Scottish Parliament, 24 January 2008

390 contributions from 84 members. The official report.

Official Report 24 January 2008

Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. Before I invite Jim Mather to open this morning's debate, members might want to note that a revised section A of the Business Bulletin has been issued. The specific revision to the business programme is the addition of an amendment in the name of Jeremy Purvis to the amendment in the name of Jackie Baillie. Amendment S3M-1200.1.1 was lodged this morning and I selected it for debate. On that basis, amendment S3M-1200.2, in the name of Jeremy Purvis, has been withdrawn.

The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1200, in the name of Jim Mather, on the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am delighted to speak in favour of the Government's legislative consent motion on the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill. If the motion is agreed to by the Parliament it will allow the UK Parliament to confer additional powers on the Scottish ministers and release funds to support the work of the third sector in Scotland. That is why we have been working closely with the other devolved Administrations and the UK Government on the matter.

I was glad to be invited to appear at the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee to put the Government's support for the bill on record. The committee made good suggestions and raised important points, as it always does. I hope that members were reassured by my responses, some of which I will reiterate. I was pleased that the committee unanimously agreed to recommend that the motion be approved by the Parliament. I was also pleased—in the light of the amendment that Mr Purvis lodged last week, to which I will come—that the committee was satisfied with our intention to consult the sector on priorities for expenditure.

When ministers became aware of the amendment that was lodged last week, we understood the support that it expressed for a valuable part of the sector, but we were concerned that it was not in line with the committee's stated support for our consultative approach. A more fundamental concern was that if the amendment was agreed to by the Parliament, the resulting motion could have been incompatible with the spirit of the UK bill, clause 19(2) of which provides that

"Before making an order under this section the Scottish Ministers shall consult the Big Lottery Fund and such other persons (if any) as they think appropriate."

Given that important concern, the motion was withdrawn so that we could seek legal and policy advice and engage in further dialogue. We have taken advice and are satisfied that we can proceed without risking access to important additional funding for the sector. That is important. The bill provides us with a rare opportunity for Scotland's third sector, which we cannot afford to pass up.

I will set out the process that the bill will establish at UK level. The bill is in two parts. Part 1 covers reserved issues and outlines the mechanisms to identify, define and collect money in dormant accounts. Part 1 will establish a reclaim fund to collect assets from dormant accounts—those that have seen no activity for 15 years. The fund will be responsible for returning assets to account holders, should they ask for their money. Account holders can do that at any time, with full repayment of interest owed.

Part 2 covers Scottish interests and the devolved elements and proposed powers for the Scottish ministers, which require a legislative consent motion. Part 2 also outlines the processes for the reclaim fund to pass funds to a nominated distributor, which will be the Big Lottery Fund. Our colleagues in the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee were keen for further information and reassurance on that, so I will explain why we agree with the approach. The Big Lottery Fund has devolved decision-making arrangements in Scotland, which are exercised through its Scotland committee. It is an experienced, accountable and well-respected distributor. The establishment of a new body would be more costly and would reduce the funds available for distribution.

A key message from the committee was that the Government should consider how areas of particular social need might benefit from the funding. Members also wanted ministers to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of funding across Scotland. I was happy to agree then, and I still agree, with those sensible approaches. I will ensure that such questions are considered as part of our consultation with the third sector to determine Scotland's priorities for expenditure.

I am aware that colleagues in the Parliament and in third sector organisations throughout Scotland have strong opinions on which groups should have access to the money. Such opinions are reflected in the amendments that Mr Purvis lodged last week and today. We acknowledge the change of approach that is reflected in the amendment that he lodged today.

The Scottish Government is well aware of the value of youth work and the need for facilities for young people's activities. I am sure that in her closing speech the Minister for Schools and Skills will be keen to outline in full her support for the youth sector. However, we all know that there is always a need for additional funding right across the sector and right across Scotland and that there is always more to be done. Youth work is one area that could benefit from such funding, but many would say that their area has an equal need.

Over the past week, members will have received—as I have—representations from groups throughout Scotland who are keen to have their voices heard. Many of them were concerned that Mr Purvis's original amendment would lock out large swathes of the sector from the funding. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has expressed "grave concern" over the past week that the amendment on youth services could

"pre-empt proper discussion on how funding... is spent".

Today we are seeing progress. I understand from organisations throughout the sector that we have a real opportunity for cohesion. We had a good session on 7 January at which we had representatives of pretty much all the third sector in the room together. The cohesion is there. The third sector's ability to take on messages, such as those that it will detect from today's debate, is there in spades.

The Government is still enthusiastic to consult widely the entire sector to set its priorities. There might well be widespread support for funding youth work. It is only right that we give all areas the opportunity to be heard. Most of us are in politics for legacy purposes: to ensure that future generations have the best opportunities. I hope that that will be reflected as we proceed.

I am happy to support the Labour amendment, because I believe that it offers members a chance to form a consensus in the Parliament that reflects the cohesion among the third sector, which has been shown this week and in the session that we ran on 7 January. I said to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee that I wanted the third sector to come up with as many good ideas as possible so that we can back those with the best probability of success and the best outcomes. Jackie Baillie's amendment is consistent with that approach as it treats the sector as a cohesive, focused system with unifying environmental and social goals and encourages effective ideas to flow through the consultation process. I believe that the consultation will enjoy an even higher profile and higher participation rate as a result of what has happened over the past week.

I am conscious of the strong interest in the direction of funding among members and the third sector. If Parliament agrees to the motion and the Labour amendment, we will start work immediately to consult the sector and prepare the ground for deployment of these eagerly anticipated funds. I have rushed to get all that information on the record.

I move,

That the Parliament supports the principle of clauses in the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill, introduced in the House of Lords on 7 November 2007, providing for the collection and distribution of sums released from dormant bank and building society accounts for social and environmental purposes, and agrees that the provisions in the Bill that relate to the distribution of such sums in Scotland should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I rise to support the principles of the Government motion and to move the amendment in Jackie Baillie's name. No doubt the idea of a dormant bank account is a novel one for most of us, expect perhaps the minister. Throughout my life, my bank accounts have tended to be not so much dormant as near death. However, it has been well known for many years that a great deal of money is lying unused and unclaimed in dormant bank or building society accounts.

The UK legislation to which the LCM relates is a welcome solution, as it will release those resources so that they can be used for the greater good. It is entirely appropriate that the resources released be distributed to the nations of the UK and that in Scotland the Scottish ministers and this Parliament decide on their distribution. After all, the resources must be used for social and environmental purposes, which are devolved responsibilities, so any other arrangement would have been perverse.

I note the assurances that the minister gave the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and which he repeated today, that the income from this source will be separate—or, dare I say it, ring fenced—in the Big Lottery Fund. I also note his assurances to the committee and the Parliament about addressing concerns that committee members expressed about the fund's application and decision-making process.

Our amendment seeks to acknowledge the requirement for consultation about the distribution of funds, but also the widespread view that particular consideration should be given to the provision of youth services throughout Scotland. I doubt that there is a member present—whether they represent a constituency or a region—who cannot cite examples of the fact that youth-work facilities and services often struggle to compete with other causes for funds. Equally, every one of us can certainly describe the turning around of a young life or lives through patient care and selfless support and work, which is often done by volunteers and which usually reaches out beyond the formal structures of the education system.

Every young person who is supported thus to find their way in life becomes a driver of a better future for our country. That is important, because although the bill will create a revenue stream, it will begin with a windfall of the order of £40 million or more. Rather than simply being spent, a windfall should always be invested in something that gives us a future return, and investing in our young people would do exactly that. That is why we believe that there should be a presumption in favour of using the funds in that way and why we have great sympathy with Mr Purvis's amendment and the amendment that was lodged but not moved last week. We are still inclined to the view that the legislation requires a stronger acknowledgement than Mr Purvis's amendment provides, which is why our amendment seeks a balance. However, we will see how this morning's debate progresses.

I repeat that we believe that there should be a presumption in favour of using the funds to support youth work. We seek an assurance on that from the Minister for Schools and Skills, when she closes the debate, to allow us to decide how to vote at the end of the day.

Whether the legislative consent motion is amended or unamended, the bill is good legislation and considering the matter is a good, if short, morning's work.

I move amendment S3M-1200.1, to insert at end:

"and, in so doing, calls on ministers to ensure a full and open consultation involving all interests with a social or environmental purpose and, in particular, organisations providing services, facilities or opportunities to meet the needs of young people; notes that a further vote will be required in the Scottish Parliament, and calls on ministers to return to the Parliament at the conclusion of the consultation exercise for further consideration of the distribution of the funds not later than September 2008."

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

Thank you for selecting my amendment to be debated this morning, Presiding Officer.

In the past seven days, there have been four headline news stories in Scotland about youth crime and the need for action. Yesterday's budget, regrettably, saw the lowest investment in services for young people since devolution. The budget provides additional investment for the third sector overall, but that is not matched by commitments to services for young people.

Since the UK Government published its consultation paper on dormant bank accounts, the Liberal Democrats have believed that the windfall—as Iain Gray said, it is a windfall—presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest in services and facilities for young people throughout Scotland and make effective and lasting interventions.

Youth groups and projects in my constituency include UP2U, which is a peer-to-peer education group in Peebles, Gala Youth Project, and the dry bar in Selkirk. Youth groups throughout Scotland need investment in their facilities as well as continuing investment to enable them to sustain the excellent services that they provide. I am talking not about something abstract but about community action by young people for young people in our constituencies.

A rough estimate is that a windfall of some £40 million to Scotland would mean about £800,000 for the Borders, which I represent. We rarely get such a sum of money. Without the bill, there would be no prospect of that money being passed up to Scotland, as Mr Mather might have indicated. We now need to consider how to invest it.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Jeremy Purvis should be commended for underlining the importance of thinking about youth work in determining how the money is ultimately distributed, but is he not taking things a little too far by continuing to push once he has achieved that? Would it not be wrong if a conflict between parts of the voluntary sector was played out on the floor of the chamber in the form of last-minute amendments?

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

I am not sure whether Mr Harvie is saying that we are playing out anything in the chamber this morning. We are having a debate about the priorities for investment in Scotland.

We have said that we agree with the UK Government that the priority for the windfall is, as the bill states:

"meeting expenditure on or connected with the provision of services, facilities or opportunities to meet the needs of young people".

It would be disappointing if, at this stage, the Labour Party moved away from a position of which it has been consistently in favour—not just that there should be a presumption in favour of youth services, but that youth services should be a priority. The fact that something is a priority does not mean that other things are excluded. Perhaps Mr Harvie has been perpetuating that misinterpretation, but I hope not. The legislation is good, but we want it to send out a signal.

I noted that during the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee's consideration of the bill Brian Adam raised serious concerns about the distribution mechanism:

"Not all of us share your confidence in the Big Lottery Fund's capacity to redistribute the funds",

he said to the minister. He went on:

"I am concerned about how the distribution mechanism will pan out in practice."—[Official Report, Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 12 December 2007; c 389-90.]

So there needs to be consultation and a proper process but, as with the UK Government's approach to the bill, the priority must be to invest in young people. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

I hope that we will achieve consensus on that approach and that that will be reflected at decision time this afternoon.

I move, as an amendment to amendment S3M-1200.1, amendment S3M-1200.1.1, to insert after "young people;":

"believes that ministers should make a clear statement of intent as part of the consultation exercise that funding for children and young people's services is a priority, as was the case in the consultation launched by the UK Government".

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

The Scottish Conservatives strongly support the principle that banks' unclaimed assets should be put to good use, and we note that the British Bankers Association estimates that they total about £350 million UK-wide, of which approximately £40 million could come to Scotland. We strongly support the principle, and we support the Government's motion.

We welcome the reclaim fund that the bill establishes in case people turn up to reclaim their money. We have one or two concerns about the fact that the scheme is voluntary. There is no guarantee either that all banks will take part or that we will get the full £40 million. That, however, is a matter for my Westminster colleagues.

We have questions about the Big Lottery Fund, some of which were raised in committee by members of different parties. We note with concern the fact that last week money was taken away from the Big Lottery Fund for the Olympics, although that is again an issue for our colleagues in Westminster. Overall, the bill provides an excellent opportunity for social and environmental causes in Scotland and we are happy to support it.

I was pleased to hear in committee and again today that the minister intends to consult as widely as possible and I was happy with his assurance to me in committee that there would be maximum input from all parties across Scotland. Most importantly, he guaranteed that he would seek views from all over Scotland, not just the cities and the central belt. I hope that that guarantee can be reiterated in the closing speech.

The Conservative party has a difficulty with the Lib Dem amendment, as we did with last week's Lib Dem amendment. It would place a severe restriction, before any consultation, on how moneys could be spent. We also have a difficulty with how the Liberal Democrats went about their business. Mr Purvis says that the amendment is based on a long-held belief of the Liberal Democrats. The LCM went through two committees. The first was the Subordinate Legislation Committee, in which there was no comment on any amendment from the Liberal Democrats. That committee is chaired by a Liberal Democrat. The LCM was then sent to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, where there was a full discussion but no comment on any amendment from the Liberal Democrats. That committee, too, is chaired by a Liberal Democrat.

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

The member is accurate about the committee proceedings, but he will also be aware of the proceedings at First Minister's question time on 28 June last year and of the fact that Liberal Democrats in Westminster have put on record their position in support of the UK Government's priorities.

Incidentally, the member's party colleagues in Westminster have also agreed that priority can be given to youth services without prejudice to a consultation process. All that we are asking is that there is an approach in Scotland similar to that which his colleagues have accepted for England.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

The member misleads the chamber when he states that the money has been given only to youth services. There are at least three possibilities for it and, indeed, the Treasury Select Committee criticised the Government for unduly restricting what the money can be spent on.

Our biggest difficulty is with how the Liberal Democrats went about their business last week. They lodged a last-minute amendment about which civic Scotland was not informed. Any member contributing to the debate last week would have received a lot of representations from youth services and none from elsewhere in civic Scotland. Anyone speaking today can take a much more balanced view, having received representations from civic Scotland as a whole instead of from just youth services. The Liberal Democrats' approach was a last-minute ambush, and again this morning we see a last-minute amendment from them. Youth services should be well funded, but we have great difficulty with how the Liberal Democrats have gone about their business.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The legislative consent motion highlights the SNP Government's desire to co-operate with the Westminster Government at all times. I commend the minister on approaching the matter in such a positive way.

The LCM is all about accessing funds from dormant bank and building society accounts. The funds will be available from late 2009 or early 2010 and I sincerely hope that they will be exempt from the new 2012 Olympic sport, the London cash grab, which is restricted to Londoners and involves them peering into everyone else's pockets and grabbing as much lottery cash as they can.

In line with the aims of the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill, the Scottish Government's intention is to invest the funds for social and environmental purposes. The Big Lottery Fund—"Big", as it is known—will manage the funding.

Exactly who will benefit has been left open, as is required by clause 19(2) of the bill, which states:

"Before making an order under this section the Scottish Ministers shall consult the Big Lottery Fund and such other persons (if any) as they think appropriate."

As Labour members have now accepted that point in their amendment, it appears that—despite their bluster at the time—the Minister for Parliamentary Business, Bruce Crawford, did them a great favour when he withdrew the previous LCM last week.

