Scottish Parliament, 27 March 2008

364 contributions from 78 members. The official report.

Official Report 27 March 2008

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1599, in the name of Bill Aitken, on the Home Detention Curfew Licence (Prescribed Standard Conditions) (Scotland) (No 2) Order 2008.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

As one of my former council colleagues famously said:

"It's like déjà vu all over again."

I must confess to being somewhat irritated at having to debate the order for the third time. Two weeks ago, by a clear majority, it was decided that we would not proceed down the route of the order. I must say that I was genuinely surprised by the vote, but I convinced myself that our Liberal Democrat colleagues had been persuaded by the eloquent arguments of John Lamont, by the pithy common sense of Paul Martin, by the personality of Pauline McNeill and by the fact that what I said was so obviously common sense that even the Liberal Democrats could understand the position. It seemed that, rather than the principled stand that I had anticipated, at the last moment they had seen the rightness of our case. However, it turns out that it was ineptitude. So, we are back again.

The arguments remain, and those that are being advanced for the third time by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice are simply unacceptable. Yesterday Kenny MacAskill had a chance to stand up for the victims in Scotland's communities, and he failed. Today he has a similar chance, but I anticipate that he will, sadly, fail again.

The cabinet secretary stands four-square with the Scottish Prison Service. He has backed it time and again, but in his darker moments he must surely ask himself how on Earth we got into this position. How on Earth did we dispose of one facility before another was ready, creating—to use his words—a "crisis in our prisons"? The fact is that the system was not properly thought through. Having first failed to address the problem, the cabinet secretary has repeatedly come up with a solution that is not the answer.

I was asked in the previous debate what my solution would be—I have suggested some possible solutions on a private basis. What I cannot understand is why there was no contingency planning. In this life, stuff happens—fire or storm damage, for example, could mean that a facility or part of a facility is taken out of use. What emergency provisions or contingencies are in force to cover for such an eventuality? I asked parliamentary questions on the subject a couple of weeks ago. I have generally found Mr MacAskill's department to be extremely efficient in replying to such questions, but the silence from it on that matter has been deafening. I cannot be persuaded that either he or his predecessor had the appropriate contingency plans on the shelf, ready to dust down if such a situation arose.

I come now to the nub and the principles of the argument. Is it appropriate that we should follow the course that has been proposed in the order that I seek to annul? It is not. As I have said before, prison has a number of functions: punishment, protection of the community and deterrence. Under two of those headings, the plans manifestly fail.

As Mr MacAskill will know from when he had a real job, the criminal classes speak to one another. The word will get round soon enough that people can get out after a quarter of their sentence, albeit with a tag and restrictions placed on them. Let us consider those restrictions. Can any of us be confident, after the results of the Foye inquiry, that the restrictions will be adequate? At least if we go down the route that I am suggesting, the restrictions on those who are released would be placed by the Parole Board for Scotland rather than by the Scottish Prison Service, which would be a more effective way of working than what Mr MacAskill has in mind. [Interruption.] The trumpets may sound from the telephones on the Government front bench, but the fact remains that the cabinet secretary is failing in his duty to apply the necessary deterrence.

There is also the question of public protection. I accept that the Foye case is probably an extreme example, but nevertheless 21 per cent of those who are released fail to comply with the terms of their release. We cannot be comfortable with that. To suggest that people who are further down the road of criminality than those who are involved in the scheme at present are unlikely to reoffend when released demonstrates a disturbing naivety.

Eventually, something terrible will happen, and at that point Mr MacAskill will have to take personal responsibility. He made an apology in respect of the Foye case, although he had no reason to apologise personally—I do not accept that he was personally responsible for what happened. However, if he puts through the legislation today and something happens, he will have to answer to Parliament. I warn him here and now that he will be held to account for that.

We must consider how the prison system is operating. We have continuing concerns about the open estate, which I had hoped might have been addressed in yesterday's related statement and questions. We must accept that the only solution for many people is that they should be kept locked up for the full duration of their sentence. We have always conceded that early release in certain circumstances—when it is deserved—is appropriate, but not to the extent that Mr MacAskill and the former Administration have sought over the years.

The order is a disastrous move. It is likely to cause great difficulty and may well end in tragedy. On that basis, I have no hesitation in moving the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament recommends that nothing further be done under the Home Detention Curfew Licence (Prescribed Standard Conditions) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 2008 (SSI 2008/125).

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

Clearly, I disagree with Mr Aitken, and I ask Parliament not to support the motion to annul the order.

Mr Aitken asked

"how on Earth we got into this position".

Part of the answer is that, during 18 long years of Tory rule in this country, not one new prison was built by the Conservatives. Their cant and hypocrisy about the importance of prisons is undermined by their abject failure to take action. They are culpable in part for the crumbling estate that we face.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

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

Not at the moment.

The order forms part of a package of measures that we hope to put in place to ease the on-going inherited problem of overcrowding in our prisons. We are using the flexibility to extend the home detention curfew scheme that was built into the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005 by the previous Administration.

We need prisons to lock up dangerous criminals, and we have to allow the SPS to work with those criminals to rehabilitate them for a return to society. However, the SPS is dealing with record numbers. Yesterday, the prison population was 8,001, with 379 of those on HDC. That makes it harder for the SPS to do the job that it needs to do with serious offenders.

We are tackling the problem. Unlike the Tories, we have announced three new prisons since we took office—in less than a year, when they had 18 years in government. We have also announced a major penal policy review, led by Henry McLeish, to come up with new and effective ideas for reducing reoffending through better managing the transition and reintegration of prisoners back into the community. That is vital to breaking the cycle of reoffending that causes many of the problems that we face in Scotland.

The order commencing section 3AA(1)(b) of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 came into force on 21 March 2008. As of that date, the Scottish ministers have had the power to release long-term prisoners on home detention curfew licences. The Home Detention Curfew Licence (Prescribed Standard Conditions) (Scotland) (No 2) Order 2008 sets out the standard conditions that are to be imposed on both long-term and short-term prisoners when they are released. It replaces an earlier order that dealt with conditions for short-term prisoners only. Appropriate conditions must be set as a condition of release, but if Parliament annuls the order, no standard conditions will be imposed automatically on all long-term prisoners. That surely cannot be what Mr Aitken intends. Conditions will need to be set in each case, but that will not prevent the release of long-term prisoners on HDC.

Offenders who are considered for HDC must have been recommended for release on parole at the halfway stage of their sentence by the Parole Board. They will be due to be released on licence—they are to get out anyway and are simply awaiting authorisation as the approval works its way through the system. The scheme allows them to be released on HDC pending their being released on licence for which they have been approved. If they breach the HDC, they will jeopardise not just release on HDC but their parole.

My purpose in asking Parliament to approve the order and to reject the motion to annul it is to give transparency to the process by affording Parliament the same opportunity to agree prescribed standard conditions for long-term prisoners as it had in 2006, when it agreed prescribed standard conditions for short-term prisoners.

I assure members that prisoners who are serving long-term sentences cannot be released on home detention curfew unless the Parole Board has already recommended their release at the first parole qualifying date, and they also subsequently meet the current assessment criteria for HDC. I say to Mr Aitken for the avoidance of doubt that convicted sex offenders will be precluded from applying, so references to Mr Foye are therefore utterly shameful and entirely erroneous.

Because of the way in which the parole process and the notification of the Parole Board's decision operate, the maximum time a prisoner could spend on HDC would be about 10 weeks. In reality, we estimate that the period spent on HDC is likely to be nearer six weeks.

Just as with release on parole, the specified licence conditions require the prisoner to be subject to local authority social work supervision during the period of HDC. Those supervision arrangements will continue during the subsequent parole period. In addition, HDC licence conditions will take into account any conditions that the Parole Board has recommended for the parole period and can include any conditions that ministers consider to be appropriate.

All prisoners released on HDC will be electronically tagged and subject to a curfew condition requiring them to remain at a specified place for about 12 hours per day. The Scottish ministers also have powers to revoke an HDC licence and to recall prisoners to custody if they fail to comply with any licence conditions. Modelling indicates that such measures will free up capacity of about 50 places in the prison system. As I have said before, those 50 places are very much needed as a result of years of neglect.

Management of the problem includes our being flexible and using the tools that are available to us, such as HDCs, rather than hectoring the governor of Barlinnie to take just anybody who is sent to him irrespective of the consequences. We have to protect the public and allow the SPS to do its job. What we propose today gets that balance right.

My offer to review the HDC scheme stands. The review would go further than the sunset clause that is requested by Labour members, which would impact only on the continuing operation of standard conditions. I therefore ask Parliament to reject the motion to annul the Home Detention Curfew Licence (Prescribed Standard Conditions) (Scotland) (No 2) Order 2008.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

"Third-time lucky", as BBC headlines said this morning. It would be amusing if it were not so serious. This extraordinary groundhog day debate will contain exactly the same points that we made two weeks ago, but this time the Liberal Democrats will perhaps remember to leave their offices in time to vote. For the avoidance of doubt, I inform Liberal Democrat members that when they see Bill Aitken's name for the Scottish National Party on the Business Bulletin, they should vote no.

The will of Parliament has already been determined, but it seems that procedure allows for reversal of the will of Parliament because of a few mistakes. Labour's position, however, remains the same. We introduced the principle of home detention curfew as part of a package of measures that included the upgrading of the prisons estate and the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005 for short-term prisoners serving sentences of four years or less to be released no earlier than 135 days into their sentence.

The measures that we are being asked to support today extend far beyond those Labour proposals. We are being asked to approve the order immediately for the single purpose of reducing the prison population rather than as part of a package of measures. I am astonished by the cabinet secretary's logic that such prisoners would get out anyway. With that logic, where would we draw the line?

The order is not couched in promises of a commitment to a date for opening Low Moss and there is no mention that 700 new prison places at Addiewell will be available in January. There are no reports from the cabinet secretary that he has insisted that the SPS must get its finger out and build those new prisons. I am sure that the Liberal Democrats will join me in saying that the commitment to build three new prisons was well down the line under our Administration and that it is wrong for the cabinet secretary to claim that as his own work. What the order proposes is a rush job. I now begin to wonder whether it is the Government's principled position that long-term offenders will be included in a scheme that is still in its infancy.

The proposals are significantly different to ours because they will include more serious offenders and will make all offenders eligible for early release for longer—for up to six months. As I said two weeks ago, someone who is serving six years could be out in two and a half years. Does the cabinet secretary really believe that he has the general public's support for extension of the scheme? I think not.

I reiterate that Labour has made a fair and reasonable offer to the Scottish Government to support a short extension to the HDC scheme until the opening of the new prisons, whenever that might be. We are balancing the public interest with the problem of overcrowding, which we accept is a real problem. We know about the cabinet secretary's health and safety concerns, but as a responsible Opposition, we believe that we offer an option around which all parties can unite. We will not, however, provide a blank cheque to the Government, as we are being asked to do, for a scheme that is in its infancy and is yet to be evaluated. We demanded a sunset clause in the legislation on the opening of the new prison at Addiewell and that is what we will vote for at decision time this evening. That offer remains on the table.

Your refusal, cabinet secretary, to work with committee members who adamantly oppose your proposals for good reason, is disappointing. Indeed, your refusal to accept a compromise with Labour and the Tories is not in tune with the promises that you made as a minority Administration.

Win or lose tonight, cabinet secretary—we will see what happens—we will demand that you stick to your promise and that you repeal the order when the 700 prison places become available. Whether you win or lose this evening, I want you to commit to that repeal in your summing-up speech.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I remind members not to use the word "you" unless they are referring to me.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I was happy to support the introduction of home detention curfews as part of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005 when it was introduced by the Labour-Liberal Democrat Government and I am content to support its development through the order today. I am very much looking forward to voting against Bill Aitken's motion to annul the order—it is very helpful to have his name on the Business Bulletin today. I have been on an intensive training course on how to vote for two weeks and I think that I am now up to the task.

Public safety lies at the heart of any decision that will be taken by the prison service or Parole Board to release a prisoner on licence. We know that large numbers—40 per cent—of those who apply for HDC are not granted it. We also know that 69 per cent of people successfully abide by the terms of the curfew and that of the 21 per cent who breach orders, the vast majority commit only minor breaches. Of the 3,000 people who have been released on HDC, fewer than 1 per cent have offended while on the scheme. That seems to suggest that although the risk assessments that are undertaken by the SPS with community assessments from the local authority social work departments will never be perfect, they are working reasonably well. Bill Butler accepted that point in committee.

As we have heard, the criteria for the scheme already exclude sex offenders and other serious offenders.

Some 340 people are currently on home detention curfew, which has a positive impact on overcrowding in the prison estate, but it should also be looked at as a positive option for prisoners who are assessed as being low risk so that they can reintegrate into their communities, managed by the SPS, with community assessments.

The order will allow the release of prisoners who have been recommended for release at the first parole qualifying date by the Parole Board, having served half their sentence, if those prisoners fulfil the criteria for release on HDC. I note that the cabinet secretary has suggested that that will mean that the average time that they spend on curfew will be six weeks.

The order enables standard conditions to be prescribed automatically for any long-term prisoner who is released on HDC licence. The standard conditions for long-term prisoners who are released on HDC are the same standard conditions that are used when the Parole Board for Scotland recommends release on parole, and they take account of public safety and reintegration into the community.

The public need to be reassured that when long-term prisoners are released proper safeguards are in place and risk assessments have been carried out as effectively as possible. Long-term prisoners are more likely to have committed more serious offences, so a decision to release a long-term offender must be considered seriously. However, it could be argued that a long-term prisoner who breaches an HDC and is taken back to prison has much more to lose when the breach is taken into account in decisions about parole.

The cabinet secretary has committed himself to a review of HDC early next year, in the wake of the opening of the new prison at Addiewell. I agree with what Pauline McNeill said about the previous Government's work on new prisons. We seek assurances from the cabinet secretary that HDC for long-term prisoners will be reviewed at that stage. A reasonable amount of time will have elapsed, so our request is reasonable.

Systems of early release and parole are currently in operation for long-term prisoners and nobody is suggesting that we do away with either system. We all want properly managed, effective and safe systems that allow offenders to return to their families and communities in a way that is safe for communities. If there are questions about safety, HDC should not be agreed to.

The use of the same standard conditions for long-term prisoners who are to be released on HDC as are used for prisoners who are released on parole means that social work supervision conditions and other conditions that the Parole Board for Scotland recommends can be applied from the start of the HDC period, which seems perfectly reasonable. Further conditions will be needed, as the cabinet secretary said.

Cathy Jamieson, the former Minister for Justice said:

"home detention curfew ... will help to manage the return of selected low-risk prisoners from custody back to the community."—[Official Report, 16 June 2005; c 18004.]

