not impossible task—I ask even now that she listen positively and urgently to those who argue for additional services to be provided at key locations, within the current strategy, to meet the concerns of those who believe that what is in prospect is not only foolhardy but dangerous. She will have our support if she does that.

The Labour Party members sitting opposite regularly say that they will take no lessons from the Tories, but I ask them to set aside their prejudice and take just one—and I say this particularly in response to the admittedly impassioned remarks from Andy Kerr. Parties lose elections for a reason. Although many other factors were at play, too, I have never known so many traditional Labour voters alienated by their own as I have over the issue of health and changes to the hospital network. There is an acronym in business—SARAH—which stands for shock, anger, rationalisation, acceptance and finally hope. Since May, I have watched Labour members wrestle through their shock and anger, but I see little sign yet of any true rationalisation, let alone acceptance or hope. Rather than rationalisation, I see denial. Let me spell this out for them. Are we to believe that, in four years' time, they will say to the electorate, "You know those hospital downgrades that the SNP and the Conservatives reversed? Vote for us, because we are going to implement them after all." If that is inconceivable, at some point a Labour Party health spokesman will have to stand up in the chamber and say, "We were wrong." When that admission is finally made, it will be a measure of Labour members' determination to govern again.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

If NHS Lanarkshire fails to keep a full, traditional accident and emergency service at Monklands—as currently exists—will the member say that the minister's decision to reverse the cuts was a failure?

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

My point is that Labour members say that people did not understand and did not grasp the concept, but they did. Labour members say that people will soon be grateful for all that they had been doing, and they say that the election result was just an aberration. They say that people were not left wing enough and that it is only a matter of time before Labour gets back in. That will not happen. On this issue the Labour Party was wrong, and its members will finally have to admit that.

We will look with interest at proposals for free prescriptions and with sympathy at proposals for people who are afflicted by chronic conditions. We accept that health boards have acted in some cases with a seeming lack of regard for public opinion—with arrogance, even. We also await with interest proposals for elected health boards. There are other recent announcements that we welcome and support. Marks should be awarded for a good start.

We look forward to hearing proposals on alcohol, smoking, and the general diet and fitness of the nation, and we look forward both to the updating of public health legislation and to action on dental health.

I agree with Mary Scanlon: when the Government acts in the interests of patients first, we will offer our support. However, we note with concern that the Government states its ambition for a right to a minimum waiting time while at the same time it rehearses its dogma against any greater role for the independent sector, which might help to bring about that minimum waiting time. Let us accept that between the public and the private sector another sector exists—the independent sector. The pilot at Stracathro, where an independent provider is working exclusively for the NHS and is using NHS operating facilities in the evenings and at weekends, is reducing waiting times. That is a potentially magnificent model and, in the end-of-term spirit of consensus, let me pay tribute to Andy Kerr, who backed the initiative. In a few months, we will have an even better idea of the fruits of the pilot. I urge the Administration to hold its breath before denying that a roll-out of the initiative should be part of a comprehensive solution in the fulfilment of a stringent objective to be set out in the Administration's forthcoming legislation. Why should the Government deny itself a successful working model for progress?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I congratulate the business managers on scheduling this debate on health and well-being for the morning after the Scottish Parliamentary Journalists Association dinner. It offers an opportunity for many of us to reflect—soberly—on the health risks of excessive alcohol consumption and the health benefits of a good night's sleep. I welcome this debate and I am pleased to be able to participate.

I want to use my time to reflect on an issue that is of serious concern to my constituents. The issue was touched on by Ross Finnie, and I am sure that similar concerns are shared in other particularly rural communities.

The Arbuthnott formula that is used for calculating health service funding is in need of urgent reform. The indicators that are used under the formula for calculating deprivation are flawed, with the result that places such as Orkney are at a disadvantage when it comes to trying to deliver high-quality health care. I fully accept that no formula is ever likely to be considered perfect, and that overrefining criteria can come at the cost of increased complexity and reduced transparency. However, there is a need—and there is scope—to make the formula less simplistic in a number of respects, which can serve only to better match health funding to health need.

To give an example, the employment statistics that are used in the current formula are too narrow and too crude; they take into account only the number of people unemployed and do not reflect the nature of employment. In Orkney, but also across the Highlands and Islands and in much of the south of Scotland, low wages rather than unemployment are a real problem. A formula that took account of the type and quality of employment, and not just the number employed, would more accurately reflect deprivation and need.

Similarly, the present Arbuthnott formula is too simplistic in relation to housing. The rate of home ownership in Orkney is relatively high, but so too is the proportion of people who live in substandard accommodation. Fuel poverty is also a major issue; I fully accept that that is a nationwide phenomenon, but Orkney's climate—notwithstanding changing weather patterns brought about by global warming—adds an extra dimension to the problem.

Car ownership is another measure used by Arbuthnott that paints a somewhat misleading picture. The extent of car ownership in Orkney is high, but that is a reflection less of wealth than of travel distances and the lack, more often than not, of public transport alternatives. Cars are an everyday necessity; they are a lifeline not a luxury—and, with the cost of fuel significantly higher in the islands than elsewhere in Scotland, a not inexpensive lifeline at that.

The age of the car pool in Orkney illustrates shortcomings in the current Arbuthnott indicators. Almost a third of the cars in Orkney were registered before 1995, compared with 14 per cent in Scotland as a whole. I accept that car ownership should be a measure, but the age and value of the cars should be taken into account.

Arbuthnott consistently underestimates the impact of remoteness on the cost of providing health care. The formula is based largely on calculations of distance travelled over land, and so does not account properly for the time and cost of sea travel, which can and does add significantly to the cost of delivering public services, including health care.

The cabinet secretary and others have acknowledged the additional demands of delivering health care services to an increasingly ageing population. That is felt particularly acutely in my constituency. There is a need for improved statistics that better reflect changes in the population and age structure. Current statistics do not identify changes quickly enough, are based on postcode areas that are too large to pick up significant local differences in places such as Orkney, and are not sensitive enough.

A review of the Arbuthnott formula has been taking place. Other members will doubtless have issues that they feel should be better reflected in any revised formula. However, I hope that the cabinet secretary will accept the compelling case for adjusting the current formula better to meet the needs of those who live in rural and particularly island areas.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I begin in a different vein from other members by congratulating the people of Scotland on electing an SNP Government. I also want to thank the Parliament—this new, SNP Parliament—for raising the game, not just for the Parliament, but for the hopes and aspirations of the Scottish people. A healthy mind needs a healthy body, and people are enthused by the actions of the SNP Government, which will go a long way towards promoting health and well-being. I am sure that other members speak to people in pubs, clubs and restaurants. The people I speak to are full of new hope, ambition and confidence in the future. [ Interruption. ] Opposition members may shout, but if they spoke to people in the street, they would know that confidence—not just in the people, but in Scotland—is booming.

The previous Administration never gave the Scottish people that confidence. For too many years, the Scottish people were told that they were not good enough; that they had to limit their hopes and ambitions. The SNP Government has raised the bar, not just in Scotland, but throughout the world. It is seen as a world leader for its commitment to and aspirations for the Scottish people. With that new-found belief come responsibilities. I know that the Government realises that, and I welcome the commitment to ensure that the national health service is run for the people and not for profit. The public desperately want that and that is why Labour paid the price.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I hear what the member says about a public service. Will she comment on the cabinet secretary's views on how we fund housing, which is increasingly by using private capital? Does she welcome that, since health funding seems to exclude that approach?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

We need take no lessons from Johann Lamont after the fiasco of Glasgow Housing Association. She was told in 2004 that there was not enough money for second-stage transfer, but led the people in Glasgow astray until December last year by saying that second-stage transfer would go ahead.

The NHS pay award was mentioned. The Health Board Elections (Scotland) Bill was proposed by a Labour member. Such elections would go a long way towards fulfilling the commitment to transparency and honesty. As a Glasgow member, I welcome the proposal for a Commonwealth games bill—that will improve the confidence of the people of Glasgow. I echo Pauline McNeill's comments. I have met and written to the cabinet secretary about the fact that there are only two accident and emergency departments in Glasgow. I urge the cabinet secretary to consider that and perhaps to meet interested and concerned people from across the parties.

The FSB report to which Angela Constance referred paints a worrying picture of Glasgow, showing that it has the poorest ratings of all local authorities for education, health, employment and inequality. That is after 10 years of Labour rule at Westminster and eight years of Labour and Liberal here at Holyrood. Glasgow has been portrayed as the sick man of Europe—a sorry portrayal that it is time to rectify. I welcome the announcement of a task force and a summit, and I hope that Glasgow will be looked at in particular. It is imperative that we close the gap between the rich and the poor, and I urge all Glasgow members to sign my motion on an action plan to consider why, despite the money that has been spent over the years on various issues in Glasgow, the health and well-being of the people have not improved. Many initiatives have been promoted—throughout Scotland—but the gap between the rich and the poor is getting bigger. In some areas, initiatives are not working, and we need to find out why. That is why I am taking on board the need for an action plan. I do not want any extra money from the Cabinet or elsewhere; I just want all-party support to consider exactly what is happening in Glasgow.