Even Jeremy Purvis and the Lib Dems have seen the light—well, a bit of it—and amended the amendment that they lodged last week. That is sensible given that, as Gavin Brown said, when the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee considered the LCM on 12 December last year, it unanimously recommended it for approval on the basis that the funds be distributed for social and environmental purposes after an open and transparent consultation process. The committee's convener—well-known Lib Dem, Tavish Scott—made no mention then of any desire to restrict the funding to youth organisations alone, as the Lib Dem amendment sought to do last week. Now, youth organisations are only a priority for the Lib Dems.

So why have the Liberal Democrats had a sudden change of heart? Why have they abandoned their political mischief making? They certainly caused mischief by setting youth groups against the rest of the third sector. That is a recipe for division and dissent that serves no useful purpose—a bit like the Lib Dems themselves.

The Lib Dems' approach was also counter-productive, as many in the youth sector recognised. Let me quote extracts from just two e-mails that I received from constituents who are involved in youth work. First, Jane Cotton of Moray Youthstart wrote:

"As an officer supporting a wide range of front-line workers here in Moray, I would urge you to undertake consultations on the £40 million spend which would clarify where this money could make the most difference."

Secondly, Jennie Macfie of Glen Urquhart youth club, Glen Urquhart public hall, Glen Urquhart Rural Community Association and the arts network stated:

"While I am in favour of such monies being used to fund the third sector, it seems unfair for youth services to be the only ones to benefit."

Youth groups recognised the folly of last week's Lib Dem proposal. I am pleased that both Labour and, to a lesser extent, the Lib Dems have now seen sense.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I call Malcolm Chisholm. I am quite relaxed about timing, but he should keep his speech at around four minutes.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I will not detain Parliament for long as we are all looking forward to the long-awaited debate on health improvement. However, I will speak briefly in favour of the Labour amendment, which I believe achieves the right balance. Our amendment does not exclude the many voluntary sector organisations that might wish to benefit from the funds, but it places a particular emphasis on services for young people. That has struck a chord across Scotland.

The first concrete example of the dormant bank account issue that I came across was at a recent meeting of the cross-party group on Scottish contemporary music that was attended by Feargal Sharkey, who is the chair of the UK live music forum. He flagged up the fact that, in England, money has already been promised from the dormant bank account fund to provide rehearsal spaces and instrument lending for young people in disadvantaged communities. I know that all of us who attended the meeting—including several MSPs—were struck by that proposal. Of course, I would be the last person to say that we should copy England indiscriminately but, equally, I believe that if something good is happening in England, it is perfectly reasonable for us to pay attention to it.

The issue is serious. We know that 43 per cent of young people who want to participate in music are unable to do so because of a lack of facilities and prohibitive costs. Allocating some of the fund to the provision of rehearsal space for young people would be a good use of money.

I will flag up one more issue relating to young people and music. There has been good progress as a result of the youth music initiative. The distinguished and highly regarded chair of the Scottish Arts Council, Richard Holloway, is running a personal appeal for a pilot project in Raploch to bring together a large number of young people who would not normally have the opportunity to learn how to play an instrument to form an orchestra. I am impressed by his enthusiasm and the success of the experiment in Venezuela, and hope that the pilot can be considered as a recipient of some of the money that we are talking about. We all realise that there can be profound benefits for young people if they participate in music. Those who are not convinced by that argument should remember that grass-roots live music is the foundation of the music industry, which is one of the top five United Kingdom exporters.

I hope that, as part of the consultation, the minister will take on board the suggestions that I have made.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

We certainly had a torrid procedural dispute about the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill in the chamber last week, but I refute Gavin Brown's rather negative claim that a last-minute amendment has been lodged. That is not the case. As Jeremy Purvis illustrated, we have raised the matter a number of times, and our amendment was lodged in the normal way, in response to a Government motion. There is nothing last minute about it.

I am pleased to say that, on the whole, today's debate has been a bit more positive. I am grateful to both the Government and the Labour Party for helping to move us forward substantially.

The difference between Labour's amendment and the Liberal Democrats' amendment is not a difference of principle; it is a difference of emphasis and direction. I want to get rid of the idea that an attempt is being made to exclude the whole voluntary sector from consultation or participation. That was not the intention of the original amendment and that is not where we want to go.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

No. The member should let me finish, if he does not mind.

It is important to take a proportional and reasonable approach. Some £40 million is a reasonably substantial sum, but if it is spread around the world, it will dissipate into not very much. It represents a little bit more than £1 million for each council area. We all know that £1 million is a lot of money in personal terms, but it is fairly small beer for organisations. It does, however, allow for concentration within the bill's aims, which is what we are asking for.

A priority of the bill is explained in clause 17, which refers to

"meeting expenditure on or connected with the provision of services, facilities or opportunities to meet the needs of young people".

That is with regard to English expenditure, of course. We seek to echo that approach across the board.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Of course, clause 17 is much broader than clause 17(1)(a). Clause 17(1)(b), for example, refers to

"the development of individuals' ability to manage their finances"

and

"access to personal financial services",

and clause 17(1)(c) refers to money being distributed

"to a social investment wholesaler",

which is a person or body that supports third-sector organisations. Does the member accept that the clause is much broader than clause 17(1)(a)?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I accept that entirely, but we are talking about a priority in the bill and things going in a certain direction in England. We are proposing a sensible use of the prioritisation that is available to the Government and the Parliament in the bill.

I have tried to emphasise how modest the amount of money that we are talking about is if it is spread too widely; alternatively, we can focus it.

I commend the Government for its approach to early years learning, for example, and the emphasis on such matters in its rhetoric, but giving priority and opportunities to young people remains the single biggest need in Scotland. In some respects, they are the missing generation—people who go through the school system with all its merits and come out at the other end without the skills necessary to make progress. They are the people who can add to the Scottish economy, which I think appeals to Jim Mather very much.

The debate has been useful and we have moved the argument forward. If the Parliament unites today behind the Labour amendment, which the Government has said that it will accept, that will give a degree of focus. Our argument is that it does not go far enough and that we ought to firm up the wording a bit, leaving the elements about wider consultation of and access for other organisations but putting the focus squarely on the needs of young people and young people's services in Scotland. Jeremy Purvis has done the Parliament and the nation a service by focusing on the matter, and I am grateful to him for lodging the amendments to the Labour amendment and the original motion.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I am delighted to be back this week to speak in support of the amendment in the name of Jackie Baillie. I confess to being a bit bemused at what happened last week, but I am fairly new here. I am also glad to see that Mr Mather has accepted the Labour amendment. It is a first for me to agree with Jim Mather on something in the Parliament. Let us hope that we continue in that way.

I am a member of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. As Mr Mather said, it fell to us to question him before agreeing that a legislative consent motion should be brought to the Parliament. Several other members of the committee are in the chamber today. As one would expect with questions relating to cash for good causes, there was close scrutiny of what Mr Mather proposed, as he mentioned in his speech. He explained that Scotland could expect a windfall of £40 million as our share of the dormant bank account funds. He also explained that that was not an estimate of how much Scots have left lying in bank accounts, untouched for the past 15 years, but our proportional share of the UK total, which is to be distributed according to a Barnett-style formula.

The bill refers to the funds being divided among England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on a per capita basis. That seems to contradict the advice that was given to the committee by the minister's official, who, when he was questioned on that point, suggested that the bill referred to the division of the spoils according to "population-based formulae". It is fair to say that the members of the committee regarded that as meaning the Barnett formula. Given that there was some confusion on the matter, I wonder whether the minister can clear it up for us this morning.

As has been stated, the committee was also concerned—as was the minister himself, speaking as a constituency MSP—about how the Big Lottery Fund, the nominated distributor of the windfall, would allocate the moneys. I asked questions on the matter and have since been lobbied by the Big Lottery Fund, which has sought to advise me of the good works that it carries out, especially in my constituency. Mr Mather told us that the cash from dormant accounts would go into a separate fund with separate records and that there would be reports to the Parliament, which I hope goes some way towards addressing the points that have been made by Mr Purvis and the Liberals. In fairness to them, Mr Mather was less clear about the areas that would be targeted to benefit from the windfall. He told us that he would consult on the matter, and I welcome his assurances this morning that the meeting on 7 January—I think that is what he said—took place.

Mr Mather also said that a series of other meetings would be held throughout Scotland before the decisions were made about which specific areas or good causes should be selected to benefit from the disbursal of the dormant bank account funds. I am glad to hear that that will happen. Perhaps the minister will tell us when and where those meetings will take place. Again, that might address some of the issues that Mr Purvis and the Liberals have raised.

Indeed, it seems that the question of who should get the money is what caused the Government's problems last week. It grieves me slightly to say that Dave Thompson's speech this morning, in which he complained about Olympic lottery funds, jarred with the tone of the rest of the debate. I remind him gently that 300,000 Scots live in London, who, I am sure, will enjoy the Olympics as much as anyone else.

Labour believes that there is nothing wrong in saying that organisations that provide services for young people should be consulted. I am sure that they will be. Just before Christmas, we had an enjoyable members' business debate on a motion lodged by Robert Brown that celebrated the centenary of the scouting movement. I know from personal experience how difficult it is for uniformed organisations such as the Scout Association, Girlguiding Scotland and the Boys Brigade to raise money for their activities, especially in the more deprived parts of Scotland. I believe that the fund that we are discussing could help in that regard.

I await with interest the result of the minister's consultation exercise. I am sure that he will recall telling the committee that his basic criterion for expenditure was that it should have a social or environmental purpose; indeed, that is what is in the SNP motion. I venture to suggest that young people's organisations such as those to which I referred have a social purpose.

Given that the fund will be held in a separate account with a separate decision-making body, committee members were anxious to know whether the application procedures will be simplified. When the Minister for Schools and Skills sums up, I would be grateful if she could tell us whether that will be the case.

I am sure that all members could think of a number of good causes that could benefit from an injection of cash support. Indeed, as the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism said, members have received a number of briefings from organisations that are anxious not to see the door slammed in their face. The Labour amendment calls on ministers to come back to Parliament once their consultation is complete. I look forward to that and welcome the fact that ministers support our amendment. I hope that the Liberals are reassured enough to support it as well.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I start by dealing with the assurances for which members have asked.

Gavin Brown asked about consultation taking place across the country, and that will be the case. Funds will also be distributed across the country.

On Dave Thompson's point, the money is exempt from the London cash grab. An agreed condition of the arrangement with the banking sector is that the funds will be additional to public expenditure, so there will be a separate set of books and separate accounting by the Big Lottery Fund.

On David Whitton's points, the consultations will begin as soon as possible and we will publicise them as widely as possible.

I have been heartened to hear the positive responses to what is a good opportunity for Scotland's third sector. My colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, referred to our support for the youth sector and I reiterate our commitment to supporting that work.

This year, through YouthLink Scotland, the Scottish Government has invested £8 million in a year of action, made up of £5 million for the youth work facilities improvement fund, £2.5 million for the youth opportunities fund and £0.5 million for the voluntary organisation support fund. Those funds have had a big impact on the youth work sector by increasing capacity, improving facilities and funding more activities. The youth work facilities improvement fund has provided a massive, one-off, £5 million investment in equipment and building repairs to youth work facilities across Scotland.

We will continue to support youth work directly through the voluntary organisation support fund. That will help national organisations to provide better training and strengthen their capacity. From 2008-09, we will transfer the £2.5 million annual funding for the youth opportunities fund to local authorities so that they can decide how best to meet local needs.

That is not all. The Scottish Government will also provide approximately £5 million to 34 national voluntary youth organisations through the unified voluntary sector fund for 2007-10, including funding for youth work provision.

We are also using funds recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to increase opportunities and support a three-year initiative in conjunction with the Scottish Football Association to deliver national networks of three, four and five-a-side football activity, involving up to 9,600 young people per year, and expansion of the soccer one programme to S2 and S3 pupils, which will create up to 1,300 new school-based football teams involving up to 19,500 girls and boys. There will be much more.

I assure Iain Gray that we will ensure that real emphasis and focus are placed on youth work in the consultation process and the distribution of the funds. As Minister for Schools and Skills, I know full well the needs of young people, and I believe, as Iain Gray does, that investment in positive activity for young people as early as possible, as detailed by Malcolm Chisholm, will reduce the numbers that subsequently require more choices and chances. I give the member that guarantee.

It is simply not right for the Liberal Democrats to say that we do not support and value youth work—we do. However, we also recognise, support and value the sector's work on the environment and on supporting vulnerable people, with older people and in countless other areas. I totally agree with Robert Brown that young people will certainly be helped by any early intervention projects that the Big Lottery Fund can support.

By agreeing to this motion, members will not only allow the UK Government to confer additional powers and responsibilities on Scottish ministers but give the Parliament a further opportunity to consider how such powers will be exercised and to influence expenditure priorities through the affirmative resolution procedure.

The Government is grateful to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee for its unanimous support for the motion. I hope that members will agree that when the time comes to consider the amendments, giving the whole sector the chance to influence our priorities will prove the best and fairest approach.

Today's motion represents a good opportunity. I urge members to support it and the Labour amendment, which signals a change of approach.

Health Improvement

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on health improvement.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

When I published the "Better Health, Better Care" action plan before Christmas, I gave a commitment to Parliament that we would have an opportunity to debate health and health improvement. I am pleased to deliver on that promise today.

"Better Health, Better Care" sets out this Government's plans for a mutual and truly national health service that is used, paid for and owned by the Scottish people; that is built on the values of collaboration and co-operation; that has a very secure future in the public sector, and is not distracted by division and competition; that values patients and the public as drivers of change, not as barriers or hurdles to be got over; and that is local, with a very clear presumption against hospital centralisation.

Over the past few months, the Government has set in train a range of radical proposals that bring that vision for the NHS to life and that, I believe, will shape our national health service for a generation. Those proposals include a commitment to patient rights to ensure that we are all treated as genuine partners in our care; a consultation on a local health care bill to give the public a real voice in decision making; and a commitment to robust independent scrutiny of proposals for major service change to ensure that, in future, decisions are taken openly and transparently on the basis of the best evidence available.

As members are aware, the first reports of the independent scrutiny panels have already been published, and I am pleased to report that their findings clearly back up this Government's decision to save the accident and emergency units at Ayr hospital and Monklands hospital.

There is absolutely no doubt that this Government has put the NHS on the right track. However, as we—and, I hope, all members—know, simply treating ill health is no longer enough to meet our nation's needs. We must do much more to prevent ill health and promote well-being.

Let me turn to the action that this government is taking to improve health and tackle health inequalities. The Government and I are clear that reducing health inequalities is and must be our top priority. The gap between the richest and the poorest in our society is simply not acceptable, nor is it inevitable, but closing it will require significant action. We must take action to tackle the deep underlying causes of inequalities, to enable people to make healthy choices and to mobilise the vast range of skills and resources of the NHS to drive regeneration and social change.

"Better Health, Better Care" outlines a comprehensive programme of action to improve health and tackle inequalities. This Government will abolish prescription charges, ridding our country once and for all of a tax on ill health. We will launch a new wave of keep well pilots, which will support an additional 40,000 people in Fife, Grampian, Ayrshire and Arran, and Greater Glasgow and Clyde. We will also work with partners to introduce new and innovative approaches to anticipatory care. In April, the first of six new programmes that will offer support to around 45,000 people who live in Highland, Grampian, Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles—the well north programme—will get under way. Those initiatives will find new ways of engaging local people and will provide targeted support to tackle cardiovascular disease and other long-term conditions.