She also said that

"The important point is that a proper risk and needs assessment has to be done in each case, before anyone is released to home detention curfew."—[Official Report, 3 November 2005; c 20390.]

That was the case in 2005 and it remains the case.

The overwhelming rationale for releasing a prisoner should not be the impact on prison numbers, however important that is; it should be what is best in the context of the offender's reintegration into the community. It could be argued that long-term prisoners have a greater need for reintegration to take place gradually and effectively than do short-term prisoners. The crucial point is that the impact on the offender's family, victims and community must be considered.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak again on a matter, which will perhaps this evening—if all members arrive in time for decision time, as I assume that they will—be put to bed for the foreseeable future.

I am happy to reiterate my position. During the parliamentary debate on HDC a couple of weeks ago, I said that there was no logic to not extending the scheme and that proposing a sunset clause was tantamount to faffing around. I accept that on occasions sunset clauses have a legitimate place, but given that the cabinet secretary has offered a widespread review—not a repeal—of HDC when Addiewell prison opens, a sunset clause is not relevant in this instance. I could have considered a sunset clause if there had been no other offer on the table.

The cabinet secretary has outlined the strict guidelines around the extension of HDC and has given details of measures to allow prisoners to make a safe transition back to society, which include statutory exclusions, preventing certain categories of offenders, such as sex offenders, from being released on HDC, and a robust risk assessment process, which is undertaken by the SPS and takes into account a prisoner's previous history of violence, for example.

The primary aim of HDC was to ease the reintegration of prisoners into the community, while restricting their movements, which creates a better environment for all concerned.

As the cabinet secretary pointed out during the previous debate on HDC, prisoner numbers in Scotland have reached record levels. Prisons are operating over capacity by about 1,000 places. What kind of environment is that for prisoners and prison staff? It has been established that the situation is due in no small part to years of neglect by the Tories and a lack of investment by the previous Administration.

The Labour Party is on record as saying in the Justice Committee that it is not against HDC per se. I would not expect Labour to oppose HDC, given that it was part of the previous Administration, which introduced the scheme. I am sure that Labour and Lib Dem members of the previous Executive viewed HDC as an important part of justice policy.

I am also sure that Labour members are aware that when HDC was introduced by the United Kingdom Parliament in 1999 the system was intended for prisoners who were serving sentences of between three months and four years. HDC was then brought in for up to two months at the end of a sentence. Since then, HDC has been extended twice: first in 2002, when presumptive HDC was introduced for prisoners who were serving sentences of between three and 12 months; and secondly in July 2003, when the maximum curfew was increased to 135 days. I would not suggest that Labour members are opposing the SNP Government's plans for the sake of it, but they know that Labour ministers in London have extended HDC—and that that has happened without mention of sunset clauses.

In a recent interview with Jack Straw it was said that the prisons estate in England and Wales is only 70 places short of capacity and emergency measures might have to be taken. Who knows what the future will bring on HDC in England and Wales? In Scotland we have an opportunity to help prison officers and to help prisoners to reintegrate into the community. It is in everyone's interests that prisoners not only do their time but have a chance to be rehabilitated. I am sure that all members—even the Tories—agree on that.

There is no doubt that HDC should be extended. I hope that members have the sense to press the right voting button tonight and reject the motion.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

A little more than two weeks ago Parliament voted narrowly to agree to the draft Home Detention Curfew Licence (Amendment of Specified Days)

(Scotland) Order 2008. I regret that that happened, but I am a democrat and I accept the will of Parliament. I sincerely hope that no ill comes of the decision.

Members will recall that during the debate two weeks ago the members who expressed concern about the draft order, which contained a proposal to modify significantly the specified length of HDC, were the subject of colourful charges that were levelled by the cabinet secretary. We were accused of indulging in "cant and hypocrisy"; of

"seeking to play politics with our prisons";

and of

"jeopardising the good order in our prisons and undermining the excellent work that our staff do."—[Official Report, 12 March 2008; c 6864.]

Mr MacAskill refused to take a single intervention during his closing speech in that debate, which was redolent of mere captation, so I offer him some advice gratis: he should not automatically assume that people who oppose his arguments and question his judgment on matters as serious as public safety are insincere or unprincipled. Such an approach debases proper debate, which is never a good idea. I had hoped that the cabinet secretary's comments today would be more considered and rational than they were a fortnight ago. I have been disappointed, although I still live in hope.

I say again that I still support the HDC provisions in the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005, which were reasonable and proportionate. HDC was conceived as part of a wider package of measures to deal with the serious problem of reoffending rates. The correct position was taken in the 2005 act and I do not resile from it.

I remain baffled by the Government's refusal to countenance a sunset or review clause, which would have allowed Parliament to agree to a modified order and return to the matter in due course. I still feel that the approach has much to commend it. Given the nature of the decision with which Parliament is faced, I am even more convinced that the approach is wise.

A fortnight ago, Parliament passed an order that significantly modified the specified length of HDC licences. It could be argued that that change was merely quantitative. Today we are being asked to agree with a qualitative change to primary legislation. If we do not support Mr Aitken's motion to annul the Home Detention Curfew Licence (Prescribed Standard Conditions) (Scotland) (No 2) Order 2008, we will have changed the type of prisoner who can be released on HDC. There was no intention in the primary legislation to include long-term prisoners in the scope of the scheme. In effect, Parliament is being invited to allow more serious criminals who are serving long-term sentences to be released up to six months early. That is a serious matter and it is right and proper that we should proceed with caution, given that the safety of our communities is our paramount consideration.

That is why I urge the SNP ministerial team to reconsider its position—even at this late stage—on the insertion of a sunset or review clause in an order that makes a qualitative modification to primary legislation. Sunset or review clauses are appropriate when regulation is introduced at short notice in response to a crisis. It would be a precautionary measure; it would do no harm, and it may very well do good. What on Earth is wrong with that?

I genuinely hope that the SNP Government will reconsider its position. If it does, my party stands ready to support the Home Detention Curfew Licence (Prescribed Standard Conditions) (Scotland) (No 2) Order 2008, once it has been suitably amended to ensure the safety of communities across Scotland. I hope that the SNP will listen to reason and dispense with mere assertion and bluster.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I have pleasure in speaking in the debate. I am opposed to the motion in the name of Bill Aitken. I support the order that the cabinet secretary laid.

Home detention curfew was debated in the chamber on 12 March 2008. As members have said, today's debate has a feeling of déjà vu or groundhog day about it. The primary aim of HDC is to ease prisoners into the community while restricting their movement. As has been said, Scotland's prison population is just over 8,000. The Scottish Prison Service is operating at 1,000 places above capacity, yet the crime rate is not increasing.

In his speech, the cabinet secretary reinforced the point that the order affects only prisoners who serve certain periods of time. Basically, it will bring them into the ambit of HDC and allow the Scottish Prison Service to operate a system to place other prisoners on early release.

The statistics on HDC are clear: some 3,000 people have been released under HDC, yet less than 1 per cent of them have reoffended while on the scheme. The SPS is by no means perfect, but prison governors are rightly strict in deciding on HDC applications. As Margaret Smith highlighted, that is evidenced by the fact that 40 per cent of those who apply for HDC are refused. That indicates the strict criteria that the SPS applies.

Bill Aitken quoted a 21 per cent failure rate for those who are on HDC, but if we analyse the figures—which I have done—we find that the figure is less than 9 per cent, once we account for prisoners who are taken off HDC only to appeal successfully.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Appeal successfully?

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

In many ways, we are at a crossroads in the justice agenda. Community sentencing is the clear answer to resolving prison overcrowding. That said, we are all aware of the horror of prisoners committing criminal acts while on probation orders or electronically tagged.

Unfortunately, some political figures on the Conservative benches pander to the short, sharp shock policies of a bygone age, when playing to the press gallery was paramount. However, such strange posturing on HDC is evident in its fullest sense when we turn to the sunset clause that the Labour Party has attempted to introduce. At no point in the debates on the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill did Labour make the case for such a clause. Its mixed messages and misinformation on HDC are highlighted in what Bill Butler said at stage 1 of the bill:

"Most of the evidence that we heard suggested that there was merit in home detention curfew for certain low-risk prisoners."—[Official Report, 16 June 2005; c 18019.]

Clearly, locking up people is not the answer and it does not impact on the overall crime rate. Only now are we beginning to understand that jail should be for people who are a clear threat to the community.

The real and lasting benefit of today's debate will be if the justice agenda is debated in a more mature fashion. We have a prison system that suffers from chronic overcrowding on a daily basis. Bill McKinlay, the governor of Barlinnie prison, has stated in stark terms that he will not be able to house any more prisoners within months.

I trust that sense will prevail at decision time and that members will reject the motion in the name of Bill Aitken and support the order.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The debate on home detention curfew has taken up a great deal of committee and parliamentary time over the past few weeks. I am sure that members will not complain about that; as a responsible Opposition, it is right that we hold the minority Scottish Government to account. It is also right that the ministers who are responsible for ensuring that our communities are safe are called on to defend their proposals.

I make it clear that my party supports HDC for appropriate people as a way of reintegrating short-term offenders into the community. As an individual MSP, I want tagging to be used more widely as a disposal for non-violent offenders. Prison is a place for people who are a danger to society. It is in everyone's interest that we work with minor offenders, in particular. We should offer them the opportunity to make amends for their criminal behaviour, maintain a job and take responsibility for supporting themselves in a community setting. Greater use of tagging, with support, is a way of addressing and reversing criminal behaviour.

As other members have said, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is asking the Parliament to support extending HDC to longer-term prisoners. I am unwilling to support that because of lack of information. He has made available no information either to the Justice Committee or to Parliament on the effectiveness of HDC since its introduction in 2006. Figures have been bandied about this morning, but no serious research has been conducted on the effect of HDC on communities or whether it stops reoffending.

I remind ministers that the purpose of introducing HDC was to reduce reoffending, and it was introduced not in isolation but as part of a package of measures to make Scotland a safer place. Ministers have neither listened to calls for evidence to support the extension nor accepted the Labour Party's offer. HDC has been in operation for almost two years, yet the SNP has nothing to say on whether it is a success in terms of offenders or the communities to which they return. Has HDC addressed the revolving door syndrome? I do not know. If the cabinet secretary knows, he has failed to tell the Justice Committee or Parliament.

In the last parliamentary debate on the topic—I use the term "debate" loosely, given that the cabinet secretary refused to engage in it—SNP members got to their feet to defend their minister. The cabinet secretary accused the Opposition of playing narrow, sectarian party politics and SNP back benchers accused us of taking an overtly political tone. I will speak directly to SNP back benchers. I ask them not to follow, like sheep, their ministers' orders, but to demand from them what we are demanding: fact-based evidence. Before an extension is agreed, the HDC scheme must be properly assessed, but we need evidence before we can do that. Any extension of HDC should be driven not by the goal of reducing the prison population but by the fact that it is working. Thus far, we do not know that it is. I will not vote to put my community at risk. I ask SNP members to vote to support communities, not to save the face of their cabinet secretary.

The Labour Party is not playing politics but taking a responsible political position. I urge the cabinet secretary to take up Bill Butler's reasonable offer. If he does not, I ask SNP members, and Liberal Democrat members, to vote with their heads and not their party whips at decision time.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We come to the wind-up speeches.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I accept Bill Aitken's criticism of what happened a fortnight ago. However, I have been consistent. I supported home detention curfew: I voted for it at committee when I substituted for my colleague Margaret Smith, and I voted the right way on the day. I assure Bill Aitken that, at 5 o'clock, I will try my very best to herd sheep into the chamber at the right time.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

But will he turn up?

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

As I said, I will do my best to herd sheep at 5 o'clock and to ensure that they go in the right direction.

As my colleague Margaret Smith and John Wilson outlined in their speeches, there can be no doubt of the success of HDC. As the cabinet secretary alluded to, the figures on HDC demonstrate that. The Scottish Prison Service ensures that any prisoner who is released on HDC licence, or who wants to do so, fulfils rigorous conditions.

The order revokes the standard conditions in the Home Detention Curfew Licence (Prescribed Standard Conditions) (Scotland) Order 2006, which apply only to short-term prisoners, and prescribes new standard conditions for those prisoners. The result is that standard conditions for short and long-term prisoners will appear in one order, which is a sensible, commonsense approach. However, there will be a need for further conditions to be added on an individual basis, as recommended by the Parole Board for Scotland or the Scottish Prison Service.

A major rationale behind the introduction of HDC was that it would assist offenders' reintegration into their family and community, which is essential. HDC allows offenders to work and to access all the services that are available in communities—many of which are lacking in prisons. As my colleague Margaret Smith said, the SPS is required to examine each individual case and to assess the person prior to granting an HDC licence, with the option of adding conditions when necessary, which is essential. For example, the condition could be that the individual must attend particular addiction treatment or that they must not visit a certain place.

As other members have said, we cannot get away from the fact that there is a record number of prisoners in our prisons. All of us in the Parliament have an obligation to try to reverse that trend. The fact that we in Scotland have more people in prison per head of population than almost any other country in Europe is a disgrace. There is an obligation on all of us to do what we can to sort out the problem.

We cannot ignore the words of the governor of Barlinnie prison or the chief inspector of prisons when they warn of the impact of overcrowding on the SPS's ability to perform its duties effectively and to engage with prisoners in a way that addresses their needs and helps them to avoid reoffending. Burying our heads in the sand and ignoring the practical reality that the Government is grappling with is not an acceptable course of action.

The minister has given a commitment that he will review the system in light of the impact of Addiewell prison being opened in January, and we will hold him to that. We want a commitment that includes an extension of the scheme to long-term prisoners. We will not ignore the overcrowding in our prisons and its detrimental impact on rehabilitation and reoffending levels. We will not ignore the fact that we introduced HDC when we were in government and that, if it is managed properly, it can assist in effectively reintegrating offenders into the communities in which they want to live.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Once again—for the third time—the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has failed to convince members of the merits of extending the home detention curfew scheme from four and a half months to six months. This has been a shameful journey for the Scottish Executive. There has been a lack of respect on the part of the Government towards the committee process and contempt has been shown towards decisions taken by the Parliament.

It is important to recognise that the situation is unprecedented: never before has a minister presented secondary legislation to our committees for it to be defeated there. It is also unprecedented for a Scottish statutory instrument to be brought to the chamber, defeated and then brought before us again. I remember a number of the things that members who formerly were in opposition said over the years about the respect that should be shown to the committee process. Perhaps Mr Ewing, when he sums up, can clarify the fact that he made such remarks about the process on many occasions.