In the short time in which the SNP has been in Government, we have gone a long way towards improving the health and well-being of the country, with free school meals for children in deprived areas, the extension of free nursery care, the abolition of the graduate endowment fee and other positive measures that have been mentioned. The SNP Government has given the Scottish people renewed hope and confidence. That will go a long way towards improving their health and well-being.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

If Duncan McNeil sticks to time, I will be able to give Jackie Baillie two or three minutes.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I will try to stick to time. This morning's debate reflects how difficult it is to focus on the issues faced by the health service and on the health of the people of Scotland. The debate—and the election—has been dominated by public-private finance versus trusts; local access; A and E; and so on. This week's news on the closure of midwife-led maternity units in Inverclyde and the Vale of Leven tempted me to go into that issue this morning.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I am sorry, but my time is limited.

Suffice to say, the Inverclyde community and I will hold the cabinet secretary to her word, and to her presumption that there will be no centralisation of services and that an appropriate weight will be given to patient and public opinion. I am sure that she and her colleagues will take into account the impact of the closure of the midwife-led unit on the maternity strategy, not just in Inverclyde but in Scotland.

However, I want to return to deprivation—and it is worth considering why it is that in communities where there is high deprivation, there is lower use of midwife-led maternity units. All the issues that I mentioned conspire against us and divert us from the focus that I believe the Parliament and the new Government should have on health inequalities. The big issue explored by Professor David Kerr was poor life expectancy and the long-standing illness that affects Scotland's most disadvantaged people. That has been described this morning as Scotland's shame. Hand wringing goes on about the reports that are regularly published, but it is difficult to act.

As the cabinet secretary and others mentioned, there have been some improvements in life expectancy—good news, we might think—but yet again those figures show that the more affluent have benefited. The gap is widening, not narrowing. I am sure that there is broad agreement on the reasons for that—members have touched on how life circumstances relate to health, unemployment, poor housing and poor education. We have also spoken about bad lifestyle choices, such as alcohol, drugs, poor exercise and diet, but I will focus on access to primary health care services and the difference that such services can make. It used to be considered that health care services did not have a significant impact on people's health. With medical advances, it is recognised that access to effective health care can have a significant impact. Evidence to the Health Committee in April 2006 recognised that 30 to 50 per cent of the gap in life expectancy results from reduced access to health care. If we improve access, we can improve people's life chances.

There is a high uptake of health services by people living in deprived areas. The question, however, is whether it is high enough to meet the needs of those communities. Indeed, is the care that is being made available to them appropriate to their needs? The same number of GPs serve the poorest 20 per cent as serve the top 20 per cent. GPs in deprived areas are running to stand still. They deal with more people with more problems. As a consequence, poor people spend less time with their GP, are less likely to be referred to a consultant or to receive in-patient care, are more likely to receive emergency care, are less likely to get appropriate medicine and manage their health properly and are less likely to have their children immunised.

The question is how we respond to that challenge. Behavioural change campaigns can actually widen health inequalities, because more affluent people are more likely to take up the advice. The gap is not narrowing and the situation will get worse unless we do something about it. Improving individual circumstances and providing better education, jobs and housing can make a change, but that takes time. We must surely recognise that the quickest way to make an impact on health inequalities is to target services in the most disadvantaged areas. We should be prepared to take a radical step to enhance access to health services for the disadvantaged.

I do not think that that is an easy ask for the Parliament. Rather than forming another task force or group, I recommend the report of the Kerr sub-group on health inequalities as essential reading. The case for change is there. The case is outlined for moving resources to meet the need that is there, concentrated not just in the west of Scotland but on some streets and in some neighbourhoods in all our communities. The test for the new Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and the new Government is whether they have the political will and the courage to do that. Indeed, the Parliament, not just the cabinet secretary, needs to meet that test.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am truly grateful for being given time to speak in the debate. It will not surprise the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing or other members to hear that I will talk about the Vale of Leven hospital. I make no apology for reiterating my concerns and those of my community. I will continue to do so until such time as the future of the hospital is secure.

I will start with the actions of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Frankly, its arrogance has been breathtaking. It announced its plans—and they include the wholesale transfer of services away from the Vale of Leven hospital—a mere two days after the appointment of the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and on the very day that the First Minister announced his intention to keep health services local.

To add insult to injury, despite clear public opinion telling the health board that it had got things wrong and despite the proposals from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing for independent scrutiny, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde confirmed just yesterday its decision to withdraw a range of services from the Vale. Anyone with any sense would have taken their time to reflect on the matter, to look again at the proposals for the Vale of Leven hospital and to consider all possible options. But no, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde ploughs on regardless.

Not only are we to witness the wholesale removal of services, of the medical assessment unit, of integrated care—meaning no emergency care at the hospital, day or night—of coronary care and of the community midwife delivery unit, but to add insult to injury the health board wants us to travel to the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley. I do not intend to give members a geography lesson about the River Clyde, but I suggest that they refer to a map. It is extraordinarily difficult to get to the RAH in Paisley from my constituency. There is little direct public transport there. People need to travel for two and a half hours, by a combination of train and bus into Glasgow, bypassing five other hospitals en route.

I remind members of the words of the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, when she spoke about A and E at Monklands and Ayr hospitals:

"It is my view and the Government's view that, given the circumstances that are involved in these cases—the geography and demographics, the high levels of deprivation and ill health, and the concerns about access and public transport—A and E services at Ayr and Monklands should be maintained."—[Official Report, 6 June 2007; c 391.]

It will come as no surprise to the cabinet secretary to hear that all that applies to the Vale of Leven hospital. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde ignores the cabinet secretary's approach, however.

Time is short, so I will quickly raise three specific issues. The first is anaesthetics, which is key to sustaining services at the Vale of Leven hospital. Just what models did the health board consider in that regard? There is little evidence to suggest that it examined closely the integrated care model that was operating at the Vale of Leven. I know for a fact that the board did not analyse the statistics for the 7,000-odd patients who have used the medical assessment unit. I am told that there is one episode a week that requires the intervention of an anaesthetist. Potentially, that means 52 visits in 365 days. One wonders if there is perhaps a shortage of anaesthetists. There are no such things as vacancies. There are 169 anaesthetists, according to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde itself.

Secondly, I will mention risk. We are told that clinical safety is paramount, and I do not disagree with that. What about the risks for somebody who has to spend more than an hour in the back of an ambulance to reach hospital?

Thirdly, and simply, we do not want to have to go to Paisley. Instead, we want a north-of-the-river solution. I associate myself with the comments that Pauline McNeill made about A and E services in north-west Glasgow.

I close by saying to Jackson Carlaw that the history of the Vale of Leven hospital is very different. Decisions to remove services were made in the past by clinicians, not ministers. The decision on the Vale of Leven hospital will, in my view, be the first real test of SNP health policy. I welcome Nicola Sturgeon's presumption against centralisation. She knows that I will do all that I can to help. For people in my community, however, she must pass that test.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

This has been an interesting debate. Inevitably, at this stage, it has covered general principles and has been a take-note debate. It is difficult to find enough time to cover the wide canvas that is embraced by any health and well-being agenda.

I will pick up some of the interesting points that members have made, starting with one that has just been referred to by Jackie Baillie, although it was first made by Pauline McNeill. It is about what is treated by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde not as the settled will of the people of greater Glasgow, but as the settled will of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

One of the great disappointments that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will have to address stems from the fact that many of us supported the decision of the then Minister for Health and Community Care to abolish NHS Argyll and Clyde, not just because it had incompetently run up an enormous deficit, but because it had shown itself to be both unwilling and unable to address the problems of delivering care locally in its area. It was a huge disappointment to many of us that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde started with the presumption that the former Argyll and Clyde bit could just be tacked on, leaving any existing health delivery programme for that area completely unaltered. Pauline McNeill covered that point well.

We will not get health care delivered locally and we will not be able to address problems in the west of Scotland north and south of the River Clyde unless greater flexibility is shown by the people who now run NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will be able to take up some of the suggestions that have been made in that respect.

I welcome Liam McArthur's contribution to the debate. He filled in some of the detail of what will be required if we are to treat health inequalities, particularly in remote and rural communities. The previous Administration did much work on the Carstairs index, which is a curious index of deprivation. It almost suggests that, if people have ownership of or any access to a car, they cannot be deprived in a rural or remote area. That is a perverse way to compile statistics, and it militates against serious attempts to address problems in such areas. We have addressed the use of the Carstairs index in some areas, but clearly not in the formula that is used for health care. I hope that the cabinet secretary will take on board the comments that my colleague Liam McArthur made in that regard.

In these early days, we are happy to support wider and broader delivery of local health care, greater attention to preventive care and a general addressing of waiting times. However, a debate such as this allows the Executive and the Opposition to articulate only general principles about where we want to be and, although we are prepared to give general support to much of what the Executive has talked about, we need to see the detail that will support the proposals. As the cabinet secretary indicated in the Health and Sport Committee the other day, she is prepared to give priority to a range of services and issues. We look forward to hearing more about how those aspects will be delivered.

We accept the broad thrust of the idea that, if our health and well-being is to improve, and we are to build on what was achieved by the previous Administration, a more holistic approach will be needed. As I said, adding to the health portfolio issues that seek better outcomes from the environment agenda, the housing agenda and exercise, sport and leisure activities, must be specified in terms of delivery. The Liberal Democrats view the addition of those elements as enhancing a health service that, as the cabinet secretary has acknowledged, is in reasonably good health.