I am pleased to inform the Parliament that this Government will back its commitment to better health with real investment. Subject to the Parliament's ultimate approval of our budget, we will invest an additional £300 million in health improvement and better public health over the next three years. That is on top of the extra £12.5 million a year to strengthen primary health care in our most deprived communities. That new investment will support new approaches to tackling drug misuse, alcohol problems and smoking.

We will invest an extra £40 million to tackle Scotland's growing obesity problem. There is no doubt that obesity poses one of the biggest threats to our nation's long-term health. That is why we will make tackling it, particularly in early years, a key priority. The investment that I have announced today will support healthy weight, healthy eating and physical activity initiatives and will fund free fruit for pregnant mothers and pre-school children. It will also allow us to roll out counterweight—the adult obesity programme that is being piloted in keep well areas—throughout the country. In the spring, the Minister for Public Health will announce more of the detail of how that new money will be spent, in a comprehensive action plan to tackle obesity in Scotland.

Good health is about much more than the absence of disease; it requires good mental health as well. This Government has already delivered on its commitment to make dementia a national priority, by setting a new target for NHS boards that will ensure earlier detection, intervention and support for everyone who is affected.

We will also do more to improve support for people who suffer from depression, anxiety and stress. We will work with NHS 24 on a three-year programme to test telephone-based mental health cognitive behavioural therapy and guided self-help. We will fund the living life to the full initiative, which provides high-quality printed and web-based materials to people with anxiety and depression, and we will continue to work with the Royal College of General Practitioners to help NHS Scotland respond to what we all recognise is the complex interrelationship between depression, diabetes and coronary heart disease.

I am also pleased to confirm that we will continue to support and promote the employment within NHS Scotland of people who have had first-hand experience of living with mental illness. Personal experiences offer a huge and unique opportunity to drive change in the way that we design, deliver and follow up care interventions.

I hope that the action that I have outlined today will have the full support of the Parliament. All of us must recognise that improving health and reducing health inequalities cannot and should not be the sole preserve of the NHS. The NHS has a leading role to play, but other partners and agencies must play their part, too.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Although I welcome the £12.5 million for the most deprived areas, does the cabinet secretary accept that that is less than the money that was allocated four years ago for unmet need in deprived areas? Will she tell the chamber whether the unmet need pilots have been evaluated? If so, what conclusions has she drawn in terms of allocating further money to disadvantaged areas?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I do not accept that we are contributing less money to the issue. The £12.5 million is additional to the baseline figure that we inherited from the previous Government. It is a sign of this Government's commitment to ensuring that we evaluate and learn lessons from the approaches that we take and that we roll them out. I spoke about extending keep well and counterweight, which have been shown to work. We want more people in Scotland to have access to those methods and approaches.

Important though the role of the NHS is, it is not the only agency that has a part to play. That is why community health partnerships throughout Scotland will be able to draw on the new fairer Scotland fund, which will provide £145 million a year within the local government settlement to tackle poverty and deprivation. It is also why Shona Robison is leading a ministerial task force on health inequalities, in order to drive a true, cross-cutting approach to that national priority. In "Better Health, Better Care", we set out some of the early conclusions of the task force's work. Today, we publish a further update on progress.

I hope that there is no doubt about the importance that the Government attaches to improving health and tackling inequalities. However, in "Better Health, Better Care" we also set out an ambitious plan for improving quality in absolutely everything that we do. It replaces the myriad of separate waiting-time targets with a simple but ambitious 18-week standard from referral to treatment; renews the focus on patient safety and tackling health-care acquired infection; and offers a new approach to providing safe and sustainable services for people in remote and rural areas.

When I launched "Better Health, Better Care", I drew attention to the fact that we are fast approaching the 60th anniversary of the NHS in Scotland. From the very start, the NHS in Scotland was different. As a distinct legal entity that was created by a separate Scottish act of Parliament, it drew on Scotland's rich medical tradition. The service was supported by the medical profession from the outset—something that was not the case in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Sixty years on, "Better Health, Better Care" reaffirms the distinct nature of the Scottish health service. It presents a plan of action to reinvigorate the founding principles of the service. Our vision is for a service that meets Scotland's needs, is run on Scottish values and is owned by the Scottish people. I hope that the strategy commands the support of all members of the Scottish Parliament.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I welcome the fact that, at last, we have a health debate. Unfortunately, it has been cut short, but it is a health debate nonetheless.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

It was cut short by you.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

No, I do not think so.

I was about to be gracious in my acknowledgement—

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Dump that strategy, Margaret.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Do not worry; it will not last.

I was about to acknowledge the fact that the Government accepted our request for a debate on health improvement and found time for one. However, as usual, Nicola Sturgeon spoiled the atmosphere.

It is clear that the historic growth in health investment under Labour is under threat. Despite the many improvements that we have seen, once again—as Malcolm Chisholm pointed out—health expenditure faces real challenges.

I ask members to think for a moment about exactly what Labour and the Liberal Democrats achieved in terms of health expenditure when we were in power. We have to remember that Scotland was tagged as the sick man of Europe, yet Scotland led on the ban on smoking in public places. Deaths from killer diseases, with which Scotland was so identified, are all down. There have been deep and significant changes, and if I had the time I would list them all and give members the statistics.

We can all make easy jokes about deep-fried Mars Bars and the like, but as a Glaswegian I want to put on record that I am fed up with them. When Labour was in power, we brought about serious cultural shifts in food, diet and lifestyle in Scotland. Independent commentators praised our leadership and direction. The significant changes were achieved by leadership, by systematic investment and by delivering a message to the Scottish people. We had to be honest about what had to be done to bring about the necessary step changes.

Can that work be sustained? Scotland is at a juncture. If our health profile is to be altered profoundly, serious questions will have to be answered. I welcome many of the cabinet secretary's announcements this morning, but she will of course appreciate that we will interrogate her on them, as Malcolm Chisholm has just done.

I have a number of serious doubts about what is happening in the health portfolio. I will begin with a preliminary list that raises deep concerns about where this health secretary is taking Scotland. The first issue is quite staggering: the threat of closure is hanging over Scotland's healthy living centres. Those centres are aimed at our most deprived communities, to tackle fundamental issues on the front line—smoking, diet and physical activity. Closures of the centres are imminent, and I am staggered that no action has been taken. Redundancy notices have been issued, future planning has been stopped, services have been withdrawn and projects are losing staff.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I point out to Margaret Curran that the reason why some healthy living centres are in difficulty is that the previous Government—of which she was a member—failed to put them on a sustainable footing. It has been left to this Government to examine options to help those healthy living centres, which is exactly what we are doing now. Can Margaret Curran explain how the removal of £12.5 million from the e-health budget that Labour proposed could have been catered for, given that it would have cut screening programmes and progress on waiting times?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Ms Sturgeon, that was supposed to be an intervention, not a speech.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Yes, that was a speech, but it was supposed to be a short intervention. Perhaps Nicola Sturgeon will finally realise that part of being a minister is facing up to responsibilities and not always blaming other people. As we speak, months into her Administration we have the prospect of 200 full-time jobs being lost—

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Rubbish.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

And 300 part-time jobs being lost. I would be careful who you accuse of lying, Nicola. In addition, 3,000 volunteers—people who give of their own time—have been told to pack up and go. I hope that when she replies to this debate, Shona Robison will agree to Labour's demand this morning that the SNP should take immediate action to save the healthy living centres. The centres have said that they need a transitional fund of £10 million over two years to provide vital services. If the SNP does not protect the healthy living centres, it cannot be serious about dealing with health inequalities.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the member take an intervention?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I have no time. Ms Robison can make her point later.

I have further concerns about the way in which the Administration is handling health improvement. Smoking issues are important to Scotland, and the director of Action on Smoking and Health has expressed serious concerns that the smoking cessation budget is in decline. In West Lothian, where drug and alcohol services are important and have been given much credit, redundancy notices have been issued. On Monday, I visited an innovative and effective alcohol project in Aberdeen that may now have to reduce its services, thanks to the SNP. Only last week, the BBC showed graphic images of the consequences of alcohol use in Scotland. The Aberdeen project deals directly with street drunkenness but, months into the SNP Administration, its funding is under pressure. That would not have happened if Labour had been in power. With all the talk of cuts and job losses—and I could go on—it is no wonder that the Tories supported the SNP budget. We are back on familiar territory.

Nicola Sturgeon made strong commitments on the importance of preventive measures, for example the importance of physical activity in tackling obesity. I ask Ms Robison, when she replies, to tell us about her commitment to ensure that every pupil has two hours of quality physical education every week—or is that another sports commitment that will not be honoured?

At the heart of the health improvement debate is the fact that there is no point in fine words if services are being cut. There is no point in robbing Peter to pay Paul. There is no point in putting resources into one service if resources are being cut in deprived areas. Healthy living centres have made real changes where they have been needed most. Nicola Sturgeon said that she wants to make decisions on the basis of evidence. All those projects have been strongly evaluated throughout Scotland. I think that 71 jobs are at risk in Dundee. Why is the Government not taking action? That will threaten those projects. Will the hallmark of this Administration be the abandonment of investment that would give long-term results? Is the SNP interested only in the short term? The minister has serious questions to answer. Why are redundancy notices being sent out throughout Scotland? Why are 40 healthy living centres under threat? Why is she saying that she will tackle deprivation and deprived areas, while making redundant the very people who are already doing that?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

That is outrageous. Get a grip.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I remind members to be a wee bit careful about their language.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the debate on health improvement—it should always be on our agenda. I particularly welcome the extra £40 million to tackle obesity, and the increased emphasis on cognitive behavioural therapy, which will be welcome in remote and rural areas. The commitment to tackle diabetes and depression at an early stage is very good news indeed.

The SNP Government has enjoyed a honeymoon for almost nine months. It has been easy to blame Labour for health problems in Scotland—as if it did not have enough problems already. Responsibility and accountability are the hallmarks of government, and certain issues are now coming to the fore. First, there is the SNP's manifesto commitment to double the number of school nurses by 2011, which is now diluted. I quote:

"The exact number of school nurses employed in 2011 will depend on a number of factors yet to be determined."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 19 November 2007; S3W-6199.]

That is quite different from the clear manifesto commitment to double the number of school nurses.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

When Mary Scanlon asked me about that previously, I told her that we are developing a school-based health resource, which will include school nurses. She has an interest in mental health, so does she recognise that other staff may be required to back up that health resource in schools?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I recognise that many staff could back up that health resource, but I also recognise the Government's clear and concise manifesto commitment to double the number of school nurses. School nurses care for, advise and support children through their school years. They promote healthy lifestyles; provide health screening; support pupils with conditions such as asthma, diabetes, epilepsy and mental health problems; and work alongside teachers, social workers and other professionals to help to protect vulnerable children. Their role is crucial. Despite the warm words about early years and positive interventions, the SNP appears to have broken another promise.

How often did we hear the SNP in opposition say that it would end postcode prescribing? Yet after eight months of the SNP in government, postcode prescribing is alive and well in Scotland. A Sunday paper revealed that of the 25 new treatments that have been recommended in the past year—during which the SNP has been in Government for eight months—for conditions such as cancer, HIV, heroin addiction, osteoporosis and anaemia, a quarter are still not available in most areas. In fact, NHS Lothian is top of the list—or bottom, if you like—with 19 out of the 25 new treatments still not available. Tayside is the best, as always, with all but two of the new drugs available.

In the week in which we will debate kidney donations, a treatment for anaemic patients on kidney dialysis has been rejected by all NHS health boards except one—Grampian—despite enormous cost savings to the NHS, as well as benefit to patients.

There is also the matter of extended opening hours for general practices. Being an agreeable and consensual person, I supported the idea, although I must admit that no one had raised the issue with me before. I had assumed that the Government carried out research on the unmet needs of patients. I further assumed that there was a strong evidence base, but now I discover that there is no evidence base, at least not one that is known to GPs. In fact, all existing research comes from an English survey, which concluded that four people in every 100 said that they would like extended opening hours at evenings and weekends. The British Medical Association recognises that some people want access to their GPs outwith normal surgery hours. A BMA briefing paper on the issue states:

"The BMA was prepared to discuss a package that would have offered extended opening hours and improved quality within the current level of funding. Unfortunately Prime Minister Gordon Brown intervened and insisted on further extended doctor consultation time with limited flexibility and the sacrifice of evidence-based potential new areas of work in exchange for non-evidence-based government-driven, politically-motivated targets."

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You have one minute left.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The health secretary did not tell the Parliament or the people of Scotland that the extended opening hours for GPs came at the cost of preventive health care. For example, in its briefing the BMA referred to—

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Will the member give way?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am in my last minute.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

It is on a point of clarification.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary will see this in the BMA's briefing, which refers to better management of fractures, earlier diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis, more hospital admissions for fractures, better management of peripheral vascular disease and a new heart failure indicator. The SNP rejected all those new initiatives to improve the health of people in Scotland in order to pay for extended access, for which there is no sound evidence base, and just to follow Gordon Brown's line—the London line. The BMA has said that that is

"not in the spirit of collaboration and partnership".

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Health improvement is important, and no one can be in any doubt that anticipatory and preventive care is one of the most important aspects of health care for us all to take into account. Although the NHS is, properly, a demand-led service, if we do not tackle the increase in ill health it will undoubtedly become unsustainable. That is why the debate on preventive and anticipatory care, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Liberal Democrats, covers one of the most important aspects of shaping our health service in Scotland today.

I welcome this debate. No doubt, we will have a debate on a motion in the future. I also welcome the publication of the Government's paper "Better Health, Better Care", although it is not so much an action plan as an action timetable. It tells us that we are going to receive a lot of important reports throughout this year, including a smoking prevention action plan some time during the year; a strategy to tackle alcohol abuse by the spring; a national drugs strategy, also in the spring; and a food and health delivery plan at some other point in the year. The report of the ministerial task force on health inequalities will be received some time in May. That is all very welcome, but the cabinet secretary will appreciate that we have to await the details before we can properly decide whether we concur with her action and the line that she takes.

Liberal Democrats share with those with whom we served the sense that the previous Government took health improvement seriously and made a substantive contribution to improving Scotland's view on it. The smoking ban was a most significant measure, in terms of changing a culture. Earlier, the cabinet secretary talked about people's rights, but the smoking ban highlighted the other side of that coin, and helped people to understand that they also have responsibilities in relation to developing their health.

I hope that the Government will be able to make progress on heart disease and free eye and dental checks, because they are important. We have an opportunity to discern and track diseases at an earlier stage because of those checks. We support the continuation of the hungry for success programme.

Liberal Democrats acknowledge, like everyone, that community health partnerships, which were introduced by the previous Government, are not working as well as they should. They can play a much more important role than they currently do. In a briefing yesterday, the BMA said that it also sees CHPs as having the capacity to play a much more important role in preventive health services.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I agree strongly with the comment that Ross Finnie has just made. Does he accept that, although they are in their infancy, there are examples of effective and properly functioning community health partnerships, and that the challenge before us is to ensure that they all grow at the same rate and that best practice is replicated?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I accept that. However, it is disappointing that the disparity in Scotland is so great. That means that the collaboration that the cabinet secretary referred to earlier is not happening as it should.

There is a raft of important health issues, some of which the cabinet secretary referred to earlier, the key to which is the fundamental question of health inequalities. That issue concerns not only the NHS and health practitioners; it goes way beyond that. At the heart of the matter is the fact that, despite the substantial investment that has been made by successive Governments—including the Government of which I was a member—we still have difficulties bridging the gap. The levels and standards of health improve, but the gap remains, which disappoints us all. The issue is challenging, and it is not one on which any Government has a monopoly of wisdom.