I have read with interest the unprecedented number of briefings in recent weeks regarding the prison overcrowding challenges that face the Government. John Wilson, Mike Pringle and other members are concerned about overcrowding, and they quite rightly made a case in that respect. I also heard some quotes from the governor of Barlinnie prison on the overcrowding challenges that he faces. I respect Bill McKinlay, who represents the prison that is located in my constituency, and I recognise the challenges in his role of managing Barlinnie prison. However, no one in the chamber should allow Mr McKinlay to believe that adding 50 prisoners to the HDC scheme will give him any respite from overcrowding. That is the serious point that needs to be made in the debate. The order will make no difference to the overcrowding challenges that we face.

If the order is passed today, perhaps the cabinet secretary will ensure that members will be kept informed, through the convener of the Justice Committee, of the success of the order, and of whether it has any positive impact in dealing with overcrowding. The overcrowding argument has been the pivotal one that the cabinet secretary has made in respect of the order. He must, on a regular basis, be able to prove that the legislation is making a difference.

In the interests of good, open and accountable government, and assuming that the Government presses ahead with its plans today, I ask the minister to clarify in his summing-up speech when the extension of the HDC scheme will actually be operational—not when the legislation will be passed. That is the most important point in the debate. It is about not what we do in respect of overcrowding, but what difference the home detention scheme will make.

As I said, the Government has once again failed to convince the Parliament. It might win the vote today, but it will not have won the argument. I call on the Parliament to support the motion in the name of Bill Aitken.

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

As is often the case with debates in the chamber, more heat than light has been generated this morning. As Mr Aitken said in his opening speech, there is a sense of déjà vu, therefore I make no apology for reiterating that there has been a great deal of cant and hypocrisy in the debate, particularly from the Labour-Tory alliance that has congealed around the issue.

However, cogent points have been made. In particular, Margaret Smith made it clear—and it was echoed by John Wilson and others—that 40 per cent of HDC applications are rejected, which shows that clear criteria must be considered. In addition, breaches occur in less than 1 per cent of cases. Mr Wilson was correct—irrespective of the sedentary criticism from Mr McLetchie—about the opportunity to appeal to the Parole Board in cases where there is a breach. Indeed, I think that the majority of appeals are successful.

Returning to the hypocrisy of the Tories, we had 18 years of Tory rule with not one new prison. The Tories caused some of the consequences that the Government is now having to address. There has also been cant and hypocrisy from Labour. Ms McNeill seemed to object to extending the scheme to long-term prisoners. Bill Butler fulminated about it. Cathie Craigie oozed false sincerity about it. Mr Martin appeared bullish about it. Let us consider the facts. We are dealing with subordinate legislation today because the previous Administration—a majority Labour Administration—included within the parent act provisions for HDC—

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

For short-term prisoners.

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

The parent act expressly included provision for HDC to be extended to long-term prisoners. It might be that there was simply an oversight, and Mr Butler did not have the opportunity to—

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

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

I will not take an intervention at the moment; I am in the middle of making a point.

Perhaps Mr Butler was unable to persuade the then Minister for Justice of the benefit of a sunset clause—if he had been able to do so, we would not be in this situation now. Perhaps the initial error was that a sunset clause was forsaken. The position is that the previous Administration allowed the scheme to be extended to long-term prisoners by subordinate legislation.

If we take Ms McNeill's point of view, perhaps it was entirely a mistake. Perhaps the draftsmen somehow created an eligibility for long-term prisoners that could be triggered by subordinate legislation—but that was clearly not what Labour meant. I view the assertions that have been made as cant and hypocrisy. The previous Administration, under Labour, knew that there might be a requirement or a desire to extend the HDC scheme to long-term prisoners, so it provided for that in the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005. Ministers did not introduce a sunset clause—they did not forsake the provision, because they knew that they might want to use it. Labour's position is utter cant and hypocrisy.

The mention of delay with Bishopbriggs prison is equally so. Thankfully, it appears that the current—although who knows for how long?—Labour leader in the Parliament welcomes the Government's commitment to Bishopbriggs prison being built in the public sector. Why has there been a delay? Because the previous Administration, under the so-called Labour Party—the party of syndicalism and trade unions—went head to head in a two-year competition to decide whether or not the SPS could build the prison. That delayed matters for two years, at a cost of £2 million—with which we could have built a wall and started construction. Fortunately, this new Administration has repudiated the further privatisation of our prison services—privatisation that was instigated by the Labour Government. We have ensured that the prison service will indeed be a prison service and not a service that is operated for private profit.

As I have said, our prison service faces difficulties. Fortunately, members from all parties acknowledge the excellent job that is being done by the SPS, our prison governors and our prison staff. They have to be able to deal with serious and violent criminals, and they have to be able to deal with not only drugs but mobile phones coming into prisons. If they have to take the flotsam and jetsam, they will be unable to concentrate on the people they need to concentrate on. They cannot do both, and those who would force them to do so would undermine and jeopardise the job that they do. That is why we need flexibility.

Mr Martin thinks that 50 people on HDC is an irrelevant amount. When dealing with the numbers that Mr McKinlay has to deal with in HM Prison Barlinnie in Mr Martin's constituency, 50 is a substantial number. That is why we will vote against the motion.

There has been cant and hypocrisy from the Labour-Tory coalition that got us into this mess in the first place. However, in its wisdom, the Labour Party fortunately gave us the opportunity to deliver measures by way of subordinate legislation. It clearly had the foresight to see that a future Government, Executive or Scottish National Party Administration might wish to implement the measures. I thank the Labour Party for its foresight and wisdom in ensuring that measures for long-term prisoners can be dealt with by means of subordinate legislation.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Here we are again—episode 3 of "The Great Prison Escape", hosted by none other than the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Mr Kenny MacAskill, ably assisted—perhaps—by his Liberal Democrat friends, who are also waving the get out of jail free card.

Thank goodness that Margaret Smith is back in the driving seat of the Lib Dem justice brief, after the chaos of two weeks ago when, on Mike Pringle's watch, there was a rebellion on a scale never before seen in the Scottish Liberal Democrats. Thanks to a combination of no-shows and voting blunders, six of the 16 Lib Dem members—including, remarkably, the party leader—failed to support the party line. I am sure that this time, Margaret Smith will have inspired her colleagues at least to turn up, if not to vote.

At the previous vote, I could barely hide my surprise. I thought, "Are the Liberal Democrats actually listening to the electorate? Are they listening to the victims of crime? Are they willing to stand alongside the Conservatives and oppose a ridiculous measure that will undermine the public's confidence in the criminal justice system?" Oh no, Presiding Officer, I should have known better. After all, why would they be supporting proposals to keep criminals in prison, when I know that some Liberal Democrats think that prison should be abolished altogether? It is, of course, the prerogative of the Liberal Democrats to advance barmy policy ideas every so often, and it is important that they continue to do so.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

We are looking at a system for which there are set criteria. Of the people who apply for home detention curfew, 40 per cent are not accepted. A total of 3,000 people have been released on HDC, and less than 1 per cent of them have offended. Is Mr Lamont suggesting that we should no longer have any form of early release or any form of parole, and that we should keep everybody locked up in prison for the full term of their sentence? How would you deal with that when you did not build a single prison when you were in office?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I certainly did not build any prisons, Ms Smith.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

We are confident enough in our court system to know that people who are sent to prison should spend their time in prison. That is what victims of crime and the wider public tell me. We do not cut crime by cutting the prison population; we cut the prison population by cutting crime. The immediate goal should be to reduce the reconviction rate, not the prison population.

I do not understand why the Government will not examine more closely the experience in England and Wales, where the chief inspector of prisons has warned consistently of the danger of allowing unsuitable prisoners to be transferred out of closed prisons early. Stuart McMillan spoke about the English experience, and I draw his attention to the fact that, under the English version of the HDC scheme, which was introduced in 1999, more than 4,000 prisoners who were released early have reoffended, committing more than 7,000 crimes. More than 1,000 of those crimes were violent crimes, including one murder, 56 woundings and more than 700 assaults. Those crimes would not have been committed if the criminals who committed them had remained in prison serving out their sentence.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

That was in England.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The member says "England", but surely we should learn from our neighbours across the border, rather than put our heads in the sand and make the same mistakes that they have made. Following what happened in the case of Mr Foye, I would have thought that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice would learn the lesson and not propose to release more prisoners even earlier.

Nothing dismays victims more or brings the entire criminal justice system into greater disrepute than the fact that criminals almost never serve the sentence that is handed down by the court. Rather than let criminals out early, the Government needs to rethink its justice policy so that the problems of overcrowded prisons are tackled not by letting prisoners go home early but by cutting the crime figures.

We need to make criminals scared of getting caught and scared of punishment, so that they will choose not to commit crime. Letting offenders home early will not achieve that. We need to make criminals pay a heavy price for their actions, so that others are scared of following their example. Letting offenders home early will not achieve that. We need to put victims first and ensure that they see justice being done. Letting offenders home early will not achieve that. We need to give the police the backing that they deserve. Letting offenders home early will not achieve that.

I wonder what the Lib Dem rebels will be doing today. Will they vote with us to ensure that criminals do their time? Will they vote with us to ensure that the criminal justice system is on the side of the victims of crime rather than on the side of the offenders? Will they vote with us to ensure that dangerous criminals are kept in prison for the length of time that the courts have determined they should be locked up? Will they vote with us as we start the war against crime, so that the law-abiding majority can take back their streets, their town centres, their homes, their communities and their shops? Or will they vote with the SNP Government to set even more prisoners free even earlier? Will they vote with the Government to undermine confidence in our criminal justice system? Will they vote with the Government for a soft-touch Scotland, where four years means 18 months and the decent law-abiding citizens of Scotland have to pay the price? The choice is for the Liberal Democrats. I hope that they will not let us down.

I urge Parliament to back the motion in Bill Aitken's name.

Local Government Finance (Scotland) Amendment Order 2008

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1631, in the name of John Swinney, on the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Amendment Order 2008.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

On 7 February, Parliament approved the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2008. The order agreed the core revenue funding to councils for the coming financial year, 2008-09. In February, we said that we would allocate a further £70 million to support councils that froze their council tax rates for 2008-09. I am please to advise Parliament that all 32 councils have now done so. Indeed, one council—Stirling Council—has cut its council tax rate. If a council is able to cut its council tax rate, that is surely positive proof that this Government has put in place adequate resources to support local services in our communities.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the cabinet secretary please tell us how many single outcome agreements are in order and in place?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Brown will know that the Government has stated clearly that single outcome agreements are being developed with local authorities. We expect the drafts to be with the Government in the next few days. The discussion between the Government and local authorities will continue over the next few weeks—as I have confirmed in previous comments to Parliament—to ensure that the single outcome agreements are formally agreed by the summer recess.

The single outcome agreements represent a change in the whole way in which we manage our relationship with local authorities. The outcomes are a welcome development in how the Government's relationship with local authorities is structured, which will be to the benefit of our citizens.

The motion before Parliament today seeks agreement to an amendment to the earlier order, to allocate the extra £70 million to local authorities for 2008-09 in recognition of the decision of the 32 local authorities on council tax. It is a formidable achievement that, no matter their political colour, councils across Scotland have unanimously embraced the support offered by the Scottish Government to make life a great deal easier for their constituents.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister refers to making life easier. What advice would he give to those members of staff of Highland Council who are losing their jobs as a consequence of the council tax freeze?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

At various stages over the years of the Administration of which Mr Peacock was a part, there were changes to employment in local authorities as a result of decisions that local authorities took. This Administration has put in place the resources that guarantee that local authorities can freeze the council tax and invest in local services. There are countless examples around the country of local authorities investing in public services to ensure that they deliver for their communities.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Mr Peacock asked what advice the minister would give to the staff at Highland Council. In the same vein, what advice would the minister give to the staff of the voluntary sector agencies in Aberdeen City Council area who are losing their jobs as a consequence of changes made by the council in the light of the settlement?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I reiterate the point that I made to Mr Peacock. Local authorities make their own decisions about how they allocate their resources, which is perhaps one of the reasons why Aberdeen City Council is facing the difficulties that Mr Macdonald raises. There is evidence of that in a recent report from the Accounts Commission, which makes serious reading for us all. It says that the council's financial position is precarious. Over the past four years, the council has been using reserves to the tune of £7 million, £8.8 million, £10.9 million and £12.2 million. That is a difficult financial situation for the council to manage, and it must address the issues that the Accounts Commission has raised, which is what it is now doing.

The order will distribute an extra £70 million in revenue funding, on top of the £9.2 billion in general revenue grant already approved by Parliament. Under the previous Administration, the share of funding that went to local government as a proportion of the Scottish budget steadily declined. This Government is investing record levels of funding in local government, and we have halted that decline in the share of spending that is allocated to local government. Thankfully, the Scottish National Party Government has started to reverse the vicious trend of reducing local government's share of the budget—a trend presided over by the previous Administration. We have increased funding to local government by 5 per cent for 2008-09. In the next three years, there will be an overall increase of 13.1 per cent. The £70 million for which we seek approval today equates to a 3.2 per cent increase in council tax income in every single council area—a level of financial support that is more than is required to fund a freeze in the council tax. We have delivered a fair and realistic settlement to the communities of Scotland.

Local authorities have been able to take their own decisions on their priorities in the budget as a result of an unprecedented level of freedom and flexibility provided by this Government. We have put power back into the hands of local authorities and we have provided more than adequate financial support to enable councils to deliver their priorities. We have given councils that increased flexibility by removing large elements of bureaucratic ring fencing of funds, and we have agreed with them on a move away from a focus on inputs and process to a focus on outcomes and what is actually achieved. By allowing local authorities for the first time to retain efficiency savings, we are incentivising local authorities to seek meaningful efficiencies in order to release as many resources as possible to boost front-line services.

Many members said that a council tax freeze could not be delivered. They have been proved wrong. The assistance that we have put in place will come at a very welcome time for householders in Scotland. As a result of this Government's action—working closely with our local authorities—householders who are wrestling with increased fuel and food bills are spared an increase in the council tax. That is the type of positive, beneficial impact on the finances of households in Scotland that the Government seeks in the decisions that it takes and will continue to take, putting the needs of the people at the centre of our priorities. The council tax freeze will provide relief to households throughout Scotland—more than three quarters of households in Scotland will see their income increase over the next year as a result of the freeze. The average household in the bottom 10 per cent of income distribution will, in relative terms, gain most of all.

Earlier this month, we launched a consultation on our proposals to abolish the council tax and replace it with a fairer local income tax based on the ability to pay. We will listen carefully to the results of that consultation.

We recognise that the distribution formula we inherited is overly complex. The current system has developed in a fashion like Topsy. Along with local authorities, the Government is considering simplification of the formula to ensure that we have a reliable and robust basis upon which to distribute resources.