Our health service is demand led. It constantly has to meet the increased expectations of our citizens and incorporate improved technology that allows us to deliver better outcomes for our citizens. We have to make that step change.

We are happy to accept the good will that the cabinet secretary has set out in the general principles of this debate. However, I repeat that it will be necessary for us to have more focused debates on aspects of care delivery. We will be interested to hear in greater detail what is required to improve the health and well-being of the citizens of Scotland.

We particularly welcome the strategy on waiting times that was announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing this morning. That is in accord with what the Liberal Democrats were saying during the election campaign.

We welcome much of what the cabinet secretary has said and hope that those principles can be transformed into an agenda that we can scrutinise in the chamber and in the Health and Sport Committee. We look forward to working with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and her team to try to deliver for the people of Scotland.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I want to touch on a number of subjects and I hope that the minister will listen as I do so.

The British Lung Foundation, the British Lung Foundation Scotland and a number of constituents have raised with me issues relating to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which encompasses chronic bronchitis and emphysema. The minister will be aware that COPD is estimated to affect 18 per cent of males and 14 per cent of females aged between 40 and 68. Nearly 130,000 people in Scotland live with COPD, but three quarters of them remain undiagnosed. COPD is particularly prevalent in the more deprived neighbourhoods of Scotland and it is more prevalent in Scotland than it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

COPD costs the national health service £138 million a year and the cost of working days lost as a consequence of COPD is estimated to be between £300 million and over £400 million. Scotland is the only country in the UK that has not developed specific policies to improve care for patients with respiratory disease. Northern Ireland has a 10-year plan, Wales has something similar and the Government announced in June 2006 that a new national service framework specifically for COPD would be developed in England—and work on it has already started. Why does Scotland not have a specific plan to improve care for people with COPD? Four health board areas have managed clinical networks that approach the problem. Perhaps the best solution would be to extend those to all health boards in Scotland.

The British Lung Foundation Scotland is calling for NHS Quality Improvement Scotland to develop new standards and services for COPD sufferers. It does not want the Scottish Executive to wait until publication of the report on the national service framework in England because that will not occur until 2008, which might mean another 10,000 people in Scotland die as a result of COPD before anything is done. The British Lung Foundation Scotland is calling on the Executive to take action to help people with COPD as soon as possible.

I would like to use this opportunity to talk about an extremely important situation in my region. Nicola Sturgeon will be aware that I recently copied to her a letter about dental provision in Oban that I sent to the chairman of the Argyll and Bute community health partnership. Since then, things have got worse. At the end of last week, 2,000 people in the Oban area lost NHS dental service provision when that service ceased to be provided by the Argyll Square practice.

The state of affairs is hugely serious. Although emergency NHS dental services will be provided by two dentists in Lorne and the Isles hospital, I share the strong desire of the local CHP to see new NHS dental provision established for the community as soon as possible. The hospital is keen to expand services such as endoscopy and colon-cancer screening, and all the spare space in the hospital will be needed for that expansion, so it is vital that the new location for dentistry is outside the hospital. That new location must be immediately identified in the interests of the people of Oban. I am sure that the minister agrees that dentistry is a basic entitlement.

As other members have said—and as the media have often reported—the previous Lib-Lab Administration's record on dentistry was on the poor side of appalling. We look to the new Administration to help communities, such as Oban, that need dental treatment. I would be grateful if the minister could set out today what the Executive can do to help my constituents who have been left without an NHS dentist.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Will the member give way?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am sorry, I need to press on.

Since becoming my party's sports spokesman, I have had the pleasure of meeting a number of sporting organisations and I look forward to meeting many more over the next few months. I am pleased that Stewart Maxwell recently told me, in a written parliamentary answer, that the new Executive is committed to fully implementing "Reaching Higher". Can Mr Maxwell give me further details today about when he will set out concrete proposals for implementing those plans? The Scottish Conservatives will support positive proposals to increase the amount of sport of all types, as we recognise that that is crucial to our attempts to tackle rising obesity rates and to ensure that our children develop skills that will ensure they have better health.

I would like to associate myself with the remarks Jackie Baillie made about the Vale of Leven hospital. I know how important that facility is to people in Helensburgh and Lomond. The RAH in Paisley is no substitute, and the north of the river option has to be seriously considered should the worst happen and the Vale of Leven be closed.

The Scottish Conservatives will work with the new Executive to improve the health and well-being of the people of Scotland. We will support it when we think it is doing the right thing. However, as Mary Scanlon said, we believe that political dogma has no place in planning health services in Scotland. We were disappointed with the cabinet secretary's outdated attack last week on the independent sector. What matters should be what works. If, as in the case of Stracathro hospital, the independent sector can complement the NHS, we should welcome that and seek to expand complementary working relationships elsewhere.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

We have had another interesting and constructive debate about the challenging issues that we face in relation to health. I repeat my willingness to work with the Executive on public health, health improvement and heath inequalities. I support the shared ambitions that were set out prior to the election—on, for example, GP treatment within 18 weeks.

I commend to the cabinet secretary the commitment Labour made to set a target waiting time for those who need to see allied health professionals. The opportunity that we have to improve health and well-being by using the primary care sector is the key to unlocking the health potential of Scotland. Labour set that target to ensure that we would deliver on our commitment in a new Government. The cabinet secretary now has the opportunity to do so.

I share Mary Scanlon's concern about the new SNP Government's position on the private sector. Neither I nor any minister in the previous Executive sought to increase the private sector's role or build a marketplace for it. If the Executive has any evidence to the contrary, they should bring it to the Parliament. We sought to act when the NHS needed additional capacity in the short term or when it suited communities in the north-east. If we had not acted, people would not be able to go to the Golden Jubilee national hospital, which we brought back into public ownership from the Arab bankers who owned it previously. In doing so, we created a centre of excellence in treatment that puts patients at its heart.

Labour increased annual health spending per head from £900 in 1997 to the present level of more than £2,200. Of that, 92p is spent on Stracathro hospital. Ministers say that the private sector is rampaging through the health service, but in fact the health service uses the private sector as and when it needs to, not to build a marketplace or capacity for the private sector but in the interests of patients. Ministers should spend some time speaking to patients who have benefited from those services.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Some £15 million was allocated to Stracathro. Would the member have approved an NHS bid to deliver the same facility under the NHS if one had been put to him?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

That could not be done within the structure of the NHS in Scotland. Why would we create in the public health service a new service, which would be there for ever, to deal with a short-term problem in relation to waiting? Our approach allows additional capacity at the time of need and in the interests of patients. When the Minister for Public Health responds to the debate, will she tell me, without breaching commercial confidentiality, whether the cost of a procedure is the same as, less than or more than the NHS charges?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I commend to the member the speech that I made last week. If he reads it, he will see that I did not rule out the NHS using existing capacity if there is a short-term need. What I ruled out was the investment of taxpayers' money in building up private-sector capacity to compete with the health service. If the member is now saying that he agrees with that, can we proceed with some consensus on the future of the public national health service?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

That is exactly the policy that the previous Executive adopted. The spinners in the cabinet secretary's party should take heed. I read her press release on the Executive's website and I know what she was trying to say, but I also know what her spinners said about ending use of the private sector in our NHS. I will give her the press cuttings if she wants to see them.

I share Mary Scanlon's concern about mental health. Other members mentioned that, too, and I congratulate Angela Constance on her maiden speech. There are mental health targets in Scotland on, for example, the use of antidepressants and re-referrals to secondary care mental health services. We set those targets. I argue that Scotland's mental health strategy is admired throughout the United Kingdom and indeed the world.

Ross Finnie set out some of the other challenges that we face. I commend to the chamber the cabinet secretary's recent comments on independent scrutiny panels. When will we find out about those? How will they be set up? Will the Nolan principles apply? Will the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland be involved in the process? How will the panels affect the role of the Scottish health council? Why will the cabinet secretary not allow them to look at her decisions on accident and emergency departments, such as the ones that she made recently?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Will the member take an intervention?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

No. I have taken a few interventions and I want to make progress.

Will independent scrutiny panels be accountable to the Parliament and its committees? We need to address the many questions about the panels and I would be interested to hear more information about them.

Pauline McNeill mentioned the opportunities and chances that we took on, for example, oral health. There have been radical reforms and improvements in oral health, particularly in the Glasgow area. Pauline McNeill also sought assurances on the Queen Mum's hospital. I will be interested to hear the minister's response.

Jackson Carlaw made a point about denial. I am not in denial about the points that I was trying to make to communities throughout Scotland about the evidence that I had on their health, the health of their relatives and friends, and the improvements that we could make to their services. I did not convince them of the need for change. I am not kidding anyone on that, but I will happily spend some time with the cabinet secretary at her leisure and go through the international evidence, the UK evidence and the Scottish evidence, including the evidence that was given to Professor David Kerr. The evidence tells us clearly that, when we bring A and E trauma services together and allow clinicians to have subspecialty skills and training, that improves the outcome for patients and fewer people die.

The cabinet secretary will often be faced with evidence that an action will save patients' lives and improve outcomes in relation to heart conditions, trauma or specialist injuries. When that happens, one has to decide whether to put patients' interests, or political interests, first. I think that she has failed that test. I am happy to spend some time with her and the Minister for Public Health and go through the evidence that was available to me. I am not in denial about the concept: what I am in denial about is the fact that we are not listening to internationally peer-reviewed evidence from clinicians that tells us the right way forward for our health service. People accept such evidence in other specialties in the health service, but for some reason not in A and E.