We want to see flesh on the bones of the outline programme that has been set out in considerable detail by the Government. Progress must be made on determining whether children will be adequately supported in schools by school nurses—as Mary Scanlon said—and on increasing physical activity and doing more than we are currently doing on smoking, alcohol and drugs. All of those issues are critical. Liberal Democrats see health inequalities as the issue that we need to tackle.

I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary mentioned the important subject of mental health throughout the ages. For far too long, we have regarded mental health issues as affecting only the old. That has been a tragic misperception. The medical professions have always known otherwise. I also welcome the cabinet secretary's confirmation of what we all read in The Sun this morning, which is that she is launching a £40 million programme on obesity. I do not know whether that says anything about readers of The Sun—I would not wish to comment—but we know to whom the exclusive was given.

Health improvement is extraordinarily important. It is at the heart of whether we will be able to tackle the health problems in this country. I hope that the cabinet secretary will make progress on those issues and that we will have the opportunity to hold her to account in relation to the more detailed programmes that she brings forward.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We now move to the debate.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Scotland has some serious health issues, as I am sure all members agree. It is therefore incumbent on the Government of the day to work to improve the state of the nation's health. It will come as no surprise that I back the SNP Government's plans to improve the health of Scotland's citizens. I do not see how anyone could disagree with the following: a 19 per cent increase in investment in 2010-11, if the budget is passed; £90 million a year for the next three years to ensure that, by the end of 2011, nobody will wait longer than 18 weeks from referral by a general practitioner to treatment for routine conditions; £500 million a year to fund major new developments, such as the new children's hospital and the new Southern general hospital in Glasgow—

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I will not at the moment—maybe I will later on.

I do not see how anyone could disagree with making improvements at existing hospitals throughout Scotland, including Aberdeen royal infirmary, Borders general hospital, Raigmore hospital in Inverness and the Dumfries and Galloway infirmary; and working with partners to meet the mental health needs of serving and former armed forces personnel. That is not to mention the reduction in prescription charges leading to their abolition; the presumption against centralisation of hospital services; the creation of independent scrutiny panels; the retention of accident and emergency services at Ayr and Monklands hospitals; the increased funding for free personal care; a three-year investment of £54 million to fight the hospital superbugs; and the other announcements that the cabinet secretary made this morning.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am sorry, but I must make progress.

There are many more issues that I am sure will be discussed this morning. However, the items that I have highlighted alone prove that the SNP Government is committed to the health improvement of the nation and to the NHS in Scotland.

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

The member mentioned the concerns about the future investment in improvements to the Borders general hospital in my constituency. What are they?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am sure that they will be told to you in due course.

I will focus on the local health care bill, which will include provisions to implement the SNP manifesto commitment to ensure that health boards have a directly elected element. As someone who stays in Inverclyde, I know that the threat of services being removed from the Inverclyde royal hospital is never far away, nor is it far away in the case of the Vale of Leven hospital. The centralisation agenda for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde—and before that, NHS Argyll and Clyde—has been of extreme proportions. For example, the IRH and the Vale of Leven hospital have lost the consultant-led services in the maternity units, and we now have community midwife units. The number of births at those units has not been as high as was hoped for—but if the CMUs are not marketed to the public, how will the public know about them?

The introduction of the independent scrutiny panel proved to be successful, as it listened to all the arguments and produced a report recommending that the CMUs be kept open and that there should be a community education programme to inform the public about what a CMU is. At a public meeting in Greenock, I introduced comparison figures to the scrutiny panel comparing the CMUs at the IRH and the Vale of Leven hospital with those in Arbroath and Montrose in Tayside—[Interruption.]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Will members please check their mobile phones?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I do not have one with me.

Despite the vast differences in population, the number of births in Arbroath and Montrose was still vastly higher, and I wondered whether the health board had ever considered why. The health board's response to the scrutiny panel was to thank it but to say that it was still planning to consult on closing the CMUs and centralising them in Paisley. Whether the Royal Alexandria hospital could cope with the increased centralisation agenda is another issue entirely. It would not surprise me if the health board threatened cuts at the RAH if its centralisation agenda does not take place.

A further aspect of the debate concerns parking charges at hospitals, with which I, for one, do not agree—I have said so in the chamber and in the media. I welcome the announcement that the cabinet secretary made before Christmas that if charges are to be introduced, there should be a cap of £3 a day. That is a welcome step, and it shows an understanding about the importance of the issue.

The key part of Nicola Sturgeon's statement on parking charges was that health boards must prove that such charges are required. Following the cabinet secretary's announcement, I wrote to the health board to ask it specifically about traffic studies at the IRH, Vale of Leven hospital and the RAH in Paisley. One of my SNP colleagues, Councillor Kenny MacLaren from Paisley, had also written to the health board specifically about the RAH. The response is wonderful—it says:

"No specific traffic study has been carried out at the RAH ... There is also an issue with staff numbers and availability of parking spaces with the ratio being three staff members to each parking space".

That may well be the case, but there must surely be shift patterns, and not everyone works at the same time. In addition, not everyone owns or drives a car. Heaven forbid, but some people might even take public transport.

The response provided me with an answer on one location, but I will not be surprised if the responses on the IRH and the Vale of Leven hospital are similar. When will the board get the message that parking charges are not needed at the IRH, the Vale of Leven hospital or the RAH? Furthermore, the consultation took place before those three hospitals were part of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, so how can the imposition of charges be justified?

I have given members a flavour of why a local health care bill that provides for the direct election of a percentage of health board members offers a way forward that will improve health care in communities. I do not for a minute suggest that the direct election of health board members will create no problems in future—very few issues are without problems. However, if people who care about the health service and want normal services to be delivered locally have a say, health services and the health of the nation will improve. We cannot let the arrogance of health boards continue.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should finish now.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

We have a duty to the electorate to ensure that the health of the nation is much improved in four years' time. The Parliament has an opportunity to ensure that Scotland takes itself out of intensive care. The many proposals of the SNP Government will go a long way towards improving Scotland's health.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Before I call Ms Eadie, I remind members that we are running short of time. You are warned when you have a minute left and I can choose to switch off your microphones if you do not finish after six minutes.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I will try to behave myself and not overrun.

Labour introduced a new approach to public health in Scotland when it came into office in 1999. Labour's policy documents were notable because they acknowledged health inequalities. The focus was on life circumstances, lifestyles and health, and topics such as cancer, heart disease, strokes and mental health were at the core of our concerns, which was right. Labour ensured that there was a single system in the health service when it legislated to abolish trusts, which was the right thing to do.

Like my colleague Margaret Curran, I welcome this debate on health, but I deplore the fact that it is the first such debate in eight months. What has the SNP has been so afraid of that it has consistently refused to have a health debate? Given that health was at the core of the election campaign, the SNP has let us all down badly, particularly people in my constituency.

I agree entirely with Mary Scanlon's views about postcode prescribing, which is still evident in Scotland. I remember SNP members in the first and second sessions of the Parliament, including Shona Robison and Roseanna Cunningham, jumping up and down all over the place saying that it was outrageous that there was postcode prescribing. It is particularly concerning that postcode prescribing still happens when we consider new medicines that can transform people's lives, such as the new biologics medicines, which help people who have rheumatoid arthritis—I met a young lady who was in a wheelchair and is now able to go out and undertake a university degree, and there are many other such cases. It is evident from the e-mails in our inboxes that postcode prescribing is still taking place in Scotland.

On 16 December, there was a front page headline in Scotland on Sunday about cancer treatment. The leader article made it clear that there is a need for centralisation and centres of excellence if that leads to the best outcomes for patients. Everyone in Scotland who has a loved one who suffers from cancer is impatient to learn from the cabinet secretary how she will take forward that critical issue, but she has been silent about that and other killer diseases. There have been heart-rending cases throughout Scotland—I think that the Public Petitions Committee is about to consider one such case—and the issue's importance cannot be overemphasised.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the member give way?

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Not at the moment.

I support and welcome the Government's view on presumed consent in relation to kidney transplants.

On more parochial matters, infection across Scotland remains rampant. The SNP said after a short time in office that it would get to grips with the issue and announced major spending, which we welcomed. However, why has ward 12 of Lynebank hospital been closed for the past week, as we read in today's Dunfermline Press and West of Fife Advertiser? Why was another ward closed on 9 January? There are concerns about that. Why are some patients with superbugs in our local hospitals being allowed to be discharged without their concerns being addressed?

The cabinet secretary's party has been economical with the truth—to put it politely—given its broken promises. In April, prior to the elections in May, the SNP put at the core of its election campaign a promise, which was reported in the Dunfermline Press and West of Fife Advertiser, that it would not downgrade the Queen Margaret hospital but would return it to its former glory. The SNP's local hospital campaigner made that promise but, subsequently, I received a letter from the cabinet secretary in which she said that the SNP had no intention of delivering on that promise. That is a broken promise to the people of west Fife, part of which I represent.

The SNP Government came to power on the basis of a promise that it would be able to manage Scotland well. However, throughout Scotland 1,008 beds have been blocked—in Fife, 167 beds have been blocked. The cost of that for September was £2.5 million and the total cost for November and December was £4.4 million—the costs escalate. If beds are blocked, other patients are denied access to hospital.

The situation has occurred because the cabinet secretary's colleagues in local government in Fife have decided to cap the budgets. They have said that that was because of Fife Council's irresponsible actions last year; they said that the council could not manage the budget, which was a deplorable state of affairs. However, in fact, Fife Council returned £2.95 million to balances under Labour's administration. It took an informed decision to overspend on its social work budgets because they were demand led. We now have a situation in Fife where the most needy people in our communities, including babies and old people, are being turned away. That is a disgrace.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I thank the Scottish Government for providing an opportunity to debate health improvement in Scotland. I also thank the staff at the Edinburgh royal infirmary for treating me so well after I spilled soup on my hand yesterday.

As we have heard, we face significant challenges in improving the health of our society and, in particular, in reducing the inequalities that exist within and between our communities. Health to me, as to others, does not simply mean physical fitness. Mental well-being and overall quality of life need to be factored in when we are measuring how healthy any individual or society is.

I will focus on aspects of health improvement among two groups: the young people of Scotland and people in rural areas, especially the South of Scotland region, which I represent. Both groups have particular vulnerabilities and challenges and I am pleased to welcome the early steps that the Scottish Government is taking to improve their health and well-being.

Getting healthy practices right in the early years has benefits that last a lifetime—and a longer, healthier lifetime at that. The budget commits £32 million to specialist children's services, including cancer care and high-dependency specialties. The Government is committed to sustaining four major children's hospitals in Scotland, including new facilities in Glasgow and Edinburgh by 2012.

Healthy exercise is one of the best forms of preventive medicine as it keeps young people fit and healthy, builds strength and improves mental well-being. The Government has adopted an aim of increasing financial investment in the let's make Scotland more active strategy, which sets a target of 80 per cent of children attaining recommended levels of activity. Currently, around 25 per cent of boys and up to a third of girls are not meeting that target, so it is vital that the Government continues to invest in indoor and outdoor facilities that make it easy for children to keep fit. As we all know, exercise can help to tackle obesity, so we need to make healthy play for young people an attractive and easy option.

We all agree that the Commonwealth games will inspire a new generation of athletes in Scotland. I am just disappointed that, at such a crucial time, many Scottish MPs at Westminster have voted to divert lottery funding away from Scotland that could have been used to tackle obesity here.

Tackling a challenge such as obesity requires us to adopt many different approaches and it is good that a consensus is building about the importance of a healthy diet. I am particularly delighted with the Government's commitment to pilot free school meals.

However, diet includes both food and drink, and it is increasingly clear that alcoholic drink poses a threat to the health and well-being of Scotland's young people. Alcohol abuse can cause both short and long-term damage to physical and mental health. I welcome the Government's commitment to take concerted action to promote better understanding of the risks that are involved in binge drinking. In that area in particular, our approach to health improvement needs to go beyond straightforward management of the NHS and related resources. We need to tackle the cultural and societal trends that encourage and glamorise alcohol intake, such as the manufacture and marketing of sweet alcoholic drinks that are targeted specifically at young people.

At present, however, the Parliament and the Government can only do so much because there are constraints from Westminster in relation to the powers to alter alcohol taxation and to regulate advertising. If other parties genuinely support Scottish solutions to the challenges that Scotland faces, I hope that their contribution to the national conversation on our constitutional future will take the matter into account.

Many health challenges are best dealt with from a Scottish perspective, not least those in our rural communities, which often seem to be overlooked when it comes to health provision and improvement. People in rural areas often face particular difficulties, especially with access to services. I strongly welcome the steps that the Government is taking to meet those challenges, including the roll-out of NHS 24 to every mainland health board and the trial of walk-in appointment services in Lanarkshire and Lothian.

The decisions to save accident and emergency services at Monklands hospital and to stop car parking fees at NHS-run car parks—as mentioned by Stuart McMillan—will also benefit people in the south of Scotland who have to travel some distance to access hospital treatment.

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

Will the member give way?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Okay.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Please be brief, Mr Purvis.

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

The member will be aware that there is currently no charging at the Borders general hospital.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

It will stay that way.

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

I am pleased to hear that. However, if additional resources are being provided to subsidise hospitals that may well reduce charges or improve parking, should there be an equivalent arrangement for the Borders general hospital, which does not have charges at present?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The commitment from the Government is adequate. It saw that there was inequality because there were prohibitive car parking charges, including for NHS staff on lower wages.

There is undoubtedly a consensus about the need to improve the health of our nation, and there will surely be a debate about how to achieve that. I welcome the fresh approach that has been adopted by the Scottish Government which, as in all other areas of policy, is ambitious for our country's future.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

Health is an area of policy in which feelings run high, both in the chamber and among the public. Liberal Democrats have led the way in the policy area by advocating a preventive approach to health care to ensure much-needed improvements in the health of Scotland's people. Fortunately, other parties, including the SNP, are starting to heed the good advice that we have offered them on health improvement.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Thanks for that, Jim.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

You are welcome.

The forward-thinking Liberal Democrat view is not new to the Parliament. Indeed, major sections of our 2007 manifesto highlighted our commitments to recruit an extra 200 dentists, to double the funding for drug and alcohol treatment, and to seek an hour of physical activity a day for every child in Scotland, not just in school but at other times in their day.

Our manifesto is not the only place in which the Lib Dems have led the way on health. As part of the previous Government, we were the first party to support a smoking ban, and we led the way on introducing free eye and dental checks as well as on launching the hungry for success initiative to improve the quality of school meals.

It would be remiss of me in my role as shadow minister for communities and sport not to mention the health benefits that physical activity and sport can bring to people of all ages in Scotland. I recently got back into badminton and went skiing; those activities are part of my health care as well as being great fun.

The Government has made much of the role that sport can play in delivering health improvement. It is a pity, therefore, that it made such a botch-up of its flagship sports policy—abolishing sportscotland. We told the Government that it was misguided, and many people in sport delivered the same message, yet Stewart Maxwell still had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into an embarrassing U-turn on that key manifesto pledge. It was a Liberal Democrat-sponsored debate on 13 December that made the case for retaining sportscotland. We offered Parliament the opportunity to support the view, and it did so overwhelmingly. Rather than maturely accept the will of Parliament, Mr Maxwell threw the toys out of the pram and sacked the chairs of both sportscotland and the Scottish Institute of Sport in the most bitter and spiteful act carried out by the SNP Government—at least to date.