I invite Parliament to support the motion in my name, to put in place the resources to guarantee that our local authorities are able to deliver the freeze in council tax that the Government promised and that we are pleased to deliver.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Amendment Order 2008 be approved.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The Liberal Democrat amendment asks that Parliament should not just pass the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Amendment Order 2008 but reflect on its consequences. I want to make three points: on the state of the public finances; on the impact of the settlement on local government throughout Scotland; and on the nature of local democracy.

The state of the public finances must be of concern to any finance minister. A prudent approach to the public finances would be to accept how interdependent the Scottish economy is on the economies of England and Europe and wider world influences. Tax returns, the credit squeeze and business failure can and will affect the United Kingdom economy. The windfall from higher oil tax revenues will not offset those financial challenges, so Scotland's financial cake has the potential to be slimmer, in real terms, over this session of Parliament.

The politics of girn do not wash. Alistair Darling's much-criticised growth targets in the recent budget look at best ambitious, and perhaps foolish. If public spending is predicated on growth targets, and taxation income projections are not realised, the repercussions for Scottish public expenditure could be severe.

It is surely against that background that Parliament is debating—and will pass—the order. However, it is that background that suggests that financial decisions, and populist measures with a view to short-term political gain and not the long-term future of the country, must be assessed.

Inflation is back in the political lexicon. Price increases are real: in food, energy costs and household living. The governor of the Bank of England said last month that it was "more likely than not" that he would be writing a second letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell him that he had missed the inflation target. Before its members start jumping up and down, the SNP would keep an independent Bank of England prior to joining the euro, so there is no monetary policy difference between Mr Salmond and Mr Brown. So much for the myth of economic independence.

Yes, the Scottish economy looks resilient against the international financial pressures that apply now, but experience suggests a lag before the global impact bites here. A prudent approach to the public finances is imperative. The budget decisions taken by this Government have not been about the long term. As we have heard before, this Government is a disciple of the Clinton and Blair playbook—every decision is about 2011. The order is part of that.

However, the impact of the order on local services is profound. The council tax freeze was a policy no local council could turn down, but the consequence is that many local people—who depend on local services—are being turned down. The Liberal Democrats asked the Government to guarantee that local services would not be cut as a result of the SNP's budget decisions. We asked that question consistently throughout the budget process and never received an answer. We now know why.

There is a scale of cuts—even in Glasgow. I noticed in the papers this week that Glasgow is cutting 425 posts, 124 of which are teaching posts. However, I agree with the cabinet secretary that the political colour of the Administration does not matter. Throughout the country, under every party represented in the Parliament, jobs and services are being cut. That is not my construction but that of council chiefs throughout the country.

The "historic"—as everything is these days—settlement cannot be all that the Government cracks it up to be. If it were so good—so historically good—why are so many jobs being shed, and why are so many councils having to consider cutting services? It might be a more worthy target of the slightly intemperate word that Mr Swinney used earlier. The impact is severe, and it will be more so in the next two financial years. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, local authority finance chiefs and independent commentators all state that the settlement to come is eye-wateringly tight. Given the background of the public finances and the need for the Government to find resources to meet a council tax freeze for the rest of this session, what is happening now across Scotland will become more pronounced in the years to come.

My final point is on local accountability. We should be clear that no council now has any control over the income side of its balance sheet. The argument that applies to the Parliament—which some of us strongly wish to change—now applies equally to the 32 Scottish local authorities, and no change is in sight. The Labour Party and the Conservatives oppose getting rid of the council tax and the SNP Government wants a national income tax. Unfortunately, the parliamentary arithmetic means paralysis and no change.

For those reasons, the Parliament should not only agree to the order but reflect on its consequences and consider the future that lies rather further ahead than 2011.

I move amendment S3M-1631.1, to insert at end:

"but, in so doing, regrets the extent of public service cuts and closures in communities across Scotland as a direct consequence of the financial settlement received by local government from central government."

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

It will seem ironic to many communities throughout Scotland that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth is parading the glory of the council tax freeze as they experience many cuts in public services. People with disabilities are paying more for care, while council rent increases are higher than inflation. Union leaders are demanding meetings to fight compulsory redundancy. Pensioners are being told that their concessions for adult education classes are over. Pools and sports centres face the axe and parking charges are rising. Schools are strapped for cash, teaching posts are being cut and school cleaning budgets are being slashed. There are increases in school dinner charges, music tuition fees, ferry fares, commercial refuse collection fees and even burial charges. That is all because of Mr Swinney's budget.

Throughout Scotland, councils are cutting their baselines to balance their budgets. East Lothian Council is cutting its baseline by nearly £4.5 million, Fife Council has cut the baseline by £12.5 million and Highland Council has cut its baseline by nearly £13 million. All those cuts have been made to balance the budgets and it is all because of Mr Swinney's budget. The headlines are reminiscent of the Thatcher days, when councils cut services, did not fill vacancies and laid off staff to charge the poor more. What an achievement that is for Mr Swinney, who figures in many of the headlines.

In Aberdeen, the cuts are particularly bad. They mean that the homeless will be colder in the streets, schools will be closed and swimming pools and leisure centres will be axed. In Edinburgh, there have been cuts in the sure start scheme, school budgets and nursery places, while five new school buildings have been put on hold. As Wendy Alexander has said, Alex Salmond is fast becoming Scotland's Mr Takeaway.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Will Andy Kerr tell us whether he supports the council tax freeze—yes or no?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I have said in the Parliament on many occasions that I support it if it is properly funded, but not if it is funded by robbing the money from council budgets and starving communities throughout Scotland—including Mr Adam's own—of much-needed services. Those communities are now paying the cost of the council tax freeze. That is the difference between Mr Adam and me: I see the issue as being not about new money going into the system to add to services, but about money being taken out to balance budgets. That is the real effect of the SNP's budget.

Let us look at the facts. Councils throughout Scotland have received the tightest settlement since devolution. It is a 1.5 per cent increase in the money that is available to be invested in public services. The SNP has funded inflation and the council tax freeze but, when it comes to funding services, its budget settlement has failed the people of Scotland miserably.

Much has been said about the funding that was available for local government services when the Labour Party was in power. Under Labour, the average annual increase was 5 per cent in real terms, not 1.5 per cent as it is under the SNP.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

rose—

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Mr Swinney wanted that point made; I will give way in a minute.

Over the period that Labour was in power, council tax increases were held at less than 2 per cent, and the Scottish band D level fell below that in England.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

What was the scale of the increase in the Scottish Government's budget when Mr Kerr was the Minister for Finance and Public Services? It was formidably greater than any increase with which I have had to deal.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Therein lies the myth of the concordat con. The share of the Scottish budget that went to local government under Labour was 35.5 per cent on average; under the SNP, it is 33.59 per cent. The share of the Scottish budget spent on local government was much larger under Labour than it is under the SNP, but the minister fails to recognise that. Perhaps we will come back to some of those points in the closing speeches.

At the heart of Scottish local government, the SNP has left a black hole for public services, the disabled community and the elderly in Scotland. It has left those who rely on public services in dire need of more resources and it has failed to deliver.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The Conservatives will support the motion because we welcome the council tax freeze and the relief that it brings to hard-pressed taxpayers. Indeed, as the cabinet secretary said, Stirling Council even cut council tax—Michael Forsyth would be proud.

I will focus on the Liberal Democrat amendment. Tavish Scott gave a reasoned and thoughtful speech—it was most unlike him—but I will come to the detail of it. The amendment calls for a higher allocation of funds to local government. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to argue for and is unsurprising, because spending more of other people's money is the Liberal Democrats' favourite solution to whatever problem confronts them. If the local government settlement is so meagre, is it not a pity that they did not try to secure extra money for it in the budget process?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I am surprised at Derek Brownlee's line of questioning because, only on Monday, his leader was describing Mr Swinney's colleagues as socialists. If they are so socialist, why did the Conservatives vote for their budget?

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

That was not an answer to my question about where the Liberal Democrats' attempts to amend the budget were. If Mr Scott looks at annex A to the Finance Committee report on the budget, which helpfully lists all the alternative spending proposals, he will not find a single one from the Liberal Democrats. Today, they cast themselves as the friends and saviours of Scottish local government, which might strike residents of Edinburgh and Aberdeen as ironic. What did those friends of local government do when they were confronted with a series of amendments to the budget in January, all of which aimed to reduce the local government settlement? They looked long and hard at them and then, given how poorly dealt with they considered local government to be, summoned up all their principles and—as only the Liberal Democrats can—abstained on 10 separate occasions. Nick Huhne would be proud of them.

Having failed to even try to get additional funding for local government in the budget, the Liberal Democrats are at it today. And why not? Why should local government be denied the additional spending that the Lib Dems demand for everything else? They are as happy as pigs in mud when demanding that taxpayers' money be spent on their issue of the day—which is apt because, on three occasions since the budget, they have demanded extra money for pigs.

Mr Scott gave an eloquent description of the state of the public finances.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Is Derek Brownlee ridiculing the fact that the pig industry is in a dreadful state? The Conservatives should support that industry, not denigrate it.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am ridiculing a speech from Mr Scott about the state of the public finances and a series of spending commitments from the Liberal Democrats. Ross Finnie demanded more money for the national health service on 8 February. Alison McInnes wanted it for regional transport partnerships and lain Smith wanted it for bus fares also on 8 February, while on 14 February Alison Mclnnes wanted more money for bus operators. On 14 February, local government was to get more money according to Nicol Stephen. On 20 February, Alison Mclnnes wanted it for a hovercraft and Hugh O'Donnell wanted it for a phone line. On 21 February, Mr O'Donnell also wanted money for international aid.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I spoke to the Government's proposals, but Derek Brownlee is making a speech on behalf of the Government. Would you draw him back to the debate that we are having?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

If he had been out of order, I would have stopped him.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I had only got to 21 February. On 22 February, Mr McArthur wanted money for fuel poverty. On 27 February, Mr Scott wanted it for ferries and Mr Tolson wanted it for sports facilities, while, on 28 February, it was being asked for for enterprise training for teachers. On 6 March, Jeremy Purvis wanted it for education and, on the same day, the borders railway. Mr Rumbles asked for it for rural development on 7 March. A national migrant study was the target for Mr McArthur on 8 March and for Alison Mclnnes it was the A82 on 11 March. Ross Finnie wanted money for community health care on the same day but, the day after, John Farquhar Munro wanted it for post offices. It was coastguards' pay on 13 March. Mr Rumbles wanted money for pigs on 18 March. On 20 March, Jim Hume wanted it for biomass and Mr O'Donnell wanted it for school estates. I worried that a week was about to pass without another Lib Dem spending commitment but, yesterday, Mr Scott saved the day with his demand for more funding for local government.

The Liberal Democrats' reasoned amendment is an attempt to blame central Government for all the problems in local government. It will not wash. Let us dismiss it as the smokescreen that it is and welcome the freeze in council tax and the ending of ring fencing for local government.

We will support the motion in John Swinney's name and take particular pleasure in voting down the amendment in the name of Tavish Scott.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

It is a great pleasure to speak in support of Mr Swinney and the additional £70 million that we are debating. I am delighted that Aberdeen City Council is to receive £3.3 million of the £70 million, which will go across the board in Scotland, because all the councils have frozen council tax, with the exception of Stirling Council, which has cut it.

As Mr Swinney rightly pointed out, there are issues with local government funding, and I am delighted to hear him repeat today that he will examine the rather overcomplicated current formula, which does not bear detailed scrutiny and is difficult to justify.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member give way?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Let me develop the point.

I look forward to those plans coming to fruition.

The reason why we currently have so many difficulties in Aberdeen is the continued overspending of the previous two Administrations. The first figure that Mr Swinney gave—the £7 million—was money that Labour spent over the budget, which created a long-term commitment for the council. The other figures were—

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member give way?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I will not take interventions—let me develop the point.

We cannot take a view on the independent Accounts Commission having rightly identified the financial position in Aberdeen as being precarious without closely examining the spending patterns over the past few years.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

If the member had any idea how finance worked, I might think about taking his intervention, but since neither he nor his colleagues, nor any of the Labour councillors in Aberdeen, have offered any alternative budget, there is little point in hearing what he has to say.

The spending over the past four or five years by Aberdeen City Council of almost £40 million of reserves as revenue funding—money that not was there—is precisely why the Accounts Commission has reported that the council is in a precarious financial position.

Under the auspices of Labour-Liberal Democrat Governments, Aberdeen had a 90 per cent council tax rise, when the Scottish average was 62 per cent, which was bad enough. That is why—

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Will the member take an intervention?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I am terribly—[ Interruption. ]

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I am terribly disappointed that Labour members are not prepared to accept the facts.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Will the member agree—[ Interruption. ]

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Does the member agree, as Mr Swinney has failed to do, that council tax levels in the first year of the Scottish Parliament were set by the previous Tory Government and so were not Labour's responsibility? Therefore, the member's figures are plain wrong.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Even if we discount that, the rise in council tax was considerably higher than the rate of inflation, and it was disproportionately higher in Aberdeen as a result of the funding formula, which the Labour Administration was repeatedly asked to change and did not. It is to Mr Swinney's great credit that, having taken office during a very difficult financial period, he is prepared to address such situations in conjunction with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

The overall generous settlement that we now have highlights the fact that the proportion of the Scottish budget that was going to local government had been in steady decline. When Labour left office, it was as low as 28.9 per cent, which emphasises Mr Swinney's point about the 35 per cent average that was claimed by a Labour spokesperson. At the end of this spending review period, it will be up at 33.6 per cent.

We have a sensible proposal to distribute the money that people want to go to local government that will help to maintain council tax freezes in the coming year. I look forward to two more years of that, by agreement with the local authorities.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

We keep being told that the local government funding settlement is historic. It is certainly historic in Aberdeen—it has resulted in swingeing cuts to key services and facilities, the likes of which have never been seen in the city before. Mr Adam fails to recognise that when Labour left office there was a surplus of some £23 million—now we have £27 million of cuts, which will hit older and vulnerable groups in particular, as well as services for people with disabilities. At a time when we are trying to encourage people to lead healthier lives, sports centres are being closed—a move that has caused particular dismay among the city's young people.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In light of the information that I gave Mr Macdonald about the use of reserves by Aberdeen City Council over the past four financial years, and bearing in mind the Accounts Commission's report that says that the financial position of the council is precarious, what steps would Mr Baker recommend the council takes to rectify its financial position?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

None of those decisions was made under a Labour Administration. Indeed, several suggestions for alternative funding decisions have been put forward locally, which certainly do not include spending around £80 million on new office accommodation for the council administration.

This budget is the most right wing that the Parliament has ever seen. The cuts in Aberdeen, which will affect children, young people and people with disabilities, are—I tell Mr Adam and his colleagues—no laughing matter.