Sandra White talked about the confidence of the nation. I spent the past eight years listening to the SNP talking down Scotland on every occasion, including First Minister's question time and every other set of questions in the Parliament. Today, thankfully, the cabinet secretary mentioned some of the good things that have occurred in our national health service and acknowledged some of the good work that we have done. I hope that that will allow us to continue to work constructively on oral health, smoking cessation and prescribing statins—things that have made a remarkable difference to the health and well-being of the people of Glasgow.

Those with the most challenged health profiles, who most need the health service, die in the shadow of our general hospitals. It is not general hospitals that make a difference for them but the community nurses and preventive work in schools, pubs, clubs, communities and libraries. That is why I am so concerned about the destabilisation of the findings of the Kerr review, which proposed shifting the balance of care from the big hospital environment to the community, because that is where we will make a real difference to the nation's health and well-being. The cabinet secretary simply does not understand that argument.

I genuinely want to work with the Executive. We have a shared interest in the precious thing that we call our national health service. However, decisions must be based on evidence, on need, and on the future health and well-being of our nation. If the cabinet secretary promotes that idea and works on that basis, we on the Labour benches will support her in that.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

It is a privilege to close this debate on the health and well-being of the people of Scotland as Scotland's first Minister for Public Health. I apologise for my voice: I have the same bug as the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. I was generous enough to give it to her. I hope that members will bear with me.

I welcome the widespread recognition throughout the chamber of the importance of improving health and well-being. There has been a lot of consensus this morning. We have already proved that we can work together to put in place enlightened, world-leading legislation on smoking and mental health. I am greatly encouraged by those successes as well as by the support for further action that has been given today, because achieving our goals requires a long-term programme of sustained action, not quick fixes. Most important, we must join forces with the people and communities of Scotland in sustaining and improving health. The Government is determined to provide the leadership that is required and has structured government to facilitate that, but improving the health and well-being of the people of Scotland is everyone's business.

For our part, ministers are committed to working together across portfolios to tackle the most important issues. We will work together to support families during children's early years of life. Pauline McNeill made an important point about that. It is with the next generation of Scots that the benefits of early intervention will generate the biggest payback. We will tackle problems such as the rising levels of childhood obesity. Children need a healthy environment that encourages them to be active and eat well. That is why we are investing £5 million in piloting free nutritious school meals for pupils in primary 1 to 3, focusing on some of Scotland's most deprived areas.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I welcome that measure, but does the minister support extending provision to cover all children? Will she do that immediately after the comprehensive spending review?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

We are actively considering that as part of the comprehensive spending review. We want to build on the success of the hungry for success school meals programme, which we pay credit to the previous Administration for introducing. The overwhelming evidence is that healthy children become healthy adults and are therefore more likely to avoid diabetes and other risks to their well-being.

Improving Scotland's dental health, to which several members referred, is also a priority. We need to ensure that children receive early preventive advice and treatment, particularly in areas where children are less likely to attend for regular dental treatment. We will introduce a school-based preventive dental service that will build on the child smile programme. We want all children to have the best possible chance of growing up with good teeth and we want to reduce the number of extractions and fillings that they must endure. After the debate, I will write to Jamie McGrigor about the issues that he raised with NHS dentistry in his area.

The single most pressing issue that we face is tackling health inequalities. Scotland has reversed some of the long-term trends on cancer, heart disease and strokes—several members referred to that—but the health gaps between the best-off and the worst-off are widening. We will build on what we already know about, such as the experience of the keep well programme, under which more than 8,000 health checks have been carried out so far. Later this year, we will extend the keep well service to parts of Fife, Aberdeen, Ayrshire and Glasgow and Clyde. I acknowledge the issues that Duncan McNeil raised about access to primary care services, which we take on board.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Does the minister acknowledge the issues to the extent that the Administration will move quickly to achieve not just equality of access, but equality of outcome for deprived people?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I assure the member that our approach will be outcome based. I am pleased to have been asked to chair the ministerial task force to steer cross-cutting Government activity to tackle health inequalities and to engage individuals and organisations outwith the Government in that work. I assure Sandra White that such work is intended to be outcome focused. We will get moving on that quickly.

In delivering my responsibilities, I want to bring a new emphasis, energy and enthusiasm to public health. We will start with health protection legislation, which will update provisions, some of which date back to the 19th century. We will also offer women the best possible protection from cervical cancer by introducing, from autumn 2008, a new vaccine against the human papilloma virus.

The Parliament should be proud of its track record on health improvement through reducing smoking rates. Parliamentary consensus—we almost had consensus, with one exception—was crucial in delivering landmark legislation. We have developed the proposal to raise the age of tobacco purchase to 18.

I hope that we can harness the spirit of co-operation and consensus in tackling what I believe to be the next health improvement priority: alcohol misuse. Working jointly with justice ministers, we are taking action to clamp down on underage alcohol sales. Communities are right to demand action against binge drinking and the associated antisocial behaviour. We also share a wider concern about the shocking rises in alcohol-related deaths, to which Mary Scanlon referred. We must be concerned about the large proportion of the adult population, across all socioeconomic groups, whose alcohol consumption regularly exceeds the recommended weekly limits. We must address our excessive drinking culture. That is the problem not of a small minority, but of us all. Collectively, we consume too much alcohol. That position is the starting point for our action.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister acknowledge the problem that 100,000 children in Scotland live with a parent who has an alcohol problem?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I very much acknowledge that, which is why I ask for the Parliament's help in leading a new debate about Scotland's relationship with alcohol and what we should do to tackle it.

Mary Scanlon mentioned good mental health and well-being. We acknowledge that issue and our focus will be on early intervention and prevention. We will produce more information on that in due course. I acknowledge Angela Constance's reference to mental health and the expertise that she brings to the Parliament. She also talked about car parking charges at St John's hospital, which I will look into.

The Government has—rightly—identified a healthier Scotland as one of its five strategic objectives. That lies at the heart of releasing Scotland's latent potential as a nation. Sustaining and improving health will also depend on Scots changing their behaviour, whether through changing their diet, taking exercise or changing their smoking or alcohol consumption. The Government will encourage and support people to make those changes. Today's debate is only the beginning. I look forward to working with the Parliament in our endeavour to create a healthier Scotland.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 1 was not lodged.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I confess that I lodged my question because I was unsure which minister is responsible for canals.

To ask the Scottish Executive what action is being taken to develop and improve the canal network, in particular the Forth and Clyde canal at Kirkintilloch. (S3O-445)

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Stewart Stevenson will put the member out of his agony.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am indeed the minister who has the great pleasure of being responsible for canals.

British Waterways is working with local authorities and other partners to take action to develop and improve many parts of our canal network. Kirkintilloch provides a very good example of a community that is capitalising on the rebirth of the Forth and Clyde canal. More than £15 million is being invested there in canalside developments.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Well, now we know—that is very nice.

In a spirit of good will, I invite the minister to come in the summer to Kirkintilloch in the heart of my constituency—as he knows, it is the canal capital of Scotland—for the Kirkintilloch canal festival on 25 and 26 August. There, he can see for himself how that investment has been put to good use.

After the hurly-burly of trams and train links, I commend the minister to focus on the more sedate mode of travel that canals provide, which can make a big contribution to the Scottish economy through tourism and trade. Canals carried freight before railways were invented and they could still carry freight today.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The member needs to get to the end of his question.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I hope that the minister has read "Scotland's Canals: an asset for the future". Will he ensure that canals continue to benefit from a share of Government spending in their infrastructure investment?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I thank the member for the invitation. I have communicated with British Waterways, whose annual general meeting is on 27 September, and I certainly hope to receive an invitation from it to visit a canal in the summer. Now that the member has given me the appropriate dates—25 and 26 August—I may encourage it to consider inviting me to Kirkintilloch.

Canals are an important part of tourism, travel and sustainable development. The member may care to know that in the most recent year, the Scottish Executive provided its highest level of funding to British Waterways Scotland for a considerable number of years. I have no reason to believe that the future will carry anything different but, of course, because of the comprehensive spending review, I am in the hands of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

What plans does the minister have to ensure that there is a fixed link over or under the Caledonian canal at Tomnahurich in Inverness, so that there is a free flow of canal and road traffic at all times?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am aware of local concerns about that issue. I understand that a working group that Highland Council heads and which is working closely with British Waterways is seeking to identify options. Because I am the minister with responsibility for planning, too, I do not wish to make a specific comment at this stage. However, I hope that the matter will be resolved speedily.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I have no wish to disrupt the consensual attitude in the chamber these days, but I must take issue with my colleague Dave Whitton. Maryhill is of course acknowledged as the capital for the canal in Scotland. Maryhill lock is a scheduled historic monument and we in Maryhill are particularly proud of it.