We have sought to focus on helping sportscotland to achieve its most important goals, not least that of encouraging participation, while the SNP has dithered, tinkered, backtracked, launched a consultation that seemed to exclude much of Scotland's sporting community and emerged with a discredited sports minister who stumbled on the right policy only after abandoning his manifesto commitment. There may be a lesson in that for the SNP.

The SNP manifesto also promised children free year-round access to council swimming pools. One would have thought that that was quite a straightforward proposal. Concerned to know whether that was still Government policy, I lodged a written question seeking confirmation on 16 November. Step forward Stewart Maxwell to provide the clarity and eloquence that have become his hallmark. I will not quote the whole 144 words of his answer—

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Oh, go on.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

I have the text here and Ms Sturgeon can read it later, although I am sure that she knows how to look it up.

Suffice it to say that that appears to be another ditched manifesto pledge. There is another tick in the broken-promises box.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am pleased to discuss health improvement. The debate is welcome as it allows us to highlight good practice as well as talk about the challenges that we face when trying to improve health. Labour has always prioritised health and health improvement. The smoking ban has had the highest profile, but there are many other initiatives.

Poverty can lead to the greatest health inequalities. If we are serious about improving health, we need to deal with poverty. A recent study has shown that unemployment is as detrimental to health as smoking 200 cigarettes a day. Labour's policy of full employment has always been one of the main levers in attacking poverty and promoting equality. The study underlines the importance of that approach to promoting not only economic but health equality. Unemployment is still disproportionately high in many of our most deprived communities. It is therefore no surprise that those communities also suffer poor health. We need to grow the confidence of those communities and encourage employers to recruit there.

In my Highlands and Islands constituency, poverty is difficult to identify due to the fact that the area is predominantly rural. Those living in poverty live in the same locality as their affluent neighbours. The indicators that Governments use to identify poverty are often based on urban communities and therefore hide rural poverty. Unemployment can be low, but that often masks the fact that people are working in more than one job to make ends meet. Those can be seasonal or part-time jobs, or indeed people can be self-employed.

Promoting health improvement is challenging in rural areas because of the dispersed population. It is difficult to access fresh food at a reasonable cost. Providing sporting facilities is also difficult with a dispersed population, although many areas are an exception. In Shetland, for example, providing sporting facilities in small and sparsely populated communities has been made a priority.

Despite the challenges, there are many good examples of projects in the Highlands and Islands that encourage participation in sport. Step it up Highland, which encourages people to take up walking, and the Highland cycling campaign, which promotes the health and economic benefits of cycling to people in the Highlands, are just two.

Another good initiative is run by GPs in Elgin, who prescribe membership of the Moray leisure centre to their patients whose health problems would benefit from more exercise. That cuts down on costly drugs and does not give rise to complex side effects. That must be used more widely to promote healthy lifestyles. That initiative is used in Moray to fight existing conditions, but we also need to look imaginatively at how it can be used to prevent such conditions. Again, those who live in affluent households can afford their own sport centre membership; those who live in poverty and who are in most need cannot.

Like Margaret Curran, I am concerned that many projects that have led the way on health improvement will end unless the Government steps in. Many lottery-funded projects throughout Scotland that promote healthy lifestyles will not be mainstreamed despite their proven success. One such example is the janny's hoose healthy living centre in Inverness, which is one of three such centres in Highland that promote healthy living in some of the region's most excluded areas. The centre provides a drop-in facility that offers advice and support to the community. Unfortunately, despite a big local campaign that was backed by the Inverness Courier, the last hope for saving the centre is to go back to the Big Lottery Fund with a new plan to seek to build on the centre's existing success. Surely the beauty of lottery funding is that it allows local government and central Government to test ideas and gauge their success without making a financial commitment. However, we need to look at how projects that have been successful are mainstreamed.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

What are the member's thoughts on the Scottish Labour MPs who voted to divert money away from Scotland to fund the Olympics? Does she think that the money would have been better spent in Scotland?

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The SNP is promoting a myth that Scotland will not benefit from the Olympics. That is wrong. If that is the Scottish Government's attitude, there is a lot to be worried about. We can benefit from spending on the Olympics, too.

Another award-winning project in my area is the Islay healthy living centre, which has provided assistance on smoking cessation as well as other health-promoting initiatives involving exercise and welfare. Both those healthy living projects serve hugely diverse communities, but they come from the grass roots and meet the needs of local people. It is ironic that, at a time when public health is so high on the agenda, such services are being removed from local communities. Will the Government, in its lauded concordat, ensure that local government and health boards adopt best practice in their approach to such projects and arrange funding for them?

In conclusion, it is not right in a modern society that people's life chances and life expectancy still depend on where they were born. Many of the challenges are obvious—poor diet, poverty, unemployment, cigarettes and alcohol—but knowing the problems is not the same as putting them right. We need to build on good initiatives such as the healthy living centres, promote healthy diets and lifestyles and ensure that they are available not just to those that can afford them. The public purse rightly invests in acute health provision, but we need to be willing to give the same investment to health promotion to reap the financial and social rewards further down the line.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Health improvement is a massive topic, so I will concentrate only on the vexed aspect of health inequality, which Governments over the years have tried to tackle with little success. Indeed, by some measurements, the health gap between rich and poor has steadily increased over recent years.

We all recognise, I hope, that major health improvements in our deprived communities can come about only through changes that are the responsibility not only of all Government departments but of wider society. The cabinet secretary recognised that earlier. Poverty, lack of education, the breakdown of families and poor nutrition are just some of the factors involved. However, the health service also has a part to play in fighting inequalities because, although the poorest in our communities are usually the least well, they are often let down by the treatment service that we provide.

At this point, members may feel that time for reflection has been rescheduled because I wish to draw their attention to the gospel according to St John. He describes how the first person—but only the first person—to enter the pool at Bethesda after an angel had disturbed the waters was cured of his or her illness. Members might feel that little has changed today. Like the waters of Bethesda, the health service is free of charge but is often subtly rationed. At Bethesda, those with certain complaints were unfairly advantaged because they could sprint to the pool in time; today, the same happens with people who have illnesses that command media attention. At Bethesda, it helped to have influential friends or relatives who could drag the sick person to the pool and perhaps get in the way of others and impede their progress; today, those who are lucky enough to have someone to advocate their cause are likely to benefit at the expense of those who have no such support.

So how do we begin to remedy that situation? Part of the solution lies in augmenting the numbers and resources of those whose job or vocation it is to look after the health needs of the disadvantaged.

The cabinet secretary is to be congratulated on continuing the roll-out of schemes that are directed at the poorest in our communities, such as the keep well scheme, but the health divide is bound to widen while resources and staff continue to be spread on a population basis rather than according to need, while the general practitioner contract makes it undesirable for doctors to work in impoverished areas and while vital services such as drop-in mental health clinics are always the first to suffer when cash is short.

Existing services need to be tailored to benefit those who are in most need; those people should not be handicapped, which they are at the moment. In some GP practices, the process for making appointments has changed little since those days of the pool at Bethesda. Appointment desks open at 8 o'clock and all routine appointments are taken up by 8.30 or even earlier, after which time people must wait to try again the next day. In the understandable drive to reduce the number of appointments at which people fail to turn up, many hospital clinics make people go through a series of hoops that weed out not only those who no longer need an appointment but those who cannot cope with the bureaucracy that is involved. Those at the bottom of society's pile find it more difficult to get child care to cover them when they have an appointment or to remember appointments amid the chaos of a disorganised lifestyle, but that does not mean that their health needs are less than those of others. Indeed, their health needs are often much greater.

Drug abuse and alcohol abuse affect all communities, but they are especially a problem in areas of deprivation. It would take a whole day—probably much longer indeed—to explore that topic in a meaningful way, so I will concentrate on one aspect of it. A Government response to drug and alcohol problems in recent years has been spending millions of pounds on funding area drug and alcohol teams on the ground that people with a drug problem usually also have an alcohol problem. The Health and Sport Committee was told that. However, when I wrote to Lothian NHS Board recently to ask it for the percentage of those who are being treated by the community drug-problem service who are also being treated for an alcohol problem, I was refused the information that I sought on the ground that it could not be extracted without undue work. Therefore, we do not know how many people have both drug and alcohol habits. Linking the two conditions in such a way inhibits tackling either condition appropriately, as they are very different in many ways.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does the member acknowledge that not only do many people have drug and alcohol problems, but many such people suffer from underlying mental health problems, such as depression?

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I totally agree with Mary Scanlon. People with drug and alcohol problems have many different problems.

More than 20 bodies in Lothian alone deal with drug and alcohol problems, but no one seems to know which of those bodies are effective or how much duplication of work takes place. However, I acknowledge and welcome the significant steps that have been taken today.

My message is that we should take a lesson from our treatment of local government. We should wean ourselves off central initiatives, pass funding to experienced health workers who are already in the community, and let them meet the needs—including mental health needs, which Mary Scanlon mentioned—that they can clearly identify but which overwhelm them now. In 35 years of working in a deprived community, I have seen scores of outside initiatives come and go with little long-term effect. It is time for a new approach.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate, particularly at such a crucial time for health care in Lanarkshire.

I want to raise three issues, the first of which is the possible outsourcing of occupational health services at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to an American firm. Constituents of mine who work in those services have approached me to ask for help to stop the threat of privatisation that is hanging over the excellent provision that exists. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing stated in "Better Health, Better Care" that the national health service in Scotland

"will remain firmly in the public sector"

and that her Government will

"distance NHSScotland still further from market orientated models."

Will she reassure my constituents that she will not allow Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board to privatise that provision in effect?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I assure Elaine Smith that I am aware of the issue and that I am considering it in detail. I will be happy to come back to her on the matter in more detail later.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that.

The report that was published last week by the panel that was established by the cabinet secretary to review proposals by Lanarkshire NHS Board states that

"the board has not made a convincing case for significant changes to emergency services."

That sounds innocuous, but what lies beneath that statement is the anguish, fear and anger of my constituents who, as I did, knew that there was no case for downgrading Monklands general hospital. However, with the honourable exception of Jim McCabe, the board chose to ignore all the submissions that pointed that out to them. The panel's observations are a pretty damning indictment of NHS Lanarkshire's proposals for Monklands.

Uncannily like my own submissions, the report points to skewed evidence, bias towards preferred options and flawed financial information alongside a seeming disregard for the opinions of consultees. I trust that the board will now do the right thing and remedy the situation at its meeting on 30 January, as Monklands general hospital must remain a level 3 general hospital. I also trust that the cabinet secretary will step in if that does not happen.

Although there is an understandable focus on acute services in the panel's report, it also acknowledges that the general health of the population will not be fundamentally improved through the acute hospitals sector alone. That is something that we all know. Primary care, community services and health promotion all have a key role to play in preventing health problems such as obesity, addiction and mental ill health. Those are areas that Labour considers to be of the highest priority.

My main focus today is on infant feeding. The need to support and promote breastfeeding is an issue that I raised in my original submission to NHS Lanarkshire, and it is a matter that needs urgent attention because it is a substantial weapon in the fight against ill health. It is also recognised as being important in "Better Health, Better Care". I would be grateful if the minister could tell us when we can expect the appointment of the infant feeding adviser to continue the excellent work of Jenny Warren.

The benefits of breastfeeding are well known and were rehearsed in Parliament during its scrutiny of my member's bill, the Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Bill, so I will not go into detail. Suffice it to say that we all know that breast is best and that it has the potential for huge health improvement, not only for mums and babies, but into later life. Unfortunately, I have heard anecdotal reports of the law being broken when women have been asked to leave premises in order to breastfeed. A campaign to raise awareness of the legislation would be welcome, and women who find themselves in that position should report the matter to the procurator fiscal.

Although the benefits of breastfeeding are well known, the perception is unfortunately that support for it is a Cinderella service in the health sector. We need more investment to encourage new mums to breastfeed and to sustain it for longer. I hope that the minister will be able to tell us what plans and funding are in place for this year's national breastfeeding awareness week, in May, which was supported by the previous Executive. I hope that she can also tell us whether the new money that has been announced will promote breastfeeding as an excellent way of tackling obesity in future generations.

One of the main threats to breastfeeding is the marketing of formula milk. I raise the topical issue of the new European Union regulations that are designed to toughen the rules on advertising infant formula and follow-on formula. Since 1995, the United Kingdom has had legislation to protect parents' right to receive objective and accurate information about feeding their babies. However, although that means that it is illegal to advertise formula milk for younger babies, it is not illegal to advertise the so-called follow-on milk for babies over six months old. By ensuring that their products for older and younger babies are almost identical, companies can automatically promote one type of milk by advertising the other. There is another loophole in that, although they are banned from putting formula milk brand names on the information that they give to mothers, they can get around that by making the logos almost identical to the brand names. Such aggressive marketing over many years must take some of the blame for the fall in the number of women who breastfeed.

In a recent debate at Westminster, David Kidney MP highlighted the way in which commercial pressure is undermining the legislation. He cited the vast sums of money that are involved and said:

"After all, the market is big money for the companies. The UK market in formula milk nearly trebled from £119 million in 1995 to £329 million in 2006."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 16 January 2008; Vol 470, c 281WH.]

There is an on-going case—which I would not have time to go into even if I were able to do so—in which the new EU regulations are being challenged. However, I am pleased to note that the negative instrument that will implement the European directives on infant formula and follow-on formula was debated and agreed at the Health and Sport Committee last week.

Obviously, parents must make up their own minds about feeding, but it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that that their choice is well informed. We could market breastfeeding to the same extent as formula milk, which would go a long way towards improving the health outcomes of future generations. I hope that the minister will give that suggestion serious consideration.

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

This has, by and large, been a well-tempered and informative debate, and I have listened with great interest. I will make my remarks based on the order in which we heard speeches.

The cabinet secretary talked about "Better Health, Better Care" and the spirit of collaboration and co-operation. To quote her, she said that patients and the public will be "drivers of change". Such themes should be welcomed.

I listened with interest to the points about hospital centralisation, and I see them as being entirely laudable, coming from where I come from. However, I would like to see more services being taken out of the centre and, where appropriate, being put into some of the more remote hospitals. Of course, there is a judgment to be made about which services should be more central and which should not. Perhaps that is what Helen Eadie was alluding to when she talked about cancer treatment. When it comes to oncology, there might be a debate to be had about that, if we are to be absolutely honest.

I welcome much of what Nicola Sturgeon said. I like the idea of safe and sustainable services for people who live in remote and rural areas; my constituents will welcome that.

Margaret Curran set a theme that was followed up by Ross Finnie. To be quite honest, great improvements were made to the health service during the lifetime of the previous Administration. The question is whether the current Administration can sustain and continue that. All right-thinking people will welcome its endeavours in that direction.

Mary Scanlon welcomed, as I am sure we all do, the £40 million that is being spent on tackling obesity. Mr Finnie rightly drew attention to the curious fact that that was announced in this morning's edition of The Sun, but I will draw no more conclusions from that than Mr Finnie did.

Mary Scanlon was interesting on the subject of school nurses, and although I accept the point that it is mainly a Borders issue, if we are to progress with improvements in health, we must start with the youngest people. The unfortunate spread of human head lice, which are rife in all schools—pediculus capitis is one Latin name that I know—is to do with the fact that there is no regular school nurse to check as might have been the case when older members like me were at school. That is a manifesto commitment on which the Government should strive to deliver as much as it can.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Does Jamie Stone agree that promoting breastfeeding to younger children is also important? The only breastfeeding doll that I have ever seen is the one that is sitting in my office in this building.