Those of us in the Parliament who said that the settlement would hit the vulnerable were told that we were scaremongering and asked how we dared to suggest that councillors from other parties would make budgetary decisions that would remove lifeline services for people with disabilities. Well, in Aberdeen, the SNP colleagues of ministers are, as members of the council administration, making exactly those decisions.

Last Friday, my parliamentary colleagues and I, along with affected groups, held a meeting that was attended by more than 400 people to highlight the concerns about the impact of the cuts. The leaders of Aberdeen City Council were invited, but they did not attend to hear those concerns. It was heart-rending to hear the fears of some of the people at the meeting about how devastating the cuts would be for them. The sporting hopes of young swimmers and skaters who do not know where they will be able to train have been dashed and we heard about the plight of disabled people who will lose jobs at Glencraft and the facilities at the Choices centre, which has given real meaning and direction to the lives of many people with disabilities, some of whom cannot imagine life without it.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I am sorry, Mr Brown—I do not have time.

I cannot believe that if the SNP councillors had been there, they would not, at the very least, have thought again about the impact of their budget. Of course, local decisions are crucial, and the cuts do follow mismanagement of council finances by those with responsibility for such matters, both in the current and the previous administration, since 2003—failings that the Accounts Commission has highlighted, as the cabinet secretary said. However, those failings have undoubtedly been compounded by the national funding settlement. Not only is Aberdeen at the bottom of the national funding table but, as Mr Brown said, we still do not know what services we can expect to be delivered locally through a single outcome agreement.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

What does the member make—and what will the voters of Aberdeen make—of Brian Adam's comment that the Government's financial settlement to the city of Aberdeen this year was generous?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I think that the voters will judge that the settlement was poor indeed, Mr Rumbles. We need to know what kind of provision will be made under a local single outcome agreement and whether services such as those for people with disabilities will be protected in future. Before the election, the SNP promised good times for the north-east, but Aberdeenshire—not only Aberdeen—has received a poor funding settlement. Any benefit to poorer families and older people from the council tax freeze has in our part of Scotland been more than offset by increased charges.

Those charges are compounding the impact of the swingeing cuts in the city of Aberdeen. Even under the Conservative Government and Michael Forsyth, Aberdeen never experienced cuts such as it is suffering now. Everything must be done to ensure that the cuts do not go ahead. I realise that opposing the order today will not change the position, but I urge ministers to do all that they can to mitigate the cuts, which are due for April 1—a poor joke on the vulnerable in our city. If the cuts proceed, there is no doubt that Aberdeen will have been shamed by its own council administration, and that the north-east will have been badly let down by the SNP.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

As a former councillor, I am delighted to take part in the debate on the local government finance order—which we awaited each year with some dread under the previous Administration. When I was a councillor and council leader, I always wanted to say three things, as did council leaders across the political spectrum. First, to the dismay of local government, the share of the cake was reduced over many years; that point has been made today. Along with other Convention of Scottish Local Authorities leaders, I made these points to the then finance minister back in 2002, and our concerns were dismissed as irrelevant.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Will the member give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

No. I have just started.

Secondly, I wanted to say that we should end or at least reduce ring fencing. It is evident that people throughout local government are happy that ring fencing has been hugely reduced this year. The third thing was that the Labour Government—and previously the Conservative Government—should stop using the council tax as their form of taxation. They taxed people without taking the odium for doing so by reducing the share of the cake that local government received and forcing huge increases because of the gearing effect.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

On that point, will the member give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Certainly.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The table that has been made available to us by the Scottish Parliament information centre shows that, in the year that the member mentions, 2002-03, local government's share of the Scottish budget was 36.66 per cent, and that in 2008-09 it will be 33.57 per cent. That is a drop of more than 3 per cent. Can the member explain that?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I do not recognise those figures, and the council leaders at the time—Labour or otherwise—do not recognise them either. The simple fact, which the member refuses to acknowledge, is that Labour reduced local government's share, year on year, in every year for which it was in office.

We are here to debate whether to pass extra money to councils to enable them to freeze their council tax. I did not expect Labour or Liberal Democrat members to oppose the freezing of the council tax and they have not disappointed me. Instead, however, we have heard talk of cuts, cuts and more cuts. In politics, there are debating tricks, and everyone has the right to present their case in the best possible light, but there are times when that verges on—or even crosses into—being downright deceitful with the public.

What we have heard is deceitful because the funding that councils have received from the Scottish Government is generous, and more than the previous Administration gave them last year. That is a simple statement of fact. For example, in the next three years, funding for Clackmannanshire Council and Stirling Council, in my constituency, will increase by 15.4 per cent and 14.4 per cent respectively. Both are Labour administrations—or at least they were until two weeks ago, when Labour was thrown out of office in Stirling and the SNP took control of the council.

The Labour administration in Clackmannanshire has done its party duty and complained at every opportunity about what it calls the cost of the council tax freeze, but we should remember that it goes through bad Audit Scotland reports faster than Wendy Alexander goes through press officers. The administration has presided over financial mismanagement on such a scale that its cash reserves fell to just £6,000 a few months ago. Now, somehow, despite the council tax freeze, it projects the reserves going back up to £3 million.

Strangely, though, despite all the extra money that it is getting from the Scottish Government, the Labour administration in Clackmannanshire proposes spending cuts and efficiency savings that are twice what the SNP opposition proposed. So much for Wendy Alexander and her famous declaration on January 13:

"I have no doubt that Labour councillors, indeed Labour councils, have spent their life looking after the homeless, women's aid, all of these poor, weak, vulnerable groups that we came into politics for."

In Clackmannanshire, the Labour group is cutting school crossing patrols and classroom assistants. Those cuts could have been easily avoided if it had accepted the SNP's alternative. The simple fact is that the council is seeking to increase its reserves to £3 million at the same time as making cuts. It had alternatives to that.

If a Labour council can do no wrong, how come a council—let us say, for example, Stirling Council—has managed to reduce its council tax? How can the council tax freeze possibly be hurting services to those poor, weak, vulnerable groups? Like a grumbling Labour back bencher, it does not follow. Either the forcibly retired Labour administration in Stirling was a bunch of chancers, or the £70 million that is attached to the council tax freeze means that there is no damage to those services, in which case the members of the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament are the ones who are being less than truthful about these things. When I consider those two possibilities, I wonder whether both the Labour administration in Stirling and the Labour Opposition in the Parliament are merely scaremongering, as they have been doing for a number of months now.

The word on the ground is that Stirling Council's dear, departed Labour administration knew that the funding settlement was a gift given by a Scottish Government that could not really afford to be generous. According to a Scottish Executive survey three years ago, a third of the population has no meaningful understanding of what a percentage is. I clarify that that was a survey by the Scottish Executive and not a survey of the Scottish Executive. One does not have to be John Swinney to know that, when the Scottish Government's budget increases by 0.5 per cent but its funding to councils increases by 2 per cent, councils are getting an extremely good deal. For that reason, I am happy to support the motion and the council tax freeze.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

As Richard Baker said a few moments ago, a new era for local services has begun in the city of Aberdeen. The danger is that what is true of Aberdeen today will be true of the rest of Scotland tomorrow.

Today, in Aberdeen, supporters of the homelessness charity the Cyrenians are beginning a week-long action of sleeping out in the shadow of Marischal college. Usually, its supporters take part in sleep-outs to raise the public's awareness of the problem of homelessness in Aberdeen. This time, they are braving the elements to protest against local government cuts. The Cyrenians alone face a cut of £900,000 from the annual funding that they receive from Aberdeen City Council. They expect that four valuable projects that work with homeless people will close, and that 30 voluntary sector jobs will be lost.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

Does the member support the council tax freeze in Aberdeen or does he believe that the £27 million shortfall should be made up by a £356 rise in the council tax?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Is that not a peculiar question from a member from Dundee? Let us see whether we can engage in some dialogue with SNP members from Aberdeen. It would help if members, in making speeches and outrageous claims about the city of Aberdeen, engaged in debate rather than refusing interventions.

In practice, the new-found freedom of local government has meant £27 million of cuts across the board in the city of Aberdeen and the seeking of a further £2 million of savings from proposed school closures. SNP ministers say that councils can now set their own priorities, decide where money should be spent, make local decisions to meet local needs, and be accountable to local people. It is a shame, then, that SNP councillors in Aberdeen have not explained their priorities to local people, have made decisions that remove services from those who need them the most, and have declined to take the opportunities that have been offered to them to be accountable to the people who are affected by those cuts.

Likewise, SNP ministers say that they want smaller class sizes and that they support parental choice, yet the policy that SNP councillors in Aberdeen are pursuing is to merge and close primary and nursery schools whose class sizes are deemed to be too small, and to deny parents choice in the placing of their children.

All that comes back to local government finance—to the funding that ministers provide and the choices that councils make about what to do with that money. As John Swinney said, the Accounts Commission announced last week that it will hold a public hearing to examine more closely how Aberdeen City Council has implemented best value and community planning in the past four years. That will be followed very closely by the many people in Aberdeen who face the loss of services as a result of council cuts, and I hope that it will be so arranged as to allow many of those people to attend the public hearing.

Like the Cyrenians' supporters who are sleeping out in the shadow of Marischal college, those people will want to know why it is okay to spend £80 million on turning a Victorian granite building into council offices while schools have to close because they cost too much to maintain. They will want to know how council reserves of £23.5 million in 2003 disappeared during the following four years, and why the council administration voted through £27 million of cuts last month just as the Accounts Commission was coming to a view on what to do next. If those drastic, panic-stricken cuts were designed to persuade the Accounts Commission that the council had no case to answer, they have clearly failed.

The administration of Aberdeen City Council should set aside its cuts and closures programme until the public hearing has been held. It should engage in genuine dialogue with all parties and with the public—the council tax payers of Aberdeen—on what the city's priorities should be and how they should be met. In that way, the council can hope to reconnect with its proud tradition of providing excellent public services, which it did for many years, and the citizens of Aberdeen can have some hope for the future of those services. If the administration fails to protect services and fails to reverse the decisions to cut and close vital services, it will not readily be forgiven in Aberdeen.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

No one wants to pay more tax. On that basis, everyone throughout Scotland will welcome the fact that the council tax is not increasing this year.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Not everyone.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Well, everyone should.

The Scottish Government offered more taxpayers' money to each and every council if they agreed to freeze their council tax. It would be a strange councillor indeed who advocated increasing the council tax while being offered money from Mr Swinney not to do so, so it is no surprise that every local authority accepted an offer that they could not refuse.

I hesitate to make an analogy between John Swinney and the Godfather. After all, our Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth is more used to being likened to an affable bank manager than to Don Vito Corleone, who is a fictional member of the Cosa Nostra. However, Mr Swinney did indeed make our councils an offer that they could not refuse, because refusal would have been economic nonsense. The fact that councils could not refuse the offer does not mean that making it was the right thing to do. In the case of my council—Aberdeenshire—we cannot pretend that the move was anything other than a financial cut, which is leading to cuts across the piece in much-needed services. Aberdeenshire Council has had to make £10 million of cuts from a budget of nearly £500 million.

At a stroke, the local government settlement will set the council's eight-year fair-share campaign back to where it started. In 2000, the council received just 88 per cent of what it would have received if financial allocations were made on a simple population basis. Slowly but surely, the previous Executive was addressing that unfairness. By last year, the discrepancy had been reduced from a gap of 12 per cent to 8 per cent. However, at a stroke, the current Government's financial settlement will take Aberdeenshire's share of the funding cake back to square 1—back to just 88 per cent of funding if the calculation were to be made on a population basis. That is the situation that Aberdeenshire's director of finance has described.

Eight years of work have been rubbished because the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has not bothered to address the most important issue: the funding formula. When he was pressed on that recently in an interview for a north-east newspaper, he did not accept what he had done to Aberdeenshire. He did not know. He did not think that it was possible to do that in one year. I have news for the cabinet secretary: he did that. He needs to get more of a grip of his portfolio, because he needs to understand all the unexpected consequences of his actions. I am sure that he did not intend to create the situation that I described.

On Aberdeenshire's fair-share campaign, the cabinet secretary is obviously not quite with it. That surprises me, because two ministers represent Aberdeenshire as constituency MSPs. What exactly are Stewart Stevenson and—more important—Alex Salmond doing about the situation? It is obvious that they are doing nothing. Are they even aware of their council's fair-share campaign? The conclusion must be that they are uninterested or that they do not care.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Brian Adam would not give way to me, so he should sit down.

One thing is sure: if Alex Salmond were interested in Aberdeenshire Council's fair-share campaign, he would do something about it and the current state of affairs would not be allowed to continue. This is a poor state of affairs from the SNP Administration. It is unfortunate that the Government is unwilling to address the inherent unfairness in the financial allocation to Aberdeenshire. Since I was elected, I have pressed every Administration on that. We were doing something about the situation, but the SNP has put the position back to square 1. I for one intend to ensure that the people of Aberdeenshire know full well on whose shoulders the irresponsibility and unfairness rest—they rest with the SNP Administration.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Many will be aware of a health care issue that has strong local government links. Symptoms include increased temperatures, denial, angry verbal outbursts and serious bouts of nausea. Those who are immune to the condition must avoid feeling smug or gloating. The condition can be cured simply by ensuring that the words "historic" and "concordat" are not used in proximity to each other and that the words "council", "tax" and "freeze" are never used in the same sentence. An alternative cure might be for some Opposition MSPs to grow up and own that the council tax freeze is a good thing for the people of Scotland.

The Scottish Government's pledge to work for a council tax freeze has been delivered, not by the Government or local authorities working in isolation, but by both working together as equal partners. All parties in the Parliament should warmly welcome that.

It is crucial that the Parliament respects the concordat and local authorities' decisions to freeze council tax, in the knowledge that by doing so they will gain extra revenue, which Pat Watters of COSLA estimated to be the equivalent of a 3.4 per cent uplift in revenue that will not cost council tax payers a penny. With that, hard-pressed council tax payers will experience a real-terms cut in their council tax, rather than the average 62 per cent increase since 1997. I know that many of our pensioners will celebrate the council tax freeze. That is why I urge every member to vote for the order, which will allow funds to be transferred to local authorities. I hope that we can build on that and soon deliver a fair local income tax.

We often have political knockabouts in the chamber, and I admit that I am no innocent in the matter. When a Glasgow Labour councillor said "God bless" the SNP for the additional financial support that Glasgow City Council would receive as a result of the council tax freeze, a wee motion from me appeared in the Business Bulletin to welcome those comments. I thank all those who supported that motion. No Labour MSP has seen fit to sign it, but I live in hope.

That councillor, whose comments appeared in the Evening Times, also said that the Scottish Government was giving Glasgow City Council

"money to do what we were planning to do anyway."