Joking aside, when the minister discusses such issues with British Waterways, will he take up the regeneration of the area around the Forth and Clyde canal in my constituency? The prospects for regeneration are huge, and the opportunities are immense for the communities that live around the canal, but progress has been very slow. There seems to be movement now, but I would be grateful if the minister took the issue up with British Waterways.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am happy to do that. One of my favourite books used to be "Para Handy", so Bowling—which is, at least, near Glasgow if not in Maryhill—is close to my heart. I will raise the point that the member makes when I meet British Waterways.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to ensure the compellability of spousal witnesses during trials. (S3O-411)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

The Executive consulted last summer on the options for reform in this area of the law but drew very few responses. Under the law as it stands, one spouse cannot be compelled to give evidence against the other spouse who is accused of a crime but can be so compelled when the offence is committed against them. The law is set out in section 264 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. I will consider the issue in more detail before deciding whether it should be included in any future legislation.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Does the minister agree that there is evidence of partners marrying each other simply to avoid giving evidence in some of the most serious criminal cases? If he gives the issue consideration, will he also have regard to the fact that legislation exists south of the border to compel spouses to give evidence? That is an example that we should follow.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I am aware of the member's interest in the matter, which she has pursued with vigour. As I said in answer to her first question, I will consider the issue carefully, although I need to prioritise it along with many other competing issues. It is my view that the principal parental duty is to protect the child from harm, whatever vows someone may have taken in a church or civil ceremony and that there is therefore merit in considering the legal changes that have been implemented south of the border.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Notwithstanding the genuine points that Helen Eadie makes, does the minister agree that, in general, the matter will have to be considered deeply because such legislation could bring with it more problems than it resolves?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Absolutely. That is one of the reasons why the previous Administration was rather despondent at the failure to receive sufficient responses. Nevertheless, this is a matter that we are happy to consider.

I agree that there could be problems if we made the spouse compellable in every situation. Also, we live in a society that is changing and we must balance this issue with other competing legislative claims. However, I have sympathy with the point that Ms Eadie makes. The primary duty of a parent is to protect their child from harm, irrespective of who has perpetrated the harm. There is something manifestly wrong and unjust when somebody marries to evade their responsibility. That is an area that we will consider. One of the options that was consulted on—as Ms Eadie correctly states—is the situation that exists south of the border. However, we do not have a blanket provision under which a spouse is not compellable, as we have opened it up to deal with domestic violence and other such matters.

We must consider how we protect our children. There is something manifestly wrong in someone seeking to evade justice by marrying the principal witness, whose principal duty should be to protect the child from harm.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how the recently signed agreement between the First Minister and representatives of the Northern Ireland Assembly will benefit Scotland. (S3O-394)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Scotland's relationship with Northern Ireland is already good. It is the Government's intention to strengthen and develop our links for mutual benefit and common interest.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

What work is under way to meet those objectives?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Senior officials in Scotland and Northern Ireland have been asked to draw up proposals for developing our co-operation as a matter of priority. On the basis of our discussions and the terms of our agreement, we will work together to raise awareness of each other's history and culture and to encourage education programmes that build on existing links between our universities and colleges. We will collaborate on tourism through the tourism group of the British-Irish Council. Renewable energy and its effects on the environment are of interest to us all. We also want to strengthen co-operation between the devolved Administrations. We have agreed that we will review progress in all those areas by the end of the year.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will review the allocation of funding for the three island councils. (S3O-371)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The allocation of funding for all councils is kept under constant review. I am always open to suggestions for possible improvements to the distribution formula.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Given that Shetland Islands Council and Western Isles Council receive respectively £600 and £700 more per head of population than Orkney Islands Council, does the cabinet secretary agree that, rather than just a constant review or a quick glance, we need a root-and-branch review of that historical disparity in local government funding?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I assure Mary Scanlon that there will be no quick glances by this Administration. The issues are kept under constant review.

Mary Scanlon correctly identifies the disparity in per capita funding between the £3,118 that Orkney Islands Council receives and the funding that Shetland Islands Council and Western Isles Council receive, which is more than £3,700. There has been an increase in funding for Orkney Islands Council that has reached 5 per cent more than that for Shetland Islands Council and Western Isles Council over the period from 2005 to 2008. Nevertheless, there is still a disparity. As I said in my earlier answer, we are always happy to consider such issues. I expect to visit the Orkney Islands over the summer recess, and I suspect that the issue will be raised with me then.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

In the light of that question and answer, and in the light of the Government's enthusiasm for vertical integration and co-operation between services, does the Government intend to take advantage of the coterminosity of many agencies in the islands to pursue its agenda of reducing clutter in government in Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

There is a helpful suggestion in Alasdair Allan's question. There are great advantages in all the island authorities bringing together the ways in which public services are delivered and drawing together the sharing of services and the design of the delivery and management of public services. I have approved an interesting project in Orkney, which involves collaboration on sharing services between Orkney Islands Council and NHS Orkney. I will observe with interest the progress of that initiative, which identifies a number of relevant issues for all the island authorities.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I know from my discussions with the cabinet secretary that he is aware of the great concern that is felt in Orkney about the disparity in per capita funding between the three island authorities, all of which face the same challenges in delivering vital public services across a large number of islands. Will he urge his officials to make early contact with Orkney Islands Council to prepare the ground ahead of his visit to my constituency, so that progress can be made towards a more equitable solution as quickly as possible?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I assure Mr McArthur that there is no need to embark on discussions with Orkney Islands Council on the subject, as the chief executive of the local authority spoke to me on Tuesday at a major public service event that was addressed by the First Minister. He spoke to me about this and several other issues, and I look forward to discussing the matter further.

There are no easy answers. The funding arrangements operate according to different formulae, and if we amend different parts of the formulae, there will be consequences in different parts of the country. I assure members that the issue is being actively examined.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will examine the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 and other legislation as appropriate to ensure that home owners have protection and recourse from land management companies that have sole rights to manage land. (S3O-397)

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

It is clearly important for the amenity of housing developments that common areas of land are well managed and maintained. The Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 provides a legal framework for the conditions found in title deeds, but house purchasers and their legal advisers should ensure that there are adequate arrangements in the title deeds for the management and maintenance of common areas when buying property. Similarly, home owners should seek legal advice as to whether land management companies are meeting their obligations under the title deeds or other contractual arrangements.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

I thank the minister for his answer but, with respect, I press him to state today or undertake to consider further what he can do to assist the 1,000 residents throughout West Lothian whose title deeds bind them indefinitely to the land management company Greenbelt which, according to my constituents, is woefully failing to deliver a service for which they are forced to pay. Neither the law nor their title deeds appear to offer any easily identifiable, accessible or affordable solution. Perhaps the minister will agree to meet me to discuss the issue further, given that it is complicated.

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

I am grateful to Angela Constance for raising the issue—she is quite right to do so. Although the Scottish Government cannot intervene in matters of private contract dispute, it is nonetheless absolutely clear from Angela Constance's representations and from sporadic complaints that the previous Scottish Executive received from members of various parties that the problem is serious. The Scottish Government recognises that poorly managed or neglected open spaces not only fail to meet the needs of communities but can inhibit regeneration and development. I would be happy to meet the member to hear more specific details. If any other member of any party wants to make representations to me about Greenbelt, I would be happy to meet them.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The minister might be aware that I have written to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth about this matter—I look forward to his reply. When decisions on land management are being made, can house builders be made to accept their responsibility to home buyers such as my constituents in Armadale and Bathgate, who are the customers of Greenbelt, by ensuring that home buyers have some say over who the land management company is and by creating a contract that ensures that home owners have redress should the company not fulfil its obligations?

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

As the member knows, those are, in essence, matters to be dealt with between the purchasers of properties, their lawyers and the developers. Mary Mulligan, like Angela Constance, highlights an issue of concern throughout Scotland. Therefore, although the Executive cannot intervene in individual cases, I am extremely concerned to explore exactly what the company is doing to discharge its obligations. The fact that two members of different parties have raised the issue indicates the strength of feeling about it. I will ensure that the company is made aware of this discussion and that the matter is taken forward.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it intends to meet BBC Scotland and the ITV companies to discuss future plans for broadcasting in Scotland. (S3O-369)

I declare an interest as a shareholder in the Scottish Media Group.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I intend to meet representatives from BBC Scotland and SMG in the near future.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Although I accept that broadcasting is reserved, will the minister ask BBC Scotland and ITV why they have slashed budgets for current affairs television programmes in Scotland by 40 per cent between 2001 and 2006 against a 10 per cent cut in the United Kingdom as a whole? Will she also get answers as to why, two years after it was first announced, there is still no launch date for the new Gaelic television channel, which she will be aware is partially funded by the Scottish Executive?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The full details of what I intend to discuss at those meetings have not been finalised, but I will be pleased to raise those issues, which would be raised anyway, and any others that members would like to raise. On the first part of the question, I am aware that the Office of Communications report showed that Scotland's contribution to the UK network originations has fallen by half over the past three years both by value and volume. I am concerned about that, so I will certainly raise the issue as well as pointing out the importance of the dedicated channel for Gaelic.

First Minister's Question Time

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Before I ask my question, I congratulate Gordon Brown on his appointment as Prime Minister of our country. He will be a great British Prime Minister. It is a special pleasure to have a Prime Minister from Scotland, and I am sure that Alex Salmond will want to join me in wishing him well. I hope that Alex Salmond will also set aside differences and join me in wishing Tony Blair and his family well in his retirement from the position of Prime Minister and in wishing him success in any job that he might do in the middle east.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I think that I am meant to say that I have a number of engagements, including making a statement on the council of economic advisers.

Of course I congratulate Gordon Brown on becoming Prime Minister; indeed, I did so yesterday. Last night, he told me on the phone that my message of congratulations had reached him before he became Prime Minister. We had a good, friendly conversation. I look forward to co-operating with the new Prime Minister in the Scottish interest, and I gladly wish the former Prime Minister well in his retirement.