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

I concur with what Elaine Smith says.

I mentioned what Mr Finnie said earlier. He also mentioned the importance of the hungry for success programme. I have gone on record to say that it is hugely important to build on that in the future. There have been successes, particularly in primary schools, although there have not been so many in the secondary schools. I take some comfort from the fact that primary pupils will, sooner or later, become secondary pupils. The initiative has to be built on and we must continue to deliver on it. I will mention local food—I would, wouldn't I?—and its being delivered for hungry for success.

I liked Mr Finnie's phrase

"mental health throughout the ages".

That theme is worth remembering.

I commend Stuart McMillan for what he said. He struck a chord with me when he mentioned consultant-led maternity services spread throughout Scotland. I will copy Ian McKee and quote the Bible by saying: Lo! It is

"Jehu ... for he driveth furiously".

If consultant-led maternity services were taken out of Caithness and sent to Raigmore, and only Raigmore, we would have a huge issue with distance and people having to drive pregnant mums there and babies being delivered in lay-bys. That was always our great fear. However, we are where we are and we have that service, which we appreciate very much.

Stuart McMillan also mentioned parking charges at hospitals. I concur with what he said and draw the cabinet secretary's attention to the fact that the number of spaces for disabled drivers is often inadequate at hospitals or, worse still, they are occupied by people who do not hold or display disabled cards. That is a cause of huge discontent in my constituency.

I have already referred to Helen Eadie's contribution about cancer. Aileen Campbell quite rightly referred to young people and people in rural areas. She particularly mentioned indoor and outdoor facilities for leisure or exercise. Coverage is patchy throughout Scotland—Caithness is certainly badly off for facilities—so I recommend that the cabinet secretary co-ordinate with her colleagues on the issue and perhaps carry out an audit.

Jim Tolson reminded Parliament that the SNP has taken up many policies that we thought up first, and he told us the interesting fact that he skis and plays badminton—I presume not simultaneously. Rhoda Grant talked about poverty and employment, and in his very thoughtful speech Ian McKee wisely pointed out that health and inequality are interlinked.

In conclusion, I must highlight an issue that I have already raised in writing with the cabinet secretary. Recently, several of my constituents who were taken for treatment—particularly heart treatment—well out of the area had to make their own way back to the north Highlands when they were allowed to leave hospital. In one case, a 76-year-old widow who was brought to Edinburgh to have a stent inserted was told that she had to make her own way home. I am not trying to be a Goody Two-shoes over this issue—it might well have been happening under the previous Administration—but I must draw it to the cabinet secretary's attention. It is utterly unacceptable that such a thing should happen in this day and age.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

In my summing up, I want to highlight two themes. First, I reiterate my conviction that by introducing an independent scrutiny process the cabinet secretary has done more than any of her recent predecessors in the Scottish Parliament to re-engage with public mood and will in the delivery of critical health services. What a liberating act that move has been. After a cautious start, in which medical opinion held back in the wake of public protest, we now find—according to The Herald— a widespread change in clinical, medical and expert opinion on the former Labour-Liberal Administration's strategy and its brutally blinkered adherence to it. As a result of the cabinet secretary's courage and leadership, those who felt intimidated now feel emboldened. We should not ignore what they have to say.

The cabinet secretary's conduct since May stands in sunny contrast to that of Labour members, who have been scurrying around the country and beating their chests with magisterial indignation about problems in the health service for which their party is directly responsible. We need only witness Margaret Curran's contrived anger as she desperately tried to distance herself from her own Government's shortcomings—in a record that, I have to say, is not without merit—and to pin the blame for anything and everything on the SNP. The SNP must now be held to account, as Mary Scanlon and others have done this morning, for its own record in office, not for Labour's mistakes in Government. Why does Labour continue to confuse anger at losing office with opposition?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Jackson Carlaw does not know me terribly well, so I assure him that although I might show it regularly, my anger is rarely "contrived". It is usually quite heartfelt and genuine.

My point is that Labour in government would have taken decisive action to save projects to tackle health improvement. Does Jackson Carlaw agree that, when faced with the prospect of losing 200 full-time jobs in such services, the cabinet secretary must take action?

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have already said that the Government must be held to account for its record. I have to wonder what Labour members think is the reason why they lost the election. They have to wake up to the fact that it was partly because of the way in which the cabinet secretary's predecessor went around the country, beating his chest and saying, "Vote for us—we're going to close down critical primary care facilities." Those of us in the West of Scotland who have expressed the gravest reservations about the primary care proposal that is being visited on Glasgow now have legitimate reason to wonder whether that process must be reviewed urgently. Although I accept and fear that we are too far down the road for profound change, surely we have not gone too far for significant marginal change. We need an independent scrutiny process to validate what is being done and to establish whether delivery is on schedule and is proving practical. For example, where are the detailed transport infrastructure plans on which lives will depend? Why are people in Glasgow being denied a scrutiny process that has been granted to their neighbours in the Clyde area?

I lend my party's support to aid the cabinet secretary's resolve. It seems that some health boards hope that her time in office will be brief, so that they can resume their normal, old style ivory-tower establishment practices. When the crunch comes—as it will soon enough—she must face it down. We welcomed the consultation on public participation through direct elections to health board and, when the Government made its statement before Christmas, I highlighted the issues that we feel need to be underpinned.

My second theme is men: Scottish men, in particular, their attitude to their health and, indeed, the attitude of all those who promote men in the arguments over health. In essence, men have become recklessly disengaged from the debate about their own health. Whenever they feature, they are too often portrayed as boozed-up wife or child beaters or as emaciated victims of chain smoking. With regard to sexual health, men will likely feature only if they are gay, as if only gay men are at risk. Last week, for example, when the latest statistics on chlamydia were reviewed, every newspaper that I saw accompanied the report with a picture of a woman, as if chlamydia is a sexual disease that women spread by some form of osmosis, without the involvement of men. My understanding is that that is not so.

When it comes to prostate cancer, 66 per cent of Scottish men do not even know where the prostate is. Many men cannot even say the word "prostate", but confuse it with "prostrate", a position in which some men may from time to time find themselves, but which is quite definitely a different thing.

When it comes to testicular cancer, men would sooner don their pinny for a spot of housework or learn to dance the tango than contemplate self-examination, let alone discuss it. In a nutshell—for want of a better phrase—men are dying because they have failed to get organised in anything like the way women have over the health matters that are most pressing for them.

When I raised that issue with the cabinet secretary, she sought to reassure me that all screening programmes are entered into on the basis of sound advice, but that is only partly true, I think. It would be foolish to deny that lives have been saved not only through breast cancer and cervical cancer screening, but as a result of a well-organised and sustained campaign over many years by women and on behalf of women. That is quite right, too—I make no complaint—but where are the men who are prepared to champion their cause?

One in 14 Scottish men will die of lung cancer, but one in 15 will die of prostate cancer. Every year in Scotland, some 2,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer, 800 of whom die. Worryingly, the increase in the disease's incidence is in men in their 50s. In the United States, 70 per cent of all men know their PSA—prostate specific antigen—score, and their partners know it, too. Any man who is over 50 should know his PSA score. It is not a perfect test—it is understood that we cannot rely on it—but it is indicative of the disease. What is stopping us promoting an investigation of prostate cancer? I do not seek to make a party-political point on the issue. Indeed, in recent years the Labour Party has been the only party to have referred to prostrate cancer in an election manifesto, but it was the Labour Government that decided against screening.

A national effort to improve the health of Scotland is being prepared and embraced on numerous fronts. Scots men need to wake up and join the campaign for a culture that puts the discussion of their health and detection of the diseases that threaten their lives on an equal footing with the discussion of the health, and the detection of the life-threatening diseases, of Scots women.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The debate has two levels: to look at the development of health in Scotland and to hold the Government to account on the particulars. Over the past few days, it has become clear that we face a Government that has introduced a regressive budget and which has chosen tax cuts over development of services. What are the consequences of that for health?

The consequences are that the territorial boards face a £270 million reduction in their share of the money. Wanless reckoned that a 4 per cent increase in funding was needed to sustain growth in the health service at a reasonable level but, in real terms, the amount of cash that the territorial boards receive will increase by only 0.5 per cent. When the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth were asked about that at the Health and Sport Committee, they said, "Oh yes, but all the ring-fenced money will go back to the boards, which will make up the difference." That might be true, were it not for the fact that the Government has announced many new initiatives—which we welcome.

We welcome the fact that it has continued Labour's commitment to the 18-week waiting-time target, which is costly to meet. Its agreement to provide the human papillomavirus vaccination programme for girls and to introduce colon cancer screening are also welcome, but they will also cost a lot of money.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Will the member take an intervention?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry, but I will not. The cabinet secretary can respond through the summing-up speech.

The provision of £85 million over four years to address alcohol issues is most welcome, as is the £40 million that will be allocated to tackling obesity. However, central services must still be maintained and that will be a problem, given the shifting of money to ring-fenced elements. Hang on—have we not been told that ring fencing is complete anathema to this Government? In health, it is introducing more ring fencing. I wonder where we are going.

Let us examine the budgets that have been flatlined or cut. The change and innovation budget is fundamental to the redesign of services, but even though Audit Scotland has told us that the up-front costs of many redesign projects are significant, that budget is being cut over the next three years. How will that produce a health improvement?

The smoking ban was the flagship of the previous Administration, which put substantial moneys into tackling smoking but, under the SNP, the relevant budget will be flatlined for three years. According to the figures that I have today received from Action on Smoking and Health, that amounts to a real-terms reduction in funding of 8 per cent. What does that say about tackling one of the greatest problems we continue to face, which is smoking? It is a real problem.

Ross Finnie referred to the community health partnerships in a thoughtful speech. The CHPs are absolutely fundamental. As the cabinet secretary said, they are still in the early stages, but she made not one single substantive mention of CHPs and yet they are fundamental to the shift from acute to community care.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

rose—

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I turn to Kerr. Again, the Kerr report was not mentioned. Why? The answer lies in the speeches that we heard from back-bench SNP members—and from Jackson Carlaw. Kerr is now dead. It is a dead duck. The SNP Government has rebadged it as centralisation, not modernisation, and has gone public with that view. The situation is unacceptable. I accept that we must continue to modernise, but why has the Government cut the change and innovation budget?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Will the member take an intervention?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No.

I find it extraordinary that the SNP is going to adopt the English system of 24-hour access to general practice.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Rubbish!

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If that is not the case, the cabinet secretary should tell me in her summing up.

The British Medical Association has told us that we will adopt 24-hour access. Scottish Government under Labour said that it would go for 48-hour access to health professionals, and that has worked extremely well. Ian McKee rightly drew attention to the central problem—the general practice booking system, which has created major difficulties. That is what we need to focus on, particularly in deprived communities.

I welcome a number of areas that the cabinet secretary addressed. Indeed, I welcome the rhetoric in "Better Health, Better Care", although I see no sign of delivery. We were not given the health indicators until after the budget document was produced, which made the document difficult to analyse.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

rose—

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary need not wave the document at me; I have read it.

I turn to mental health. Many funds have been shifted to the local authorities. I will wait to see what outcome measure the local authorities will have to meet. The only outcome measure or indicator for mental health is the new mental well-being survey. What will it do to address severe and enduring mental illness? What will it do to address health inequalities and the significant problems of mental health, drugs and alcohol in deprived communities? What will it do to hold health boards responsible?

I turn to consultation. We have had a preview of independent scrutiny in the two independent panels that reported recently. I read the 127-page report on Monklands when I was unwell in bed recently. It did not make me feel better; it made me feel considerably worse. The report criticised NHS Lanarkshire for using references that were 20 years old and for basing its references on international experience. I would have had no problem with that criticism if the independent scrutiny committee report's authors had gone on to produce newer references and evidence, but the report contains not one single piece of referenced evidence. If that is what independent scrutiny committees are going to produce in attacking health boards that have tried to do their best, we have a real problem. If the cabinet secretary is going to have such committees to protect her from having to make difficult decisions, we must have referenced evidence. That was not the case in Andrew Walker's report on NHS Lanarkshire, which I find extremely disappointing.

I turn to the healthy living alliance and healthy living centres, which the cabinet secretary did not address either, although that needs to be done. Initially, the alliance was established with lottery funding, which is appropriate in the case of pilots in which we are testing a measure. However, in Northern Ireland, which has 19 healthy living centres, all 19 centres have been retained. At present, six such centres have been closed in Scotland and another 40 are under threat. Money is needed to sustain those centres, which are often to be found in deprived communities.

The rhetoric is that we have a public health service that is free at the point of need and in which there is no competitive tendering. However, competitive tendering has just been introduced in West Lothian, where I worked for the past four years when I was out of Parliament. The process is based on outcomes of which I approve entirely. We need to move in that direction; services must be related to outcomes. However, in West Lothian, the situation is now one in which competitive tendering has produced bids of £2 million, against a fund of only £935,000.

As of this moment, the West Lothian Drug and Alcohol Service—the prime voluntary organisation in West Lothian—has given redundancy notices to half its staff. It has no idea where its funding will come from after April. Those are the realities that the minister has to grapple with and that is what being in Government is about. She has allowed competitive tendering to start and to develop; I ask her now to ensure that it stops in relation to drug and alcohol services.

The Government's "Better Health, Better Care" document is very welcome. Its general approach and thrust, and its emphasis on health development and on partnership and mutuality are entirely appropriate. However, we will test the Government on the reality. The elements that we have seen so far are not great, not significant and not many—it has been only eight months—but already the cracks are beginning to appear. Government is about ensuring that rhetoric and reality match.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The only cracks that are appearing are between the Labour front bench and the Labour back bench. That is true on many issues. Independent scrutiny is just one of them, and it has been welcomed by many Labour back benchers.

Some good speeches have been made today and some pertinent issues have been addressed. Ian McKee analysed the challenges of dealing with health inequalities, as did Ross Finnie. A difficulty arises when we improve the health of the general population but the gap widens between the better-off and the least well-off. That is a challenge for every Government. Jackson Carlaw supported independent scrutiny, which is very welcome. He also gave us some food for thought on men's health.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

No—not at the moment.

The debate also contained some rather ill-informed comments, to which I will return later. This Government's ambition for a healthier Scotland requires us to focus on the challenge of reducing health inequalities. Our health services have to be fair for all and sensitive to the needs of the people whom they serve. The services have to reach out to communities that might otherwise be excluded. We have to work in partnership to tackle inequalities in the broadest sense and enable people to sustain their health over the longer term. That is why we are investing £300 million. I will repeat that: we are investing an additional £300 million over the next three years for health improvement. For anyone to say that that is not a significant investment is quite incredible.

The ministerial task force that I have the privilege of leading is engaged in important work on which it will report to the Cabinet in May 2008. The progress report that we have published today reflects the focus that our work places on the early years of a child's life; on the economic, social and health burden that is imposed by mental illness, which I know is an important issue for Mary Scanlon; on the big killers such as cardiovascular disease and cancer; and on the problems that are caused by drugs and alcohol, which include their links to violence among young men. I encourage members to look at the progress report. There will be much work to do as we come up with practical ideas on how to build up the resilience and capacity among individuals, families and communities so that we can improve their health and reduce factors in the physical and social environments that would otherwise perpetuate inequalities. That will be a big challenge for us; it is a challenge on which I am privileged to be leading.