That point is crucial. At a stroke, those comments put paid to the lies and scaremongering—spread throughout Scotland and fuelled by Opposition politicians—that a council tax freeze would lead to cuts. We know that that is untrue and we must remind ourselves again of the moneys that will be given to local government: £34.8 billion in the next three years, which represents a 12.9 per cent increase.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does the member accept Joe FitzPatrick's figure of £27 million of cuts in Aberdeen this year?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

According to Lewis Macdonald, only Aberdeen MSPs are allowed to talk about Aberdeen, so I could not possibly comment—I apologise.

For the first time, local government will receive an increased share of the spending cake rather than a smaller slice, as it did under the previous Executive. That spending cake will not be top sliced as it was by the previous Executive, which demanded efficiency savings of local authorities that had the disincentive of knowing that they would not receive a single penny back—they were robbed of those savings.

The Scottish Parliament information centre estimates that the Government's end to top slicing and allowing local authorities to keep their efficiency savings will raise an additional £658 million for councils over the next three years.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

On that point?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

On a point of my choosing.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

No, thank you.

The previous Executive would have denied local authorities that money, but we will ensure that local authorities keep it.

Let us have an end to scare stories. They cheapen the Opposition and the Parliament itself. We should support councils and hard-pressed council tax payers by approving the order.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I will focus on the gap between the rhetoric that we have heard from the Scottish Government about the level of finance for local government and the public services that it will support and the reality of what is happening. I will give concrete examples from issues in which I have been involved in the past few weeks in Edinburgh and Leith and I will not become engaged in a war of statistics, except to point out that many official figures are underestimates—for example, the £780,000 cut in grants to the voluntary sector in Edinburgh is actually £2.6 million if we take account of efficiencies and a lack of inflation provision.

Schools highlight sharply the gap between the rhetoric and the reality. At a school in my constituency last week, I talked to distressed staff who face the reality of a cut in staffing numbers next year. That is happening when the Government is talking about smaller class sizes, which I presume should mean more teachers. That cut is part of the £3.8 million cut in funding to schools in Edinburgh, which is more than 1.5 per cent of the overall budget. On top of that, £966,000 will come out of sure start and 320 full-time nursery places will be lost. Both those developments fly in the face of the rhetoric that we heard a couple of weeks ago when the Scottish Government launched its early years strategy.

Another prominent cut that has provoked widespread concern in Edinburgh and Leith in the past few weeks is the £300,000 cut in funding for leisure centre crèches. I was pleased to support the campaign for those crèches, which continues. That cut is contrary not only to what the Government says in its early years strategy, but to all its good intentions on health improvement. In the past few weeks, I have met many parents—mainly women with young children—who, as a result of that cut, will no longer be able to use superb leisure centres in Edinburgh such as the Leith Victoria swim centre in my constituency.

It is not just the young who are affected. There is an on-going review of home care services in Edinburgh, and now only those who are in the critical care category are eligible for home care. Again, that is completely contrary to the Government's rhetoric about care at home in local communities. Those who are still to receive home care will attract a 17.5 per cent increase in the charge. If that is not bad enough, there are £8.2 million of cuts still to be identified in the health and social care budget over the next three years.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Will the member confirm that the cuts in the City of Edinburgh Council's education budget, such as they are this year, are less than the cuts under the previous Administration? Many of the cuts are to managerial jobs, and teachers have been crying out for that for some time.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

That does not reflect the experience that I had in the school in my constituency last week, and it is not true more generally. In fact, there was £52 million in the reserves when the previous Administration left office.

Having taken that intervention, I do not have time to go into detail on the £833,000 cut in the community learning and development budget and the 85 per cent cut in funding for the Edinburgh Community Newspaper Trust, which is threatening the excellent North Edinburgh News in my constituency.

I will conclude on an issue that concerns my portfolio of culture. We have heard a great deal of fine rhetoric about support for the arts from the new Scottish Government, but the reality of the administration in Edinburgh—in which the SNP is prominent—is that there has been a cut of £83,000 in support for the outreach services of Scottish Opera and Scottish Ballet. We believe not only in supporting excellence in the arts, but in ensuring that that excellence is available to the widest possible range of people. The programmes of Scottish Opera and Scottish Ballet in schools and in the community more generally will be decimated by that cut.

When it comes to culture policy, education policy and care of the elderly, we hear fine words from the Scottish Government but the reality on the ground, time and again, contradicts those policies. It is very important, in this debate and more generally, that people listen to what is happening in the real world and test the Government's fine words against the reality.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

Today's debate is another clear sign that the SNP Government is delivering for the people of Scotland. In under a year, the Government has established a new relationship with Scotland's 32 local authorities and given them more powers to make decisions at local level through the historic concordat. We have put an end to the years of council tax increases that took place under the previous Administration by freezing the tax. In doing so, we have set Scotland on the road to a fairer system of taxation that is based on the ability to pay.

As usual, the financial experts on the Labour benches have been vocal in the debate. However, we will take no lessons on local government finance from the Labour Party—a party that proposed a ludicrous council tax rebanding policy during the election that even its own candidates did not believe added up; a party that bizarrely voted against the Scottish Government's budget after its own amendment had been accepted; and a party that presided over a disgraceful 62 per cent rise in council tax.

Let us not forget the secret implication of Labour's plans to tinker with the council tax. It is the implication that dare not speak its name, which will terrify council tax payers throughout Scotland—revaluation. I am happy to take an intervention from any Labour member who wants to explain their policy on revaluation—but there is silence, as expected. The fact is that if there are any changes to the bands, there must be a revaluation, and revaluation in Wales resulted in a third of homes going up at least one band and only 8 per cent going down. In my constituency, moving up one band from band D to band E would cost people £350. That would be the cost of Labour's proposed revaluation; no wonder the Labour Party will not talk about the implications of its policy of tinkering with the council tax.

As the cabinet secretary stated, we have entered a new era of co-operation with local authorities, which benefits the people of Scotland by offering increased funding and increased control over how that money will be spent locally, but without any increase in council tax.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member take an intervention?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

I would be pleased to take an intervention if the member will talk about Labour's revaluation policy.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I would like to talk about—

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

No, no, no.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

The member mentioned budgets—

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

I am not going to—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Just one moment. I think that I am in charge here—the last time I looked, I was.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

Sorry.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Are you taking Mr McAveety's intervention?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

Not if he is not prepared to talk about—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You either take it or you do not.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

No. I have made it clear that I will take an intervention from any Labour member who is prepared to stand up and talk about the implications of Labour's council tax policy, but not one of them has the guts to do that.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

On revaluation.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

The SNP has a minister with responsibility for local government finance. Will the member ask the minister to consider revaluation?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

Mr McAveety did not answer the question. Our Government is getting rid of the council tax altogether, which means that there is no need for revaluation. Only if we kept the council tax would we need a revaluation, which would put a third of houses up by at least one band. That would cost £350 in Dundee, probably more in Aberdeen and about the same throughout the rest of Scotland.

We have heard Labour claim that the council tax is fine, but clearly it is not. Council tax benefit fails to address the major flaws in that form of taxation. Figures that were published by the UK Government show that 150,000 pensioners in Scotland who are eligible for council tax benefit—almost 40 per cent—do not claim. That is clear proof that we need a new approach. Those pensioners will benefit disproportionately from the introduction of a fair local income tax that is based on the ability to pay, and they will benefit most from the council tax freeze in terms of the proportion of their income that the tax constitutes.

The Labour Party is not interested in such figures. It is blinded by its opposition to all progressive policy from the SNP Government and would rather snipe from the sidelines without offering any credible alternative.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

I am in my last 30 seconds.

The arguments that we have heard today from the old Lib-Lab alliance are lacklustre and offer nothing for the average Scot. For the Scottish public, the situation could not be clearer. Under Labour, there has been a rise of 62 per cent in the council tax; under the SNP Government, they will pay not a penny more in council tax and they have a commitment to a cut in the tax burden for those who need it most, based on the ability to pay.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Last week, in the chamber, members heard Tony Benn talk about faith in politics. What we have heard today from the SNP members—the true believers—is that all that matters in the local government debate and in local government funding is a council tax freeze. There has been a paucity of attempts to defend budget decisions at the local level, despite the information that was given by Malcolm Chisholm from his constituents—and even from Brian Adam's constituents. Brian Adam did not defend his constituents; he praised his minister. Like the other Bryan Adams, he said, "Everything I do, John, I do it for you." That is the reality of the SNP Administration.

Three weeks ago, Mr Swinney appeared on "Newsnight Scotland". I read with interest this month's Holyrood magazine—I am using media comments because that is what the First Minister does at question time—in which Mr Swinney says:

"I enjoy media jousts, I'm all for discussion with the media ... but it's impossible in terms of getting your message across when you cannot say 18 words on a first answer in an interview without being interrupted and repeatedly interrupted until you cannot complete a sentence."

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I, too, felt sorry when I read that. He continues:

"I find that the most pointless style of television discussion."

Fine. Mr Swinney is now in the chamber, and today's debate is about how he justifies his decisions on the council tax freeze while ignoring the consequences and the reality in our communities.

A second issue of concern is local government's share of the budget. As Andy Kerr identified, the average local government share of Government spend was larger under Labour than it is under the SNP Administration. According to SPICe figures, the average share under Labour was 35.5 per cent, whereas the average share under the SNP is 33.6 per cent.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

No, I want to make progress on this. Bob Doris is one of the true believers.

Mr Swinney has been going around Scotland's local authorities claiming, "I am doing this for your benefit." It is, however, a Venus flytrap. He has identified a budget figure to get the council tax freeze and is now sucking the life-blood out of local government on three grounds, which Tavish Scott has identified. The first of those is the local income tax, which is neither local nor something for which local elected members are accountable. In the long run, it will destabilise local government.

The second ground is the impact on services that has been identified by three or four members and which has been exemplified by the Aberdeen members' concern about the impact of the budget in Aberdeen.

The third ground leads me to touch on something that Keith Brown said. I was a local government leader for a couple of years, and I was a councillor during reorganisation, with responsibility for a major committee. The golden rule of the reorganisation debate was that, whatever else, the baseline had to be protected from the new authorities that were merging into the unitary authorities. The baseline figure that Mr Swinney has produced has resulted in a number of fundamental mistakes.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I am happy to take an intervention if the member can tell me what he was doing when tough budget decisions were being made during local government reorganisation.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

During local government reorganisation, I was fighting against Labour-led Glasgow City Council, which had council tax increases during its first three years of 20 per cent, 22 per cent and 12 per cent. Will Mr McAveety welcome for the third year running a council tax freeze in Glasgow, with the one difference this time being that there is a 3.4 per cent increase in funding from the SNP Government?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

The majority of the increases that the member mentioned were because of the settlements that were given to Glasgow City Council by a Conservative Administration. The council tax increase trend in Glasgow has been lower than the rate of inflation and, in recent years, Glasgow has pioneered a council tax freeze, when appropriate, at a local level—I use those words carefully to show that I am not talking about the council taking the uniform position that the Government has taken.

On the wider issues, Mr Swinney claimed that he was not able to put his point across on "Newsnight". In fact, he was interrupted a number of times, but he did not answer the central question. Who did that remind me of? Yes, Michael Howard being asked that question repeatedly by Jeremy Paxman. However, Mr Swinney's performance makes me think more of Frankie Howerd, because he is saying:

"Infamy, infamy. They've all got it in for me."

We ain't got it in for Mr Swinney; we have identified the fact that his budget in real terms and in the experience of real people is diminishing the quality of council services across Scotland. How does he justify that?

Two weeks ago, when Mr Salmond was asked in Edinburgh who has the responsibility for the cuts in Edinburgh, he said, "I blame the Liberal Democrat leader of Edinburgh council." When asked in Aberdeen recently about who is responsible for Aberdeen's budget cuts, he said, "I blame the Liberal Democrat leader." I have news for Mr Salmond: The SNP is in both those administrations. Mr Swinney must take responsibility for those actions instead of hiding behind kidology about local accountability for those decisions.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The debate has fallen between those who think that the local government settlement is bad and those who think that it is good. I will run briefly through the contributions of those who think that it is good.

Mr Bob Doris made what I presume is an historic speech of loyalty to his cabinet secretary. He particularly mentioned the local authority council tax freeze. Of course the decision to accept such a freeze can be made by local government leaders, but it sure is an easy decision for them to make when a gun is pointed at their heads. That is the reality of the situation. I notice that Bob Doris welcomes it in his own area, although I am sure that he does not welcome the fact that Glasgow City Council's figures show that 425 posts are likely to go because of the efficiency savings.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Does the member accept that those 425 posts are being lost because of a restructuring of services in Glasgow and that it has nothing at all to do with the council tax freeze?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I am sure that it will bring a sense of relief to the people who lose their jobs when Bob Doris points out that that is happening because of restructuring, which is caused by the fact that, as Mr McAveety pointed out, all that appears to matter today in local government finance is the council tax. All parties should have more feeling for the range of local government finance issues that the Parliament must confront rather than concentrating on one aspect of it.

Mr FitzPatrick raised the issue of local income tax. I agree with him about that, if his party is proposing just that. At the moment, it is not. If a local income tax is to be a local income tax, there is a clue in the first word of that phrase.

Mr Brian Adam called the local government settlement "generous" which, as other members have pointed out, will be news to many people in the north-east.

I will come back to Mr Brownlee, but he also supported the Government as if he were a member of the Government.

Of those who opposed the local government settlement, the member whose argument I found most difficult was Keith Brown. I respect Keith Brown's knowledge as he is, like Mr McAveety, a former council leader. Members who were council leaders bring expertise to the chamber, and I respect Keith Brown and Frank McAveety's knowledge of leading large and small Administrations. I could not therefore understand why Mr Brown took his argument into the blame game by blaming local councillors for their decisions. That is the essence of where the debate is. My contention, and that of the Liberal Democrats, is that the decisions that local governments, of whatever political position, now have to take have been foisted on them by the settlement that they have received from central Government. That is always the way; it does not matter which Government is in power. We come into the chamber and spend a morning playing the blame game, as Mr Brown did. That is unfortunate, at best, particularly if, like Mr Brown, one has considerable knowledge and understanding of local government.

Lewis Macdonald raised the issue of the north-east, as did Richard Baker and Mike Rumbles. I found it interesting that Joe FitzPatrick was so well briefed on Aberdeen's position when he made his intervention. He is either extremely knowledgeable about local government finance, or he has taken his whip's instructions particularly well.