There is a serious matter that we should acknowledge. Three British soldiers have been killed by a roadside bomb in the city of Basra and a fourth soldier has been seriously injured. The next of kin have been informed. Two of the soldiers were from the third battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland and one was from the second battalion of the Royal Welsh. I am sure that all members will want to send condolences to the families involved.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I associate all Labour members with what the First Minister has said and send our condolences to the families involved.

Last week, in response to a question that Annabel Goldie asked, the First Minister said:

"you turn if you want to; this Administration is not for turning."—[Official Report, 21 June 2007; c 1007.]

Does the First Minister regard John Swinney's statement in the chamber yesterday afternoon as a U-turn on transport policy or as recognition that the Government should respect the will of Parliament?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Jack McConnell will have to make up his mind. At successive First Minister's question times, he has demanded that the Administration accede to the will of Parliament, but when we do so, he seems to complain that we have done so. Which is it? As Mr Swinney said yesterday, a Government cannot always—for obvious reasons—accept parliamentary resolutions. Donald Dewar put that eloquently. However, we decided on the occasion in question that the proper democratic thing to do was to accept the Parliament's wishes to the letter and to the figure.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I warmly welcome that statement, which reinforces John Swinney's statement yesterday afternoon, just as yesterday I warmly welcomed John Swinney's response to the parliamentary vote on Edinburgh trams and the rail link from Edinburgh airport to the Scottish network. Ministers should respect the will of Parliament.

Yesterday, Mr Swinney said:

"on this occasion ... it is appropriate to accede to the will of Parliament."

He said:

"the Government will pursue the terms of the resolution in relation to the Edinburgh airport rail link."—[Official Report, 27 June 2007; c 1192.]

However, he then left the chamber and told the waiting media that the Edinburgh airport rail link project was "dead"—that it had "had it". He increasingly sounded like John Cleese in a "Monty Python" sketch. Will the First Minister tell him that if he continues to mislead Parliament in such a way, his credibility will cease to be? It will expire. It will be no more. It will pass on, and John Swinney will be an ex-minister. Was John Swinney's statement to the Parliament true, or was his statement to the media true?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

There is only one dead parrot in this chamber.

I warmly welcome Jack McConnell's warm welcome for our decision, although it struck me that there wisnae much of a warm welcome in the point of order that Cathy Jamieson raised following John Swinney's statement. However, overnight reflection can sometimes be mature reflection. We shall follow the terms of the resolution on both the Edinburgh trams and the EARL project. That said, I say to Jack McConnell that there must be some reason why the EARL project arrived in such a state of disrepair for this Administration. It would not be fair to place all the blame on Tavish Scott; the then First Minister should take some responsibility as well.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am pleased to hear that clarification from the First Minister. I remind him that the motion called on the Government to deliver the Edinburgh airport rail link—to succeed in delivering it, not to succeed in killing it off.

In recent weeks, we have seen U-turns from the new Government on the council tax, on student debt, on helping students from Northern Ireland and, today, even on changing the name of VisitScotland. However, there is one specific U-turn from the First Minister that we would welcome. As the former Prime Minister resigned yesterday, he said that he believed his constituents should have a full-time member of Parliament in the House of Commons. Will the First Minister similarly respect Parliament and become a full-time MSP by resigning his Banff and Buchan seat so that there will be a by-election?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I shall follow exactly the practice of the late Donald Dewar, who was in exactly the same situation as I am in.

I remind Jack McConnell of the terms of the resolution on EARL that he so enthusiastically supports: they are that EARL is to be brought back to Parliament, and that is exactly what we will do. We will bring it back to Parliament in September.

Given that this is the last question time before the recess—a sort of end-of-term occasion—perhaps I should ask Jack McConnell whether he will be joining Lord George Foulkes in the House of Lords.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not want to keep two jobs; it is the First Minister who wants to do that. Although I might not have had as close a friendship with Donald Dewar as my colleague Wendy Alexander had, I can say that the First Minister is no Donald Dewar, and he should remember that.

I accept that today is the end of this stage of the new parliamentary session, as the First Minister said. In the spirit of the rhetoric—if not the actuality, on occasion—of the past month, I tell him that we would welcome immediately after the summer recess a proper legislative programme and programme for government being put to Parliament. If he is willing to be serious in such an intent and ensure that we have a legislative programme to debate, we will work with him over the summer months to ensure that appropriate measures are put in place to improve the Scottish education service; to help the poorest pensioners—through, for example, a reduction in water rates; to reduce unemployment and the number of those who are not in education, employment or training; to tackle crime; and to improve our health service. We will work with him if he will work with all of us.

Will the First Minister commit first to putting a legislative programme in front of Parliament in September? Will he also commit to making real efforts to work with all the Opposition parties so that that legislative programme can have some success?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes—to the last bit.

I accept fully that I am no Donald Dewar; the problem for Jack McConnell is that he is no Henry McLeish.

I remind Jack McConnell that he does not have to wait until September to see the achievements of this Administration. All our achievements do not, of course, require legislation, although they were beyond the achievement of the previous Government. I remind him that we have saved the two accident and emergency units at Ayr and Monklands; we have put Scotland at the forefront of the global fight against climate change by proposing a target of reducing emissions by 80 per cent; we have announced how and when the Forth and Tay bridge tolls are to be removed; we have set out a timetable for removing the burden of business rates from tens of thousands of Scottish businesses; we will abolish the graduate endowment fee and reintroduce the principle of free education in Scotland; we have increased nursery entitlement and provided extra funding for another 300 teachers; and we have finally confirmed that there will be no new nuclear power stations in Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the new Prime Minister. (S3F-98)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I spoke to the new Prime Minister last evening. We had a cordial conversation. We said that we would make plans for an early meeting, and I look forward to that meeting.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I think we all agree that the First Minister's relationship with the new Prime Minister could not be any worse than his relationship with the previous one, but the omens are not encouraging. Mr Brown has in the past described Mr Salmond as someone who had

"lost the power of communication, but not the power of speech."

That prompted Mr Salmond to respond by saying:

"He's out to get the big job but has forgotten the people back home."

In the interests of ensuring that there is no question of Mr Brown, now that he has got the "big job", forgetting "the people back home", and in the interests of proving that the First Minister has not

"lost the power of communication",

what will the First Minister do to create a more interactive engagement between his Administration in this Parliament and the Prime Minister's Government at Westminster?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I thank Annabel Goldie for her faith in my restored powers of communication.

The important thing is to restore the joint ministerial committee structure to the structure that was originally envisaged when this Parliament was set up, because it has fallen into disuse since 2002. Outwith preparation for European Council meetings, none of the joint ministerial committees has met. Indeed, the plenary session that the Prime Minister chairs and which involves the First Ministers of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland has not met either.

It is not just my opinion or that of, I hope, people in this Parliament, but the opinion of the leadership of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales, which is about to become a Labour-Plaid Cymru leadership, that those channels should be restored forthwith to give a formal structure so that issues can be progressed properly to the benefit of the Scottish people.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

After he congratulated the new Prime Minister, the First Minister said yesterday:

"I'm very confident that both us can put aside our long-term ambitions for the country in constitutional terms and direct our sights to what we need here and now for Scotland and that's to work in the best interests of the Scottish people."

Will the First Minister therefore pledge today that he will put aside his personal preference for constitutional change and prioritise our domestic bread-and-butter issues? Those issues are: more police officers on our streets; a new agenda for drugs abuse in Scotland; an urgent expansion of affordable housing; restoring governance and discipline in our schools; and providing help with the council tax for our older citizens. On all those issues, people are crying out for political leadership here and now in Scotland. Will he make that pledge, and will he put delivery before divorce?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Pursuing, in our case, a policy of independence or, in the case of others in the chamber, a policy of federalism or enhanced powers for this Parliament is quite honourable and a perfectly legitimate stance to take in politics. I assure Annabel Goldie that I shall always pursue the aim of independence. Indeed, this Government will publish within its first 100 days its white paper on independence.

Having different constitutional objectives should not prevent people from co-operating on other issues. Indeed, only yesterday, Annabel Goldie, Bill Aitken, Kenny MacAskill, Nicola Sturgeon and I had what I thought was an extremely productive meeting in which we addressed one of the great scourges in Scottish and other societies—the scourge of drug addiction. None of the different views that Annabel Goldie and I have on Scotland's future prevented us from having that meeting and taking joint action on that crucial issue.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I associate the Liberal Democrats with the congratulations to Gordon Brown, the good wishes to Tony Blair and, of course, the condolences to the families of the soldiers who were tragically killed in Basra.

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-99)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Cabinet will discuss a wide range of issues of importance to the Scottish people.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

How many civil servants are currently working on the First Minister's white paper on independence?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The small group of civil servants who are working on the white paper are making excellent progress.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I am glad to hear that the First Minister is downplaying the numbers involved and not pandering to the fundamentalists on his back benches, but to have any is to have too many. Does he not agree that those public servants are wasting their time? It is a waste of money and a waste of space in Government offices.