Pages of "Better Health, Better Care" very much build on the Kerr principles and show the benefits of co-ordinated action across Government. We will make progress on that. We want a mutual service in which patients, carers and staff are recognised as owners with all the rights and responsibilities that that brings: a voice in the boardroom, a voice in the treatment room, the chance to be a partner in the design and delivery of care, the right to be treated with respect and, in turn, the responsibility to respect the service that is being provided.

The further rollout of the keep well initiative represents a significant increase in the provision of primary care in our most deprived communities, and is a genuine attempt to identify and treat preventable ill health in those areas. We will shortly extend our approach to anticipatory care to remote and rural areas, with the launch of the well north programme, which I know will be of interest to many members.

I will turn to some of the speeches. I say to Margaret Curran in all sincerity that hers was, for a number of reasons, one of the most negative and ill-informed speeches I have heard from her. Not for the first time, she contradicted many of her back benchers—more, in fact, than she does the SNP. She has to get more on top of her brief.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Will you take an intervention, Shona?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I will let you in in a minute, Margaret.

I shall answer some of the specific things that she said. On smoking, I say to Margaret Curran and Richard Simpson that we are investing £11 million over the next three years to take forward the five-year action plan on tobacco control—something that has been warmly welcomed by ASH Scotland and many others. On the healthy living centres, I ask Margaret Curran to reflect for a moment on how many occasions when she was a minister did she intervene to save local projects directly. That will be an interesting one to analyse. I was told on frequent occasions that it was down to local funders to resolve such issues, whether they be health boards or local authorities. Unlike the previous Administration, we have met the healthy living centre alliance and we have given a commitment to consider the options for sustainability of their projects—far more than your Administration would ever have done, Margaret. I will let you in on that point.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I ask all front benchers to avoid using the second person.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I have two points to make. The first is about healthy living centres and the 200 jobs. The Government should take immediate action. The centres would not have been under threat if Labour had been in power. Labour prioritised deprived areas. We were the ones who did that. The Government will be judged on whether it saves those centres.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Quickly, please

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am sorry, I stand corrected. My second point is that I think that the minister said that ASH directly welcomed the funding on smoking cessation. Can I quote directly from ASH—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, not in an intervention, Mrs Curran. I think that you have had long enough.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

"No"? I am deeply disappointed. That is not fair.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Shona Robison.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Thank you—

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am deeply disappointed.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order. The intervention was long enough.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It had better be a point of order, Mrs Curran.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

It is a point of order. I am very threatened by you, but it is a point of order. I do not think that it is appropriate that you stopped me when I was midway through my intervention.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am afraid that I am the judge of what is appropriate here. Shona Robison.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I think that you are being prejudiced from the chair.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I say to Margaret Curran that I have no recollection of her Administration ever saving any project for which Big Lottery funding had ended. You have no track record on that whatever. Unlike your performance, this Government is prepared to consider the future of healthy living centres, which is why we have already met the healthy living centre alliance to discuss the options—something your Administration would never have done.

I turn to some important points that Mary Scanlon made, and will pick her up on one point. She mentioned GP contracts and negotiations. The BMA briefing that I have—it may be a different one to the one Mary Scanlon has—states:

"The BMA's Scottish General Practitioners Committee has been involved in discussions with the Scottish Government on the issues of flexible access to GP services in Scotland."

Those discussions have been very constructive and we intend to take them forward.

I say to Helen Eadie—not for the first time—that we expect all local partners, in Fife and elsewhere, to meet the delayed discharge target of six weeks this year. Of course, we expect that to happen in all locations.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

We had that last year.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

It will happen in Fife—despite Helen Eadie's scaremongering—as it will happen everywhere else.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You must finish now, minister.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I reassure Elaine Smith that the infant feeding co-ordinator job is advertised. Interviews will take place by the end of February. I am sure that she will welcome that.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wonder whether it is in order for the Minister for Public Health to say that ASH welcomed her announcement, given that, in a press release on 11 December, the chief executive of ASH Scotland said:

"I am deeply disappointed that the funding for smoking cessation services in Scotland will not be increased over the next three years. An increase in funding was necessary to tackle Scotland's smoking habit, but instead in real terms the government has given us a decrease."

Is it reasonable to offer the minister an opportunity to correct what she said about ASH welcoming the announcement?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

It is in order for the minister to say what she said.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it has made in establishing the national economic forum. (S3O-2024)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am pleased to say that the first meeting of the national economic forum will take place on Wednesday 6 February in the Royal College of Physicians in Edinburgh.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I note that the first meeting of the national economic forum will be attended by about 120 participants. I am unconvinced—as are a few others, I am sure—that a body of that size, or even close to it, will be able effectively to influence the Council of Economic Advisers. Has the minister given further consideration to some of the models that exist in other places? It might be prudent to have organisations such as the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and Scottish Engineering involved in a much smaller body to try to influence the policies of the Council of Economic Advisers. Will the Government consider that for the future?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Council of Economic Advisers does not formulate policy; it provides Government with advice and counsel in relation to the formulation of policy, which remains the responsibility of ministers.

The Government is proceeding with the national economic forum initiative with a broad membership to ensure the examination of a number of key elements of the Government's programme, particularly in relation to the role of the Government's economic strategy and the focus that it gives to our policies.

John Park mentioned Scottish Engineering, the CBI, the FSB and the STUC. There are many regular discussions with those bodies at a number of different fora, in which those organisations come together and meet ministers to address particular issues. In the next couple of weeks, the First Minister and I, and other ministers, will meet members of the STUC at a regular discussion. There are plenty of opportunities for smaller groups to discuss issues with ministers. The purpose of the national economic forum is to ensure that we get a broad cross-section of opinion to advise Government on its policies and to input into its thinking.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is aware of the work being done by City of Edinburgh swimming in the Edinburgh South parliamentary constituency to develop elite Scottish swimming and whether it will guarantee that this will not be adversely affected by the restructuring of sportscotland. (S3O-1965)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am aware of the magnificent achievements of City of Edinburgh swimming in recent years. Many of its swimmers have performed with merit at the Olympic games, the Commonwealth games and European and world championships. Some of its members hold numerous British, Commonwealth, European and Scottish records and titles. Some club members have been identified to compete for the British team at the Olympic and Paralympic games in Beijing later this year.

I am happy to assure the member that the restructuring of sportscotland and the Scottish Institute of Sport will have no negative impact on local developments in support of high-performance athletes. Indeed, the decentralisation of sportscotland staff is intended to further strengthen support for such programmes.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

The minister and his officials accepted at the Health and Sport Committee yesterday that no material changes had been made to the aims, objectives or outcomes on which SIS and sportscotland are expected to deliver. Therefore, does the minister accept that, to reassure those engaged in sport in Scotland that sportscotland and the SIS are required to continue developing grass-roots performance sports, the Government must stop spinning that sportscotland has been retained in name only?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The member is aware that what I said yesterday in the committee was that there was a difference between supporting the aims and objectives of the organisations that he lists—everyone in the chamber is signed up to those aims and objectives, because we all want to improve performance and increase the number of people who take part—and ensuring that we achieve them. Over the past few years, the organisation was missing virtually all the sport 21 targets.

We must ensure that we have a structure in place that will deliver not only for our elite athletes—I have guaranteed that we will do that— but for people at grass-roots level. We will do that by supporting the grass-roots organisations across the country. That is why we are decentralising the large bureaucracy in Edinburgh into four hubs around the country, which will cover the north, the east, the south-west and the centre of Scotland. That will ensure that the staff can provide the very local organisations to which the member refers with the expert advice, support and help that will enable them to grow sport in the country.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Even if the net cost of the restructuring and relocation of sportscotland has supposedly been driven down to £3 million—through a series of calculations and assumptions by the minister that would rival the tax returns of Ken Dodd—does the minister accept that that cost should be met not from sportscotland's funds but from the Government's general funds, so that all grass-roots and elite sports development can be delivered, which is the intention of the Government's restructuring? Does he agree that the Government, not sportscotland, should meet the cost of relocation, rather than sportscotland and the sportspeople of Scotland?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The only diddy plans that were in place came from the previous Administration. Officials have worked extremely hard in the past few weeks to ascertain the cost, at today's prices, of the previous Administration's plans for the relocation of sportscotland. I am happy to tell members that the Labour and Liberal Democrat plans for sportscotland would have cost £15 million at today's prices. In the previous Administration's budgets, no money was identified to cover that cost.

The cost of the relocation that we are undertaking will be approximately £7.9 million. In addition to that, we have agreed that sportscotland will be allowed to retain the receipts from the sale of its current headquarters, which is estimated to be worth between £4 million and £6 million. That will bring the cost of relocation to around £3 million, which is quite different from the £15 million that the Labour Party was planning to take from sport.

I remind the member that, over the next three years, sportscotland has been allocated a total of £133 million, which represents an increase of 44 per cent in the sports budget.

The fact is that this is a good announcement for sport. We have slashed the cost of the relocation that the member supposedly supports. Therefore, we have good news all round for sport in this country and we have saved sportscotland millions and millions of pounds, compared with the plans of the member's party.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will ensure that local health services are developed. (S3O-1966)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The planning and provision of local health services are a matter for national health service boards and their community health partnerships. Each CHP has a service delivery plan based on an assessment of local need, including priorities for local service improvement.

The "Better Health, Better Care" action plan will ensure that care is embedded in local communities and tailored to need. Our commitment to patient rights and local democracy is a key part of the action plan and will enhance the ability of communities to shape health services.

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

It is estimated that 70 per cent of looked-after children require youth mental health services. Of the approximately 240 young people who access mental health services in the Borders, approximately 40 per cent are from outwith the health board's area. Social work departments of other local authorities provide money to cover the associated social work costs, but NHS Borders can access no additional resources to deal with the pressure on its services. What support can the Government give to local authorities such as NHS Borders in relation to the critically important issue of the development of mental health services for all young people, as well as for those who are most vulnerable?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I will come back to Jeremy Purvis in more detail on the specific issues to which he refers concerning NHS Borders, and Scottish Borders Council, too. On a more general basis, I agree with him absolutely on the importance of youth mental health services not only in the Borders, but throughout the country.

Mr Purvis was in the chamber for at least part of the health debate that we have just concluded—he heard a number of members, including me, talking about the importance of an increased focus on mental health services generally. In particular, in relation to young people, he heard the Minister for Public Health say that a key part of our plans to develop a school-based nursing resource revolves around the need to provide more support in terms of mental health services. The issue is very important. As I said, I will come back to the member with more details about the Borders.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

If the minister is committed to local services, why, as she has heard today, has West Lothian Drug and Alcohol Service—well recognised locally and nationally for its groundbreaking work in alcohol, drug and tobacco services—had to issue redundancy notices to some of its staff, citing funding problems caused by the Scottish Government's changes in funding to local authorities, and the not-yet-allocated funding to the local health board? Why has the minister allowed that situation to develop?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Drug and alcohol services—both of which are very important, as I am sure every member in the chamber acknowledges—are matters for NHS boards. NHS boards, in the next financial year, will have record levels of investment from this Government. Mary Mulligan raises the issue—I accept that it is very real—of delays this year in advising NHS boards of their allocations, but I gently suggest to her that she should take up that matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, since it was his—and the United Kingdom Government's—decisions that led to the delay in the budget and the consequences of that.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that availability is an important component of local health services? If so, what are her plans to extend the hours of availability, not just for general practices but for community pharmacists?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I remind Ian McKee that when I launched the "Better Health, Better Care" action plan, I announced five pilot areas in which the concept of walk-in pharmacy services would be tested. I am sure that that concept will bring great benefits to patients, and it will be rolled out across the country in due course.

Ian McKee is aware that I am very keen to see more flexible access to GP services. In some areas, although perhaps not all, there is strong demand for access to GP services outwith current core hours. He is aware that changes to the GP contract are negotiated on a UK basis. Recently there have been negotiations on a four-country basis, on the outcome of which GPs will be balloted; we await the outcome of that ballot. I am keen to remain in very constructive dialogue and discussions with the British Medical Association to ensure that, together, we can deliver continually improving services for the people of Scotland.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the First Minister's statements on the Lewis chessmen are an expression of Government policy. (S3O-1995)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Yes, they are. The Scottish Government believes that it is absolutely unacceptable that only 11 Lewis chessmen rest at the national museum of Scotland while the other 82 remain in the British museum in London.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Has the minister thought through the implications of the U-turn from her previous position, when she refused to support Shetland's demand for the return of the St Ninian's Isle treasure from the national museum of Scotland? Can we assume that she now supports the removal from Scottish museums of the very large number of cultural artefacts from other countries, such as—to name but one—the tea service of the Emperor Napoleon that is in the national museum of Scotland? Will she, on reflection, abandon her new culture priority and concentrate on more urgent issues, such as the funding crisis at the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As I have said in the Parliament and as the Labour Government in London has said, such matters are for museums to consider, case by case. I will visit the British museum on Saturday morning and I will ask it to consider the case seriously. As far as the St Ninian's Isle treasure is concerned, I suggest that Mr Chisholm has a look at a map, because Shetland is part of Scotland.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

In seeking the return of the chessmen to Scotland, will the minister consider the possibility of some pieces being exhibited permanently or temporarily on the Isle of Lewis? What impact might that have on the cultural and economic life of the islands?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The Government would want such a goal to be put into operation when the chessmen are returned to Scotland, because the exhibition of the Lewis chessmen in the islands would provide a significant cultural boost. I am sure that there would be an economic benefit. I hope that all members would like that to happen.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made on issuing guidance to local authorities on houses in multiple occupation under the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006. (S3O-2019)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We are consulting on a revised Scottish planning policy 3, "Planning for Housing", which contains guidance on planning for houses in multiple occupation.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Is the minister aware of growing concern about the regulation and operation of HMOs in areas such as my area, the west end of Glasgow, where landlords are splitting bedrooms in two so that they can cram more people into properties and gain more profit? Has the minister been briefed on a meeting that took place during the passage of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, which was attended by planning and HMO officials and members of the Scottish Parliament from other parts of the country who share my concern? Will he consider the closer integration of planning law and HMO licensing and will he meet with interested parties, so that we can take the issue forward?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I share the member's concern. The splitting of rooms in HMOs creates problems. My colleague the Minister for Communities and Sport had a meeting on the issue, of which I was made aware. If there is value in a specific meeting with the member to pursue the issue, I will be happy to meet her.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will ensure that gifted and talented children are properly supported in all schools. (S3O-1987)

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Responsibility for meeting the support needs of our pupils rests with local authorities. The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, which came into force in November 2005, aims to ensure that the additional support needs of all children and young people, including gifted and talented children, are addressed. Our six national centres of excellence make specialist provision for gifted and talented children.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister will be aware of various initiatives in England and Wales, including the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, which draws in particularly gifted and talented pupils from all parts of the country and all social backgrounds, to ensure that they can receive specialist teaching that is appropriate to their needs. Does the minister acknowledge that gifted children, especially from disadvantaged areas, could benefit from the introduction of similar initiatives in Scotland?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I think that in Scotland we take a different approach, rather than take children out of their environment. It is important that schools are seen to cater for the whole range of abilities. To ensure that that happens, for example through the curriculum for excellence, there are individualised learning plans, and we hope that we can provide the appropriate stretch and pace for every child through personalisation and choice. Teachers are supported through the Scottish needs assessment programme—the SNAP programme—which is based at the University of Glasgow, to ensure that they have the skills and knowledge to enable them to provide an extra push for able and talented children.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I am delighted to say that His Excellency Jonathan Hunt, the New Zealand High Commissioner, joins us in the Presiding Officer's gallery. High Commissioner, I warmly welcome you to the Scottish Parliament. [ Applause. ]

First Minister's Question Time

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-446)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Later today I will be having meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. I am sure that the whole Parliament would like to congratulate Mr George Burley on his likely ascent to leadership of our national team.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I associate myself with that sentiment.