One of the more important points that were made this morning was the cabinet secretary's point about the distribution formula. If I heard him right—I wrote down his remarks as he made them—he said that there will be a "simplification" of the distribution formula in coming years. Mr Swinney might deal with this point in his winding-up speech. My understanding is that we have a three-year settlement, so I assume that any simplification of the formula could come about only during the fourth or subsequent years of local government finance. Mr Swinney has made a commitment in respect of the City of Edinburgh Council, but I am not aware that any commitment has been made to any of the other 31 local authorities across Scotland. It is fundamental to the Parliament's scrutiny of any Government that members know what that change to the distribution formula might mean, and the timescale to which it would operate. I ask the minister to deal with that in his closing remarks.

Finally, I will deal with the Conservatives, who are in a ridiculous position. I will quote Miss Goldie for Mr Brownlee's benefit, because he cannot have read these immortal words at the time—and this from a Conservative party that is hooked into and dying a death with the SNP Government on the issue of local government finance. Miss Goldie said that the nationalists are following a "left-wing agenda" and she accused ministers of "living in the past" when it came to public services. Why the devil did the Conservatives vote for the budget and support every aspect of it? Why are they now apparently so out of touch with it? Their position is extraordinary.

If Mr Brownlee and his colleagues—they all look very cheerful at the moment—are saying that they are not going to support a simple amendment that

"regrets the extent of public service cuts",

then I can only assume that they support public service cuts. I assure Mr Brownlee that every leaflet that is sent out in his constituency will point that out.

The debate is about accountability, the impact on local services and public finances. We should debate the subjects in that sphere.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

We can all play the quotation game, if we like to. Let us look at what Mr Scott said during the previous local government finance debate. He said

"The order will achieve a number of outcomes that Liberal Democrats support ... We also support the allocation of additional resources to local councils".—[Official Report, 7 February 2008; c 6020.]

It seems that Mr Scott has changed his position slightly from the one that he took during the previous debate. I note in passing that not a single Liberal Democrat voted against the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2008 two months ago. It was therefore slightly hypocritical of Mr Scott to make the comments that he did about the Conservatives today.

I move away from what Mr Scott said to put forward the Scottish Conservatives' position. We welcome the council tax freeze, as my colleague Mr Brownlee said, and we welcome the reduction in ring fencing. We will therefore support the order at decision time this evening.

I wish to focus on the subject of my first contribution to the debate, which was on single outcome agreements. I asked the cabinet secretary how many single outcome agreements are in order and in place. On the face of it, the answer at this stage appears to be none. Some are in draft, and we might get some before the summer recess.

I chose the words "in order and in place" carefully, because they were the exact words that the cabinet secretary used in the debate on the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2008 in February. He stated:

"We are well on the way to putting in place single outcome agreements with each council. I expect them to be in order and in place by 1 April 2008."—[Official Report, 7 February 2008; c 6011.]

In the run-up to today's debate, we tried hard to find out exactly what progress had been made on single outcome agreements. We wanted to know what the structure of a single outcome agreement will look like, what issues will be captured, what level of detail will be involved, what monitoring will take place and what measures will be taken to deal with underperformance. On Tuesday, at 3.24 pm, the Government told us:

"they have been put back by 3 months—drafts by 31 March, finals published 30 June".

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I share Mr Brown's concern about the failure of single outcome agreements to appear. The difference between us is that he was willing to sign off £11 billion of public expenditure without knowing what the single outcome agreements were, whereas we were not. Does he now regret that?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

I have with me the voting record for the debate of 7 February. I gently point out to Iain Gray that all the Labour members who turned up to vote on that day voted in favour of the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2008. Mr Gray's comments are a bit rich.

When we tried to find out what progress had been made on single outcome agreements, we were told on Wednesday morning at 9.39 am that "a few" had been completed but that we will have to wait until June, when they will be published. However, by Wednesday afternoon the Government was saying:

"we expect most to be in by 31st March but one Council has asked for an extension into April due to council meeting timetables".

Conservative members do not think that enough progress has been made on single outcome agreements. We need to know how much councils will spend on statutory functions and agreed outcomes and, ultimately, how much discretion they will have, so that Parliament can scrutinise agreements.

In closing, I note another comment that the cabinet secretary made during the debate on the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2008. He stated:

"That will be translated into single outcome agreements, which are currently under development with local authorities. That work will be taken forward in advance of 1 April. I give that commitment to Parliament today, and I am happy for it to be scrutinised because the Parliament should be able to satisfy itself on how public money is spent."—[Official Report, 7 February 2008; c 6046.]

We need to have sight of single outcome agreements without delay. During the previous debate on local government finance, we were given a firm commitment, but today we need a firmer commitment that must be honoured in full.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The settlement looks increasingly tarnished as every day goes by and every council up and down the land makes further cuts. That is its real impact.

This morning, SNP members have argued that the council tax freeze justifies everything, including the settlement's impact on services for the disabled, the elderly, schools, teachers, cleaners and those attending adult education classes. At last, the Tories have been converted on the issue of single outcome agreements but, during the debate on the budget, my colleague Iain Gray made clear that they were signing off resources without evidence of delivery.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I will take an intervention in due course.

In recent years, staffing figures for local government have risen, but now they are beginning to fall. Many members have referred to cuts in the voluntary sector. Tavish Scott made some interesting remarks on the general context of the settlement and raised the big issue of local democracy. In an intervention, Mike Rumbles mentioned Don Corleone—the settlement was an offer that could not be refused. The SNP Administration has taken away absolutely local authorities' right to exercise revenue-raising powers at a local level and has imposed a settlement from the centre.

We hear a lot from Derek Brownlee, who is the assistant Government spokesperson on local government finance these days. He should put us all out of our misery and cross the chamber to join the SNP's front-bench team, because he has supported the SNP in every debate in the chamber. He has drawn barely any attention to one Tory policy and has spent most of his time attacking either the Liberal Democrats or Labour. Well done to Derek Brownlee on his Government speech.

The words of Brian Adam, who spoke of a "generous settlement", will be ringing throughout Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and the rest of Scotland. That was an outrageous statement, given the severe cuts that are being felt up and down the land. When constituents write to me and my colleagues about those cuts, we will simply refer them to Mr Adam's statement.

Mr Keith Brown described the settlement as "a gift". What sort of gift is it to people who are spending the nights outside in Aberdeen, as efforts are made to retain local homelessness services, to people in Scotland who are losing services for their disabled children, to teachers who are receiving redundancy notices, and to school cleaners who are losing their jobs? Well done to Mr Brown on that point.

Richard Baker and Lewis Macdonald highlighted some of the very severe cuts that are being made in Aberdeen and elsewhere as a result of the settlement. Mr Rumbles mentioned the impact of the council tax freeze. Mr Doris described the settlement as "a good thing". He also had the audacity to accuse Labour members of scaremongering when all the predictions that we made and the scare stories that we told about the impact of the settlement on the voluntary sector and those most in need—Malcolm Chisholm mentioned the situation in Edinburgh—have come true. Bob Doris's comments may be neatly counterposed with Malcolm Chisholm's speech—from the rhetoric to the reality; from comment in the chamber to real feelings out in our communities.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Every Conservative speaker in every debate on local government finance in the past six months has mentioned single outcome agreements, so the issue is not new to us. Will the member tell us which way he voted in the debate on the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2008?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I voted in favour of the order and indicated that I would do so during the preceding debate—that should be no surprise to the member. However, when the Conservatives were having their secret, back-door negotiations with the Government in September last year, could they not have raised the issue of single outcome agreements and mentioned that the Parliament was about to send £11 billion of public money out into the community with no accountability? When they are having back-door discussions on the budget next year, perhaps they will take time to raise the issue with ministers.

Frank McAveety compared Mr Swinney to a Venus flytrap, highlighting the fact that, to his credit, Mr Swinney has managed to entice local authorities into this deal. Now they understand that they have been sucked dry by the settlement.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Tory members have said that we voted for the settlement. The cabinet secretary is making the same point from a sedentary position. Will Andy Kerr confirm that the time to stop the budget was during the debate on its general principles, against which all Labour and Liberal Democrat members voted?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Indeed. Iain Gray and other members have made that point.

The SNP does not like to hear the facts. However, the funding tables for local government that SPICe has provided indicate that local government's share of expenditure was 35.5 per cent, on average, under Labour and will drop by 2 percentage points under the SNP. We invested in local authorities to allow them to develop and grow much-needed services, only for the SNP to disassemble them and remove them from communities throughout Scotland. That is the true effect of the budget. The Government is talking left wing but acting right wing. This is a bad budget for Scotland's poorest communities and households and for those who are most in need and who most deserve the local government services that Mr Swinney has removed.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

This has been a fascinating debate. In the same debate, the Government has been accused of delivering both a right wing budget and a socialist budget. The fact that such different accusations can be levelled against ministers just shows the diversity of opinion that exists in this plural Parliament. Ministers are happy to answer for their actions in Parliament, and I will do so today.

I confirm to Mr Scott that the review of the local government distribution formula will take effect in 2011-12. A three-year arrangement is in place to give stability to local authority funding over the next three years. Any consequences of the announcements that I made during the budget process on capital city supplements will be delivered separately to the City of Edinburgh Council.

I have to say that I find Mike Rumbles's comments about the fairness of the distribution formula for Aberdeenshire a bit strange, given that the distribution methodology was agreed with COSLA through the three-year settlement group in which, as I understand it, Aberdeenshire Council participated. Moreover, that council will benefit from above-average increases in 2009-10 and 2010-11.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

My point was that the cabinet secretary seems to be unaware that what he has done has at one fell swoop set back the FairShare campaign by eight years.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

All I can say to Mr Rumbles is that in 2009-10 and 2010-11 Aberdeenshire Council will receive from the Scottish Government an above-average increase in its resources. Mr Rumbles should reflect on that pretty clear position.

A great deal has been made of the local authority share of the total Scottish block; indeed, Mr Kerr has been going through contortions over this issue. I cannot deny that in 2002-03 that share was 36.6 per cent. However, much to my regret, this Government was not in office in 2002-03; it did not come into power until 2007, by which time the share that local authorities commanded of the total Scottish budget had fallen to 33.4 per cent. The only parties responsible for that situation are the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, so I will not take a lecture from them about the declining share of local authority expenditure. In the budget that I have presided over, that share will, in the three financial years of the spending settlement, increase from 33.4 per cent to 33.565 per cent, 33.588 per cent and 33.624 per cent.

Let me put the financial position that Mr Kerr outlined in some context. In 2002-03, the Scottish Executive received an 11 per cent above-inflation increase in its departmental expenditure limit budget; this year, we received 0.5 per cent. In his speech, Mr Scott very fairly set out the context of the current financial climate. The general message is that Scottish public expenditure—which, I should point out, is not within my control; regrettably, as Mr Scott made clear, I have to work within the funding arrangement that the UK Government provides to me—will over the next six, not three, years be under greater stress than it was during the bountiful years of the budget that Labour and the Liberal Democrats had at their disposal. However, what did they have to show for it as a consequence?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

If this budget settlement is the tightest ever and if there are all these problems associated with it, why has the cabinet secretary prioritised business tax cuts with no conditions attached and a council tax freeze that he must know comes with a risk to local services? I asked him the same question in the budget debate, but he did not answer it.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

We have prioritised the cut in business rates to give Scottish businesses a competitive advantage and ensure that they can deal with the economic conditions that Mr Scott highlighted. We have also sought a council tax freeze to ensure that householders wrestling with rising fuel and food bills do not have to pay the same kind of rising council tax bill that they had to pay under the Labour Government that was in power for eight years.

With regard to the quality of the funding settlement, if I had applied the increase in budget that we received from the UK Government to the local authority settlement, the local authority budget would have gone up by 3.2 per cent. However, under this Administration, the budget has gone up by 5 per cent. [Interruption.] Once we take into account inflation—which I presume is what Mr Kerr is muttering about—it becomes clear that this Government has put 1.8 per cent more into local authority expenditure than the amount that we received from the UK Government's settlement. That is perhaps why the president of COSLA said that his job was

"to get the best deal possible for our local communities, and I believe that's what we have done".

It has been a pleasure for the Government to ensure that we have a local authority settlement that delivers investment in public services above the level that local authorities could have expected; a fully funded council tax freeze; and the opportunity for local authorities to operate with flexibility and freedom to deliver for their communities. That is what the Government expects them to do.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment it has made of the impact of high fuel prices on the Scottish economy. (S3O-2852)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We are fully aware that high fuel prices impact on the people of Scotland and can result in fuel poverty and difficulties for our rural communities, our public transport and our businesses, particularly those with heavy transport costs. In the lead-up to the United Kingdom budget, the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth made strong representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the impact of steeply rising transport charges. We will continue strenuously to pursue the issue of fuel poverty with the UK Government and the energy companies to ensure that Scots are not left out in the cold.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I thank the minister for that full response.

I realise that no Government can change world oil prices, but does the minister acknowledge that fuel prices are hitting Scottish businesses and, indeed, are impacting in two ways on island and rural businesses in particular? Will the Government commit to matching the fuel support schemes that the French and Spanish Governments have introduced for their fishermen and which, we are told, are consistent with European law? Will the minister continue to make representations on the crude one-size-fits-all approach taken in the UK budget, which penalises Scottish crofters, farmers and fish farmers for using pick-ups? Those vehicles are not Chelsea and Milngavie tractors, but essential to businesses.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

As someone who, like Tavish Scott, represents many of Scotland's fishermen and has substantial rural interests, I know that both communities—and, indeed, all people in rural areas—are genuinely concerned about these matters. I note that Her Majesty's Treasury has had, through a combination of North Sea oil revenues and VAT receipts, a £4 billion windfall over the past 12 months. We will continue to press the UK Government for a fair deal for our rural areas and for a price-cap through a modification of the tax system.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Given that most of the price of a litre of fuel is tax, does the minister agree that the current high cost of fuel further demonstrates the desperate need for a fuel tax regulator to even out the highs and lows of fuel costs?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We continue to believe that a fuel tax regulator would play a significant role in protecting rural communities from high fuel costs. Given that the taxation burden on diesel fuel in the UK is the highest anywhere in Europe and that the burden on petrol is in the top five highest, it is clear that taxation contributes very significantly to escalating fuel costs and is something that the Treasury benefits from. We do not believe that that is either fair or right.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To what extent is the Government correlating information to inform it—and subsequent Governments—of the impact of fuel prices on rural businesses?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I know that my colleague Mr Mather is taking a close interest in that matter. After all, in rural areas, the cost of transport and the cost of heating, which is largely driven by oil-based products, is very substantial. We will monitor the situation to ensure that we make the best possible case for the people of Scotland, particularly those in rural areas and in fishing communities, to have equity with other European countries and communities.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and what issues were discussed. (S3O-2822)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I regularly meet all NHS board chairs to discuss matters of importance to health and to the national health service in Scotland. My most recent such meeting was on 25 February 2008. Health officials are also in regular contact with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde on a range of matters.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Does the minister understand the disappointment of the community that lives in the area around Stobhill hospital about the fact that the Scottish Government has not been willing to appoint an independent scrutiny panel, which would have allowed for proper scrutiny of previous decisions by the health board in connection with the delivery of acute services at Stobhill hospital? I do not need any gentle reminders from the minister about the actions of previous Governments; I want to know what the present Government will do.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

As Paul Martin does not need any gentle reminders of the actions of previous Governments, I will give him a not-so-gentle reminder that it was the decision of the Labour and Liberal Government to approve the health board's plans to change provision at Stobhill hospital. Since I took up the job of Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, I have been open, honest and frank in making it clear that I cannot undo all the decisions that the previous Administration took. In the case to which Paul Martin refers, the decision was taken several years ago, and its implementation is now at an advanced stage.