The Scottish National Party does not even know how many teachers it needs to meet its class size promises because the work has not yet been done. It has dumped the policy to write off £2 billion of student debt because the work has not yet been done. Is it not strange that so many of the First Minister's 100-day promises have been torn up but the white paper remains intact? Has he not learned the lesson of his defeat in the Parliament yesterday? There is no point in wasting time on independence when there is no majority for it in Scotland's Parliament.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I remind Nicol Stephen that there are about to be 300 extra teachers and 250 more training places than there were under the previous Administration six weeks ago.

Nicol Stephen will be delighted to know that much of the work on the independence white paper was already at an advanced stage. However, one issue that we will have to struggle with as we launch that white paper is whether to include some of the ideas that the Liberal Democrats put forward during the election campaign.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Don't bother.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I heard "Don't bother" from the Conservative benches, but I must say—[ Interruption. ]

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

rose

—

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am sorry—I will make the correction. I heard "Don't bother" from the Liberal benches—about their own proposals. Despite that thumbs-down from Mr Rumbles, I think that we should carefully consider the Liberal Democrats' election programme.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We have an important constituency question from Dr Elaine Murray. Before she asks her question, I ask any member who is going to contribute to this part of question time to bear in mind the Parliament's rules on sub judice.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

In view of the decision of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi to the High Court for a second appeal, will the First Minister assure the Parliament that all will be done to uphold the reputation of the Scottish judicial system?

Is the First Minister also aware that the Pan Am flight 103 crash is a curse under which my constituents in Lockerbie have lived for almost 19 years and which shows no signs of being lifted? Is he aware that Lockerbie is a pretty Borders town set in the southern uplands, only an hour by train from Glasgow and Edinburgh and linked by the west coast main line and motorway not only to the central belt of Scotland but to London, Birmingham, Bristol and Wales? Will he use his position in this country and overseas to promote the town and community of Lockerbie as more—much more—than just the site of the worst terrorist atrocity on British soil?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am very aware of the trauma and difficulty for the people of Lockerbie, and I respect and acknowledge Elaine Murray's concerns. I will do my best to accede to her wishes.

With your indulgence, Presiding Officer, I would like to say the following. The international agreement that led to the trial and conviction of Mr Al Megrahi made it clear that it would be a process under the systems, procedures and institutions of the Scottish legal system. Prosecution, review and appeal are all important parts of that system. Today's decision by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is further evidence of the system in action.

The ability to deal with alleged miscarriages of justice is a vital part of our criminal justice system. The commission has an important role to play in examining cases independently and allowing the courts an opportunity to reconsider cases when otherwise there would be no scope for a further appeal.

I have made clear in letters to the former Prime Minister and in my statement to the Scottish Parliament my Government's concerns that talks between the United Kingdom Government and the Libyan authorities could be seen to cloud issues around this high-profile case, in part because due process was not followed in terms of consultation with the Scottish justice system. Today's decision by the commission is part of the due process of law. The business of politics and international relations has no part to play in that.

The commission has reached the view that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. It is in the interests of justice that the case should be referred to the High Court. It will now be for Mr Al Megrahi to present his appeal to the court and for the court to determine whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred. We must allow the independent legal process to take its course.

Let us never forget that 270 men, women and children lost their lives in December 1988. Whatever the eventual outcome of the process, their loss can never be recovered. Our thoughts remain with the families left behind. We owe it to those people to allow the process of justice to reach a just, natural conclusion, free from pressure or interference. As First Minister, that has been and remains my primary consideration.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

In light of the appeal court decision to uphold the original ruling to drop criminal charges in relation to the Rosepark nursing home in my constituency, what legal steps does the First Minister intend to take to prevent such a decision from being possible in future and, for the sake of the families who have been affected, to find out as soon as possible why their loved ones perished in that terrible tragedy?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Michael McMahon will understand that those matters are under consideration. I will ensure that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice writes to him as soon as any further decision has been made.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what communication the Executive has had with Her Majesty's Government about recovering money saved by the Exchequer as a result of policy decisions in Scotland. (S3F-105)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We have made initial contact with the Department for Work and Pensions and will pursue the matter further over the summer.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The First Minister will agree that the Parliament's priority in relation to free personal care is to ensure that it operates and is supported in the way that was intended. I welcome the review that has been initiated.

I advise the First Minister that this morning, at a conference on free personal care, local authorities identified a £19 million funding gap—a gap that was also identified by the previous Health Committee. Given that the retained attendance allowance now amounts to around £30 million, does the First Minister share my view that savings that result from good governance in Scotland should be returned to Scotland? Incidentally, those savings would more than plug the funding gap that has been identified.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I share the member's view and confirm that the figure for the withdrawn attendance allowance is now £30 million a year.

Earlier this week, the new Prime Minister made the perfectly legitimate comment that Scotland had to live within its means and that no more money would be provided as a result of decisions that we make in the Parliament. However, in the case of attendance allowance, a change of policy that was pursued by the entire Parliament resulted in less money coming to Scotland. If we accept that our policy decisions on matters that have been legitimately devolved to the Parliament are constrained by decisions elsewhere, we will find that we do not have the freedom to pursue as we should a range of issues such as free personal care, because of factors such as withdrawal of attendance allowance. That is my view; it was also the view of the former First Minister, Henry McLeish.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

He was wrong.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I do not think that he was wrong; he was right on this issue. I hope that that is now the view of the entire Parliament.

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

As the First Minister knows, often policy decisions are taken in England for which the Scottish Government receives consequential funding from the Exchequer, under the Barnett formula. Have his officials been in discussion with the UK Government about the unclaimed asset fund, which now stands at more than £2 billion, and the consequential funding that may accrue to Scotland from it? The UK Government plans to spend that money on voluntary youth services in England. There is no constraint on the devolved Administration spending a consequential amount to guarantee the same level of voluntary youth services provision in Scotland. Will the First Minister confirm to the Parliament that he will do that?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I will pursue the issue with the United Kingdom Government. I thank the member for pointing it out to me; he makes a very useful point.

Regardless of what people think about the Barnett formula, it gives a clearly expressed entitlement when decisions are made over what is apportioned to Scotland. The difficulty is that the withdrawal of attendance allowance is not factored into the Barnett formula, and a route to solving the difficulty illustrated by the situation with free personal care is to ensure that such issues are dealt with on a formula basis.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Executive intends to have with the United Kingdom Government on the future conduct of Scottish elections following the University of Strathclyde's investigation into the causes of the rejected ballots. (S3F-112)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government is committed to holding an inquiry into the 3 May elections. We have an interest in common with the United Kingdom Government in ensuring that public confidence is maintained in the integrity of the electoral process. However, we are still considering the options for such an inquiry. As a result, although I do not wish to anticipate the conclusions of the Gould inquiry, I confirm that, at the appropriate time, we will wish to discuss the issue with the UK Government to try to progress towards an independent inquiry.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

On 4 May, immediately after the election, the leader of the Scottish National Party, Alex Salmond, said that he would mount an independent judicial inquiry into the "debacle"; that it would

"have the fullest powers and the most searching remit";

and that it would

"be charged with laying bare the outrage of why over 100,000 Scots were denied their democratic"

vote.

Will the First Minister update us in more detail on the progress that has been made in establishing such an inquiry? What discussions has he had with the Secretary of State for Scotland on the issue? Will he press the case for this Parliament to be elected by the fairer and more easily understood single transferable vote system, which was so successfully introduced for the Scottish council elections?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Although I have some sympathy for the member's final point, we should try to separate the confusion and the totally unacceptable number of spoiled ballot papers in the election from our preferences for new electoral systems.

I hope to make progress on the issue. The new Secretary of State for Scotland and I will discuss the matter in order to have, as I would hope, a joint inquiry. I do not see much utility in having two separate inquiries because, as Iain Smith must know, although we have province over the local elections, the Secretary of State for Scotland has province over the Scottish Parliament's election systems. The situation strikes me as very curious, but nonetheless that is how it is.

I do not think that we should prejudge or jump to any conclusions on the matter. I read an article on the Sunday Herald's front page entitled "Labour MSPs blame Alexander for poll fiasco". I would never have jumped to such a conclusion in case I was accused of upsetting the former Secretary of State for Scotland.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The First Minister described as "curious" the situation in which we have control of neither the legislation for nor the administration of elections to this Parliament. Regardless of the outcome of any inquiry into what happened at the most recent election, is there not a principled reason for changing the situation? Will the First Minister use his new lines of communication with the other devolved UK Administrations to make a joint case to the UK Government that every democratic institution in this country should be in control of its own elections?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Not for the first time I agree with Patrick Harvie. Any self-respecting Parliament should, in principle, be in control of its own electoral system.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

To ask the First Minister whether the Executive believes that voluntary sector organisations play a valuable role in the provision of social care services. (S3F-109)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am pleased to acknowledge with thanks the important contribution that voluntary sector organisations make to care and support services in our communities. They bring commitment and innovation and help to create a vibrant mixed economy in the provision of social care.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does the First Minister acknowledge the experience of many of my constituents in Aberdeen, where council funding decisions made earlier this year resulted in the voluntary sector's withdrawal from the provision of a number of services to vulnerable people? Many vulnerable people faced a change in their care provider at very short notice and the terms and conditions of care workers were driven down to national minimum levels. Will the First Minister join me in urging Aberdeen City Council not to repeat the exercise with other services that the voluntary sector provides to vulnerable people, and will he commend long-term funding arrangements as the way forward, as John Swinney did this morning?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