This morning, Scots were shocked to hear of the rape of a schoolgirl by Robert Foye while he was on the run from Castle Huntly open prison. What reassurance will the First Minister offer that that will not happen again?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I thank Wendy Alexander for raising this very serious case, which, as she said quite rightly, will shock the whole nation. We should start by praising the courage of the victim of the attack in helping to secure the apprehension and conviction of Robert Foye.

The system of open prisons has been part of the Scottish prison system since 1954. I emphasise that, as members will understand, this was not a case of early release but of someone absconding from an open prison. The most recent figures show that there were 75 cases of prisoners absconding from an open prison in 2006-07, and there have been 65 in the year to date. That is a small percentage of the total numbers who go through the open prison system, but it is still 75 too many. However, absconding is an ever-present risk within an open prison system.

The assessment system that is employed is designed to put public safety uppermost. Nevertheless, because of concerns about prisons and sentencing in general—and, indeed, about Castle Huntly—on 20 September this Government announced the establishment of a Scottish Prisons Commission, led by Henry McLeish, to consider the purpose and impact of imprisonment in contemporary Scotland. The commission will also analyse the impact on courts, prisons and community justice services of the early-release provisions in the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007.

I should emphasise that in this case, the individual had no history of sexual violence. However, the case focuses attention on an issue that we as a Parliament need to address and which we as a Government will address.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

When did ministers first hear about the case and what action did they take at that time?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Ministers were notified that the case was going through the court system several weeks ago. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice looked at it in the context of the McLeish commission. Clearly, the Scottish Prison Service puts the safety and integrity of the system uppermost at all times.

As the former Minister for Justice will remember, there have been concerns about Castle Huntly for some time and about a number of aspects of the prison system in relation to prisoners absconding and early release. The advantage of pursuing the matter in the way that the Government is pursuing it is that it allows us to consider all those concerns. I hope that, as a Parliament and as a Government, we will be able to make good the long-standing deficiencies in the Scottish justice system.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Robert Foye was five years into a 10-year sentence for attempting to murder a police officer. I was told this morning that when he absconded he was on only his second ever visit out of prison. Such a man should not have been allowed out on his own. Does the First Minister agree?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I clearly think that this case illustrates deficiencies in the system that should be addressed. I think that Wendy Alexander will agree that the right way to address those deficiencies is through the approach that the Government is taking. It would not be right for individual ministers to try to administer the system; rather, they should put in place measures that ensure that the system of justice in Scotland works more effectively in relation to these matters and public concern than it has in the past. Given the nature and seriousness of the case, I am quite deliberately couching my answers in a way that I hope will allow the whole Parliament to address a matter of substantial public concern.

It will be obvious to Wendy Alexander and her colleagues that the issues that she raises are not new issues in the Prison Service but have been with us for some time—for example, over the past eight years.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The First Minister said that there are deficiencies in the system. That is, of course, why Labour ended the automatic early release of prisoners from our jails. On 13 August, one week before this horrible rape, the Scottish National Party Government put those proposals on hold. The First Minister was warned. Margaret Curran told the Cabinet Secretary for Justice that he was trying to cut Scotland's prison population, regardless of the danger to the public. Because Labour's plans have been put on hold, Scotland's Prison Service will not be able to hold in prison those people whom it deems too dangerous to be on our streets.

Did the First Minister support the decision made by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on 13 August, and does he now regret it?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Perhaps Wendy Alexander should have listened to my answer to her first question on the matter. This very serious case is not about early release but about a prisoner absconding from an open prison. If we are to deal with this very serious matter and address the problem, it is important to understand that important distinction.

We support the ending of automatic early release. That is why we are putting in place the measures to allow that to happen. I remind Wendy Alexander that, during the life of this Government, we have already committed an extra £120 million of capital investment to refurbish the prison system in Scotland and made the decision on a jail in the north-east of Scotland that was delayed by the previous Administration for many years. We have also established the Scottish Prisons Commission under a former First Minister so that the position and the deficiencies can be addressed coherently.

I could point out, if I so wished, the complaints that were made to the previous Minister for Justice about Castle Huntly—particularly by a former HM chief inspector of prisons—and ask a series of questions about what plans were implemented. However, if Wendy Alexander is going to come to the chamber and talk about justice issues, I think that, as a starter for 10, she should understand the difference between prisoners absconding from the prison system and the early release of serious offenders.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I call the constituency member, Cathie Craigie.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I know that the Parliament recognises the bravery of the young woman and wishes her well in trying to recover from this appalling experience. [ Applause. ]

My constituents want to know why this monster was allowed out of jail and why he was in an open prison in the first place when he had attempted to murder a police officer. Will the First Minister initiate an urgent review to tighten up who is allowed into open prisons and who is allowed out on day release? This monster might not have been out on early release, but he was allowed out on day release and he was allowed to violate one of my young constituents.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Parliament has indicated that it shares the constituency member's concern for her young constituent and has saluted the bravery of that individual in helping to secure the apprehension and conviction of Robert Foye.

I repeat that the system of open prisons has been part of the prison service since 1954. I do not think that anyone argues that we should not have open prisons as part of our system. The system for determining who qualifies for the open prison system was put in place by the Government that the member supported over the past eight years.

The correct way to address the situation—which, I hope, will carry the whole Parliament with us—is exactly the way that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has chosen: by establishing the McLeish commission; by looking at the issues in the round; by addressing public concerns properly; by administrating the Parliament's decision to end automatic early release; and by seeing how our prison system can operate safely and securely in the future. We will not address the situation if members have collective amnesia about the past eight years; we will address it by looking forward, as the McLeish commission will do, and by making our prison system work better in the future than it has in the past.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-447)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I expect to meet the Prime Minister at the British-Irish Council summit in Dublin in the near future.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I, too, want to question the First Minister on the appalling case to which Ms Alexander and Mrs Craigie have already referred, and I want first to say that the horror, disgust and revulsion that all members feel is nothing compared with the pain, anguish and trauma of the young woman and her family.

I have listened to the First Minister say that the all-embracing, longer-term Prison Commission is the appropriate way to deal with the situation. I could not disagree more. In October last year, my colleague Bill Aitken called for a review of Castle Huntly prison to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that prisoners sent there are fit to be there. The First Minister must accept that that review—not the more extensive one that is being contemplated—is now overdue and must be implemented immediately. What will he do?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice will be glad to look at Castle Huntly specifically, as well as referring the issues to the McLeish commission, which I believe is the proper way to tackle them. If Annabel Goldie looks at the Official Report of previous debates, she will see that the justice secretary has referred specifically to Castle Huntly in answer to questions from a number of members, not least Murdo Fraser, who is sitting beside her now. Therefore, the justice secretary can and will take those actions.

If we are to carry the Parliament and the public of Scotland with us, a good way to proceed is through the McLeish commission, which will consider the variety of prison-related issues in the context of public safety and sensitivity, I know that Annabel Goldie will want to recognise the early decision made by the SNP Government to refurbish the prison estate in Scotland, which will cover new build and address in particular the long-standing lack of a decision on a prison for serious sex offenders in north-east Scotland. I am sure that she will also want to welcome the administration of the end of automatic early release, which is a particularly important issue to manage in the prison system in relation to public safety, to which we all owe a grave responsibility.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am more concerned by the people who are not in the prisons—wherever and however well refurbished they are—because they have fled from them. The immediate horror presented by the appalling case that has been mentioned is sadly just the latest incident in a spiralling pattern of prison escapes.

We know three things. First, from a written answer received today, we know that everyone in our open prisons is serving 12 months or more—that is, they are higher-risk prisoners. Secondly, Scottish Prison Service figures reveal that nearly half of those who walked out of our open prisons had a violent background. Thirdly, we know that, in the past five years, the number of prisoners escaping from Castle Huntly alone has nearly trebled. That cannot go on.

Will the First Minister tell me two things: how many escaped prisoners are still on the run, roaming the streets of Scotland; and does he accept that underpinning any review must be the unbreakable principle that those who pose a danger to society never deserve the benefit of the doubt?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Uppermost in the consideration of decisions in the Prison Service on early release or prisoners going to open prison is the safety of the public. The evaluation systems are not foolproof, but that is the basis on which decisions are taken.

I have already said that 75 prisoners absconding from Castle Huntly is 75 too many, even though that is a small percentage of the numbers going through the system. The figure for the year thus far is 65, which is 65 too many. That is a serious situation that needs to be addressed, but the figures do not point to a spiralling escalation in the numbers absconding from Castle Huntly. The situation is serious—75 is too many—but the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will be delighted to look at the matter.

To restore confidence in the Scottish judicial system, the measures that we have already taken include the setting up of the McLeish commission—which will do excellent work—which should carry the agreement of the whole Parliament. Those measures will fulfil our obligation to the people of Scotland to ensure that, once again, they have a justice system of which they can be proud.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of his Cabinet. (S3F-448)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

This week, families across Scotland have witnessed turmoil in the world economy. Millions of people have seen the value of their pension funds drop. Gas bills are going up by nearly 20 per cent. Fuel now costs more than £5 a gallon. Last January, Scotland's growth rate was 2.3 per cent; this year, it is 2.1 per cent. What does the First Minister expect growth to be next year?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish economy will not be insulated from developments in the world economy, but that does not mean that we should sit back and do nothing to improve the competitive position of our economy. The Government is doing exactly that in a range of ways, but one way of improving the competitive position of small businesses in Scotland is to proceed with a dramatic reduction in their fixed costs to allow them a better opportunity to flourish and to allow more people to start up small businesses. I would have thought that that should have been agreed across all parties in the chamber as an important thing to do, so why on earth did the Liberal Democrats not find it within themselves to vote in favour of it in yesterday's budget debate?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Surely the First Minister has a growth number of his own. Last year, Jim Mather was very specific when he told Parliament:

"The budget process is a sham ... the minister has no target for growth."—[Official Report, 14 February 2007; c 32042.]

Now Jim Mather is the minister and he does not have a growth figure.

In Opposition, the SNP was so clear. Its economic plan proposed a 4 per cent annual growth target as a golden rule and it promised that we would be part of the arc of prosperity. However, now that the people of Scotland have real concerns about the economy, the First Minister does not have a credible strategy to protect their jobs and livelihoods. He has cut investment on enterprise, skills and universities. Why is it that he does not have a target and does not have a clue? He promised to increase growth. What will Scotland's growth rate be next year?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

That question shows all the disadvantages of reading out a pre-prepared question as opposed to listening to the first answer. As I pointed out, if Nicol Stephen's party had been prepared to support measures to improve the competitive position of Scottish business, he would have the right to articulate to the Parliament his disagreement about our economic strategy.

The figures are contained in the document "The Government Economic Strategy", which states that we intend

"to raise Scotland's GDP growth rate to the UK level by 2011."

That is important because for the past 25 years we have not managed to achieve that rate over any sustained period of time. During the eight years in which the Liberal Democrats propped up the Labour Administration in Scotland, that growth gap widened and we had consistent failing and underperformance.

Nicol Stephen mentioned the arc of prosperity. Will he concede that one aspect of that arc is that the countries in Europe with spectacular growth rates are independent countries that have control over their own economies?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I call Keith Brown for a question on a constituency matter.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Will the First Minister—and, indeed, all members—join me in offering the Parliament's condolences to the young family of John Noble, a firefighter from Alloa fire station in my constituency who was tragically killed while answering a call to a school in Dollar yesterday? We should also give our condolences to the other firefighters who were injured—including one who is critically ill in hospital—and to their families.

Is the First Minister aware that Carlsberg-Tetley has announced the proposed closure of its operation in my constituency? It blames high inflation and market pressures. The closure will mean the loss of 58 jobs in a community that is already under some pressure.

I have been in touch with the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism about the involvement of the Government's partnership action for continuing employment—PACE—team; he assured me that that involvement will happen. Will the First Minister reassure families that are threatened by the closure that the Scottish Government stands fully behind them? It is a difficult time for those families, and a statement of support from the Scottish Government would provide them with welcome reassurance.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I join Keith Brown in offering condolences to John Noble's family, as all members will want to do. What happened reminds us that people in our emergency services put themselves at risk every day in a range of activities. Such tragedies serve as a reminder of the efforts that those people make every day on our behalf.

If the potential Carlsberg-Tetley redundancies go ahead, the Forth valley local response team will provide support to those who are affected. That team stands ready to provide support, advice and guidance on retraining and alternative economic opportunities. The constituency member can be certain that the Scottish Government stands behind and supports people who face economic adversity, and I hope that the Parliament does, too.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what concerns the Scottish Government has regarding the use of "flying" doctors brought into Scotland to provide out-of-hours care to patients. (S3F-464)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government would clearly be concerned if out-of-hours services were being provided by doctors who were so tired that that tiredness affected their clinical judgement. More important, patients would be alarmed if they thought that that was the case. That is why I am happy to re-emphasise publicly that national health service boards must ensure that they do not operate any arrangements that would lead to such situations. We are asking every NHS board to verify its position. I can confirm that NHS Quality Improvement Scotland has reviewed every NHS board's performance against national standards and has told me that it is satisfied that systems are in place to provide patients with safe and effective out-of-hours care.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for his response, and particularly for the contact that has been made with NHS boards, which ultimately have the duty of care.

Will the Government undertake to include the use of flying doctors in the current review of general practitioner work patterns, which are the result of a United Kingdom contract that has been inherited from the Labour Government, and endeavour to remedy the problems relating to the number of flying doctors who come to Scotland? Those problems have been highlighted by recent disclosures that are of great concern to the British Medical Association and Scottish patients groups.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

"Better Health, Better Care" makes it clear that we are determined to work with the profession on improving access to primary care services and on extended and flexible opening hours. Currently, we are working with the health boards to ensure the long-term sustainability of out-of-hours services, and we are specifically considering future models of out-of-hours care that would extend the roles of all health care professionals who are involved in those services. I hope that that answer gives Christine Grahame some satisfaction.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The First Minister correctly referred to the role of NHS boards, but I direct his attention to the problem that European Community law gives European Economic Area nationals rights relating to work without requiring the possession of work permits. Therefore, the guidance that NHS boards issue to non-nationals essentially deals with non-EEA persons. How does the First Minister intend to pursue the matter that Christine Grahame raised in relation to those who are covered by European Community law?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I will consider that issue and write to Ross Finnie.

With respect to the working time regulations, there is an issue relating to whether records of rest require to be maintained, but there is a general duty on all employers to ensure that all their employees receive, for example, the rest that is required by regulation. However, I will investigate the general application of European Union law and write to Ross Finnie.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the First Minister reassure members about access to general practitioners? The British Medical Association has advised us that the Government's intention is to adopt a within-24-hours model for access to GPs, which has been adopted in England, rather than a within-48-hours model for access to health professionals, which the Labour Government in Scotland favoured. Will the First Minister reassure us that he does not intend to go down the 24-hour access route?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, I can provide that reassurance. We are presently in constructive dialogue with the profession on the contract and on how such matters can best be implemented. I will arrange for the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to keep Richard Simpson in touch with the way in which that dialogue is progressing.