In my time as cabinet secretary, I have also made it clear that the Government is committed to local provision of health services. That is why we set up an independent scrutiny panel that led us to overturn the decisions to close accident and emergency services at Ayr and Monklands hospitals, and why this Government, unlike the previous Government, will continue to act in the best interests of local health services.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to increase the supply of affordable rented housing. (S3O-2797)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

In "Firm Foundations", we consulted on a range of proposals for increasing the supply of affordable rented housing, including ending the right to buy on new social housing; providing incentives for local authorities to build new council houses; getting better value from public investment in new housing association stock; subsidising the development of housing for mid-market rent; and encouraging the private rented sector to provide more good-quality accommodation for rent.

Crucially, "Firm Foundations" made it clear that our plans for improving the value that we get from our investment in new stock will allow smaller associations, including community-based associations, to continue to acquire new stock.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

Given the current credit-crunch effects of reducing the availability of mortgages and increasing their cost, will the minister work with Scotland's housing associations and other affordable rented housing providers, as well as with innovative high-quality prefabrication housing projects such as the Highland Housing Alliance, to ensure that we do not return to a situation in which homelessness is on the increase and there is a lack of affordable and suitable housing alternatives?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Absolutely. I assure the member that that is precisely why we have made housing such a priority for the Government. We launched the housing supply task force last summer and produced the "Firm Foundations" document, the consultation period for which has just ended; we will publish the analysis of the consultation results shortly. I am aware of the Highland Housing Alliance and, last summer, visited some of the projects that it is involved in, including the prefabricated housing projects, the factory in Orkney and the development that will, I hope, go ahead in the Brora area.

We will open up consultation on a range of issues, which are partly to do with the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 and partly about progressing our work on "Firm Foundations". We take seriously the need for affordable housing in Scotland and the fact that the homelessness target that we must meet by 2012, to which the whole Parliament is signed up, is extremely challenging.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The homelessness charity Crisis published a report in February that demonstrates that, by enabling people to rent in the private sector, deposit guarantee schemes can make a major contribution to tackling homelessness. In light of that report, does the minister have any intention to extend the use of such schemes?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

We are considering the possibility of doing what the member suggests. Discussions are being held with a number of stakeholders and once they have come to an evidence-based conclusion that would allow us to take the matter forward, I will be happy to discuss the issue with the whole Parliament, including the member.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am sure that the minister needs no reminder of the fact that it is the considered view of this Parliament that the Scottish National Party Government does not have a coherent housing policy, and I know that he will respect the Parliament's view in that regard.

I want to talk about the affordability of rented housing—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We are not here to talk; we are here to ask questions.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

My apologies; I will ask a specific question.

The "Firm Foundations" document is predicated on higher rent levels. In addition, housing providers are telling us that rent levels might have to rise if the Scottish housing quality standard is to be delivered. What level of rent rise does the minister consider would be acceptable to allow the delivery of the Scottish housing quality standard and the efficiencies that he has identified, in comparison with levels in housing associations down south?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Of course "Firm Foundations" is not predicated on higher rent levels—that is a complete and utter fallacy. However, I am not surprised that the member has again made that claim. Frankly, it is scaremongering to upset tenants across the country by putting forward the wild idea that the process of achieving efficiencies in the sector will be driven by the setting of higher rent levels. That process is not predicated on higher rent levels.

Delivery of the Scottish housing quality standard is not predicated on higher rent levels, either. It is predicated on the fact that local authorities will have a focus on meeting the 2015 target, which used to be supported by Johann Lamont's party. Perhaps Labour is no longer interested in supporting the implementation of a basic standard for public sector housing by 2015. We certainly intend to introduce the Scottish housing quality standard throughout the country for the benefit of current and, in particular, future tenants and those who, under her regime, were unable to get a house.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Executive what research was undertaken prior to publication of its local income tax plans. (S3O-2819)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In preparing the consultation paper on a fairer local tax for Scotland, we drew on a range of existing research, analysis and information, in addition to work that we undertook internally, which included detailed financial modelling of the proposals. The 2007 Scottish social attitudes survey, for example, found that 83 per cent of the people questioned said that they should be taxed according to how much income they had.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that official Scottish Government statistics show that 265,198 people aged between 20 and 34 still stay with their parents and that most of them will have to pay the new local income tax. Does he agree that that will be a double whammy, which will hinder many young people who are trying to get on the housing ladder?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

People will realise that the local income tax is a fair system that is based on the ability to pay. The Government has published information on a variety of social groupings that demonstrates how people will be better off. For example, 59 per cent of people who live in households comprising multiple taxpayers—the group to which Mr Kelly referred—will pay less, and there will be no change for at least 11 per cent of them. The evidence on the advantages of having a local income tax is pretty compelling.

The Labour Party's contribution to the debate would have slightly more credibility if in the four years following 2003, when it made a promise to do something to improve the fairness of the council tax, it had lifted a finger. It failed to do anything and, as Labour members all know, the council tax became such an issue in last year's election campaign that it resulted in the Labour Party's defeat.

This Government has made proposals to introduce fairness into the local taxation system and, in due course, I look forward to their receiving enthusiastic support from members such as Mr McNeil, who seems to be particularly cheery about the issue today.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it has taken with the NHS to review the relationship between the £208 million that NHS boards declared in 2006-07 as provisions and contingent liabilities against claims for medical negligence and the payment that year of £23 million in respect of such claims. (S3O-2779)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The £208 million is made up of around £80 million for contingent liabilities and gross provisions of £127.7 million. The contingent liabilities are not a charge to the accounts, but they are reported in the contingent liabilities annex to the annual accounts. The gross provisions are included in NHS boards' 2006-07 annual accounts under the clinical negligence and other risks indemnity scheme and are offset by the related income of £104.3 million that is expected to be recovered under that scheme. The net provision is therefore £23.4 million.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer, but does she nevertheless agree that the gap between the amount set aside and the amount paid out appears to be excessive and that at least a portion of the unspent money could be reinvested in front-line care?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I understand Willie Coffey's concern, but I assure him that, to comply with accounting principles, NHS boards are required to recognise provisions in their accounts in respect of the amount of clinical negligence claims that are expected to be payable. As I said, the provisions amounted to £127.7 million in 2006-07. Under the terms of the scheme that is operated on behalf of NHS Scotland boards, the boards must also recognise and make provision for the corresponding income that they expect as reimbursement from the scheme. The net provision is what I explained in my answer.

As a Government, we are committed to patient safety. We want to cut the number of adverse incidents in the NHS, improve outcomes for patients and therefore reduce the number of claims and compensation payments. We also made a manifesto commitment to introduce a no-fault compensation system that would help to foster a more open and less adversarial relationship between patients and staff. We will consult on our proposals in due course.

My final word of what I hope is reassurance to Willie Coffey is this: although the figures that he referred to are large, the amount paid out in clinical negligence claims in Scotland is proportionately less than in the rest of the UK. I hope that those comments reassure him, but I am sure that we will continue to have dialogue on the issue.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions ministers have held with representatives of cancer charities. (S3O-2765)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

In the past six months, I have met representatives of cancer charities on three occasions. I had a joint meeting with members of the Scottish cancer coalition and Breakthrough Breast Cancer; I visited UCAN in Aberdeen; and with the First Minister I opened the Friends of the Beatson centre in Glasgow. The Minister for Public Health attended the launch of the Elizabeth Montgomery centre appeal, which was co-hosted by the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation, and she recently visited the Maggie's centre in Inverness.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the screening matters campaign that is co-ordinated by Cancer Research UK and which seeks action on the part of the Scottish Government and individual health boards to improve and expand existing screening for breast cancer. Will she spell out what specific action the Government intends to take to help meet the aims of the screening matters campaign, which include screening 300,000 more people in Scotland in the next five years and reaching out to people who are eligible for screening but who do not currently take part?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

This is an extremely important issue. As a Government, we are advised on screening matters by the national screening committee, and it is right that we act on the basis of expert evidence. However, I thoroughly endorse the campaign's aim, which is to ensure that as many people as possible who are eligible for screening take it up.

We are in the fortunate position in Scotland of seeing rising uptake rates for breast cancer screening, and we must continue to ensure that those who are not taking up screening opportunities do so. Cervical cancer screening rates are going in the opposite direction and have been falling slightly in recent years. That is a matter of concern and is something that we intend to target carefully to ensure that rates increase.

We are also in the process of rolling out the bowel cancer screening programme. That work will be complete throughout Scotland by the end of next year, and it is important, particularly because it is the only major cancer screening programme in Scotland that is available to men, that we work hard to ensure that uptake rates are as high as we expect them to be. I assure the member that we are aware of the issues and committed to ensuring that people take up an important service that, in many cases, saves lives.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

At last night's meeting of the cross-party group on cancer, more than one cancer charity pointed out that it is slightly odd that, in the current consultation document, the chapter on diagnosis and treatment is followed immediately by a chapter on palliative care. Does she agree with those charities that there should be more focus on the welcome reality that more people live with cancer for a considerable time? Will she ensure that that reality is addressed more extensively in the final document?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I agree with Malcolm Chisholm that, thankfully, more and more people are surviving cancer and living longer with cancer. It is important that the services we provide change and develop to reflect that reality.

"Better Cancer Care—A Discussion" is a consultation document, as Malcolm Chisholm said. We are very open to views and responses on a range of issues that are covered in the document, which will lead to a revised and updated cancer strategy later this year.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Before we move to First Minister's questions, I am sure that the chamber wishes to join me in welcoming to the Presiding Officer's gallery this morning His Excellency Mr Yury Viktorovich Fedotov, the Russian ambassador to the United Kingdom. [ 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-647)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland because, to coin a phrase, change is what we do.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I realise that the First Minister had another bad day yesterday and I do not mean being booed off the park at Hampden last night. While he was trying to gerrymander his way to independence, I received a letter from Kevin McCahery about the closure of all disability day centres in Aberdeen. What does the First Minister have to say to Kevin's comment that

"if you are elderly/blind/physically disabled in Aberdeen you are out of luck"?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

There is great concern, not just in the north-east of Scotland but elsewhere, about the difficult financial position of Aberdeen Council. There will be great interest in the Accounts Commission's consideration of that position. We hope that the local authority will take every step possible to administer its finances in an appropriate way and discharge its public obligation to the people of Aberdeen.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I will leave it to Kevin McCahery and the disabled people of Aberdeen to decide whether that is an appropriate answer.

Of course, Aberdeen is not an isolated case. Let us try Renfrewshire. This week, Renfrewshire teachers condemned a £4.5 million cut to the education budget that threatens 55 teaching jobs and gave chapter and verse on what the cuts mean. What does the First Minister have to say to the parents, pupils and teachers of Renfrewshire?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Let us talk about the £7 million increase in the Renfrewshire education budget, which has been widely welcomed across that local authority area.

I have been looking through the records of the local MSP in Renfrewshire and I cannot find a single representation about the closure of Remploy last week, the factory that discharges to disabled people valuable jobs in that community.

Perhaps if Wendy Alexander would put aside the politics just for a second, she could explain that people should be concerned about the plight of disabled people not just in Aberdeen and Renfrewshire, but right across Scotland.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The big boy who did it and ran away. Time and again this winter, the First Minister and his colleagues have accused me—and anyone else in this chamber who raised the prospect of cuts—of scaremongering. He was wrong and we were right because real cuts are affecting real people and they are starting to bite all over the country.

Bonuses for disabled workers in West Lothian are going. Crèches in Edinburgh have closed. Help for the elderly in Fife has been cut. The buck stops with the First Minister. Is he ready yet to admit that such cuts are the direct result of his decision to freeze one tax, cut another and give local government a smaller share of the Scottish budget cake?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I do not think that the council tax is Wendy Alexander's strongest suit. The council tax was favoured by the Labour Party and increased by 60 per cent from 1997 to 2007. As the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities pointed out, the freeze in council tax this year has been fully funded by the increase in central Government grant to local authorities.

For the first time in a generation, the percentage of public finance that goes to local authorities is increasing year by year throughout the current financial review. We started at 33.394 per cent this year under the Labour budget, but by 2010-11 the proportion will have increased to 33.624 per cent. Facts are chiels that winna ding. Will Wendy Alexander accept that for the first time in a generation central Government funding to local authorities throughout Scotland is increasing, as opposed to decreasing as it did every year under the Labour Party?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Less of the national cake is going to local Government than was the case under Labour. We have heard a series of single transferable excuses.

Next week, when the catalogue of cuts starts to bite, the First Minister will jet off to America, which is convenient. It is clear that he wants to leave his troubles behind him. His manifesto was a con; his concordat is unravelling; his cuts are being condemned; and there have been precious few answers for Kevin McCahery and thousands of people like him. Will there be answers from the First Minister when he comes back from the United States?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

In addition to the Labour Party's languishing in the Scottish opinion polls, for the first time the Scottish National Party is more trusted than the Labour Party on education, health and public services. If Wendy Alexander ever gets into a position in which SNP councillors are saying, "God bless the Labour Party", I will be extremely surprised.

As far as the comment on the single transferable vote is concerned, will Wendy Alexander perhaps explain some time why she wants to deny the Scottish people the right to decide their future in a national referendum? I have a reasonably long memory on such matters and I have been looking back through the political record. I find that there was outstanding support for the concept of a multi-option referendum from the late Donald Dewar, the late John Smith and the current Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

According to an account of 4 May 1992 of Mr Brown's speech at a May day rally:

"Mr Brown called on all organisations to support a 'persistent, determined and concerted' campaign to force the Tory Government to accept a multi-option referendum on Scotland's future."

I know that the people were well briefed—[Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

She mentioned it.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I know that the people who wrote the account were well briefed, because the Labour Party researcher in 1992 was Wendy Alexander.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-648)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no plans at present to meet the Prime Minister, although given what I have found out about his support for a multi-option referendum I might arrange a meeting quickly.