There is a great deal to be said for long-term funding arrangements. I understand that the attitude of both the previous and the present Aberdeen City Council administrations is that they have been affected by the substantial cuts in the supporting people budget that were made when it was redistributed from the Treasury to the Scottish Parliament in 2004. They think that that has been a significant factor. In addition, they claim that the redistribution of various formulas relevant to those matters has had a significant impact on the decisions that they have had to make. I point out gently to the member that he was a minister in the Government that made decisions on such matters.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Rural Affairs and the Environment

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Scottish Government has provided local agencies with a range of powers and resources that they are using to deliver safer, cleaner and more attractive town centres. The quality of life initiative is being used to improve street lighting and closed-circuit television provision. The antisocial behaviour legislation, supported by £120 million over four years, is enabling swift and effective action to be taken against a range of low-level offending in town centres, from antisocial driving and noise nuisance to vandalism and littering.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The minister will be aware of the problems in town centres that are frequently used for large gatherings of car cruisers—as is the case in Falkirk town centre, where up to 1,000 cars can gather in an evening. Many constituents who have contacted me find that their lives are being made a misery because of the modifications that have been made to many of the cars' exhaust systems, which cause considerable noise pollution in the town centre. The police tell me that they have limited powers to deal with the issue in the criminal justice system. Is the minister prepared to consider using environmental regulations to try to tackle the noise pollution problem?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Mr Matheson has campaigned tirelessly on that issue and there is certainly a problem to be addressed. Unfortunately, prohibition of the adaptation of vehicle exhausts—which is a possibility, as it is exhaust noise that causes a great deal of problem—is a reserved matter, strangely enough. That came as news to me as well, but a range of other actions can be taken. Part 10 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 includes provisions that allow the police to seize vehicles that are being driven antisocially, and that power has been used successfully to seize 170 vehicles and to issue 1,917 warning notices, to the end of September last year.

Mr Matheson is right to say that other things can be done. For example, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 can be used, or a local authority can apply to the courts for an antisocial behaviour order to restrict a persistently antisocial driver from a particular area or even to prohibit the individual concerned from driving a particular vehicle.

My colleague, the Minister for Community Safety, will visit Tayside Police in the coming months to see the new seizure of vehicles initiative that they have introduced. However, we plan to take a fresh look at the community safety and antisocial behaviour strategy to determine how it can be strengthened and improved. Mr Matheson's point is important and will be included in that process.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Michael Matheson mentioned one of Scotland's larger towns. In the part of the world that I represent, smaller towns such as Wick, Stornoway, Buckie, Dingwall and Dunoon also face significant environmental challenges, particularly relating to dereliction of buildings. Will the Government, in the spirit of consensus and co-operation that has been evident from its members in recent weeks, consider the proposals that the Labour Party made at the election for town centre regeneration trusts to fund regeneration? Will it also consider whether local authorities have sufficient powers to tackle dereliction quickly and effectively and whether they have sufficient compulsory purchase powers when that ultimately becomes necessary in order to make the environmental improvements that many of our smaller towns urgently require?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am always willing to consider good ideas wherever they come from: that is true of my colleagues, as well.

There are a variety of moves afoot to assist the regeneration of town centres. As Mr Peacock points out, it is not simply a matter of behaviour, although there are considerable problems of behaviour that can be encouraged out of existence. It is extremely important that premises do not remain empty for too long. The radical, exciting and, I am sure, worthwhile initiative on business rates that is coming may do even more on that than any town centre regeneration trust could.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Welcome though the business rate reductions are, they will not be a panacea that will improve the quality of town centres—the Labour Party as well as the Conservative party had proposals on that during the recent election. So, too, did the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which estimates that the reductions will cost £1 million for every town centre that is regenerated. In view of the state of town centres such as that in Dumfries—which he will know well, as I do—will the minister commit to additional funding for regeneration specifically to help such towns?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sure that Mr Brownlee would not expect me to commit to immediate funding for Dumfries, much as I would like to. However, he made a valid point. Dumfries is an interesting example of a town where a mix of actions will be required. I believe that the reduction and elimination of business rates will have an enormous effect in Dumfries because, as Mr Brownlee will know, one of the major problems is the difficulty for start-up businesses to base themselves in town centres.

There are other problems. There is work to be done on historic buildings in Dumfries town centre—I understand it is likely to be under way shortly—and there is the question of behaviour in all town centres. The Government intends to focus strongly on promoting positive social behaviour among young people and others, and to crack down on the antisocial minority. Those two aspects must be taken together. We want to promote good behaviour as well as to punish bad behaviour. Provided that we do that in the context of a variety of initiatives, all town centres—whether in Dunoon, Wick or Dumfries—will flourish.

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

I, along with the former Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, met Scottish Borders Council to discuss its small towns review. That review is supported by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and is looking at whole-town plans as well as, if not dedicated funding—which I appreciate the minister will not be able to announce—other potential funding routes through COSLA, which may address some of the issues that other members have raised. Can officials brief the minister on the matter and can he come back to Parliament if there has been any progress? It is a cross-party issue and the work of COSLA and Scottish Executive officials across all departments on planning, economic development, regeneration and the environment is crucial.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am happy to arrange for that to happen so that we are working cross-party and in the spirit of consensus to improve our towns throughout Scotland. Mr Purvis and I were in Hawick on Friday morning. We saw some of the difficulties that that town faces and some of the exciting things, particularly the new Tower Mill development, which is immensely impressive. The use of such buildings, in the way that Tower Mill is now being used, can only be a good thing for any small town.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives of the fishing communities from the east neuk of Fife and what matters were discussed. (S3O-377)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

There is regular dialogue between the Scottish Executive and representatives of the Fife fishing community. My officials met Fife Fishermen's Association on 1 December to discuss quota management issues, and on 11 May Fife Fish Producers Organisation was represented at a Scottish Association of Fish Producers Organisation meeting. In addition, Fife Fishermen's Association is a member of the Scottish inshore fisheries advisory group, which last met in March. I am looking forward—as are my officials—to the open meeting with Fife fishermen on Monday 9 July, at Anstruther, to discuss further the management of inshore fishing.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am sure that the issues that will be discussed at the meeting on 9 July will include the quota for the nephrops fishery, which I know the minister is aware is important in the east neuk. Will the minister urgently review reallocation of the nephrops quota from the producer organisation sector—which is not being fully taken up—to the non-sector fleet and under-10 metre sector, which desperately need additional quota? Will he also assist the long-term sustainability of the east neuk fleet by agreeing to consider a trial reopening of the commercial sprat fishery in the Firth of Forth? Finally, can he explain why his department has withdrawn funding for the post of south-east Scotland inshore fisheries group co-ordinator?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

First, I recognise how crucial the nephrops quota is to Fife fishing communities and to communities in the member's constituency. I clearly want to be careful before swapping quota from the producers' organisations to the under-10 metre sector and non-sector fleet. However, we have secured swaps from elsewhere, which have provided more quota for the rest of the year. I am sure that the member will welcome that. We accept the need to provide stability to those sectors in the Fife fishing communities and to have long-term planning.

I am happy to consider a trial reopening of the sprat fishery and will get back to the member on that. If he wishes to write to me with more details on why that should go ahead, I will be grateful to hear his views.

On the south-east Scotland inshore fisheries group co-ordinator, I am reviewing the way forward and taking stock. I certainly support the principle and want the inshore fisheries groups to go ahead, but at this stage we are taking stock because groups' being set up has been slower than expected.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what it is doing to support environmental projects, based on the living garden approach, in schools. (S3O-385)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I was pleased to support the living garden approach by visiting the living garden earlier this month at gardening Scotland.

The living garden was a show garden and information village that was put together by the garden for life forum to demonstrate how to put garden for life principles into practice by using peat-free compost, by planting for wildlife, by growing food in the garden, and by dedicating an area to recycling and composting.

The Scottish Government is a member of the garden for life forum, along with a range of conservation, environmental and health charities, horticultural organisations and Scottish Natural Heritage. The aims of the forum are to increase enjoyment and understanding of biodiversity, to support action by gardeners for the benefit of Scotland's biodiversity, and to promote the benefits of gardening for health and well-being.

Grounds for Learning, one of the forum partners, offers help and advice to schools on all aspects of school grounds development for biodiversity. It is important to note that the Scottish Government actively supports the eco-schools programme, which includes modules on biodiversity and developing school grounds as outdoor classrooms to enhance pupils' interaction with, and understanding of, the natural world.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Given the widely acknowledged dietary deficiencies in Scotland. I am sure that the minister will recognise that the hungry for success initiative has played a significant role in dietary awareness and improvement. Will the minister consider including an expansion of support for that initiative in the biodiversity schemes to which he just referred, as well as in school allotments schemes?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Certainly. The issue of local food becomes ever more local when young people are involved in growing it for themselves. It is an important matter for this Government. We acknowledge the importance of the hungry for success programme and its achievements. Just this morning, the cabinet secretary and I met a range of environmental organisations, including Friends of the Earth. One of its priorities is to stress the importance of growing fruit and vegetables for oneself in gardens or allotments.

I am aware of the strong pressure from the Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society in its report, "Growing Scotland", which I read with great interest. It talks about the need for more allotments. Although that is a matter for local authorities and others, it is actively supported.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures to improve the local environment it recommends for locations where there is a historical interest. (S3O-409)