Scottish Parliament, 1 May 2008

397 contributions from 81 members. The official report.

Official Report 1 May 2008

Housing

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Good morning. The first item of business is a Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party debate on motion S3M-1812, in the name of David McLetchie, on housing.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

In the Parliament, the Scottish National Party loves to tell us how hard done by we are and to criticise the alleged parsimony of our Treasury paymasters in Westminster. One example was the budget settlement, which was referred to constantly as a tight financial settlement, notwithstanding that, in real terms, the Government has more money at its disposal to spend on devolved services than any previous Government in the history of Scotland, before or after the establishment of the Parliament. More recently, we were told that only Westminster stands in the way of the Government's plans for a so-called local—but in truth Scottish national—income tax, because Westminster will not give us the equivalent of the £400 million that is presently paid out in council tax benefit. Only this week, the report of Lord Sutherland's review committee reignited the debate about the relationship between free personal care and attendance allowance, in which the amount in dispute is about £30 million.

On housing, however, Her Majesty's Treasury has on the table a total in excess of £2 billion that is available to wipe out the accumulated housing debt of the 26 councils in Scotland that have so far failed to transfer their housing stock to housing associations. That money would transform social housing in many parts of Scotland, but the Government is doing absolutely nothing to pick it up and apply it to good account, which is little short of a perverse disgrace. At April of last year, the relevant debt figures for the councils that have tried and failed to secure positive votes in tenant ballots were £278 million for the City of Edinburgh Council, £153 million for Highland Council and £144 million for Renfrewshire Council, not forgetting £19 million for Stirling Council.

What was common to those ballots? In each and every case, the SNP campaigned, hand in hand with Tommy Sheridan and his former friends in the Scottish Socialist Party, for a no vote, spouting nonsense about the privatisation of council housing when no such proposal was ever on the table. Now that the SNP is in government, the official position is that those matters are local decisions and the SNP Government is neutral on the issue. How can the Government be neutral about gaining £2 billion to improve the standard of housing in Scotland? How can a Government that likes to boast about its historic concordat with local authorities and which will demand all manner of outcomes in agreements with them not insist, as a condition of Government funding support, that councils put in place new stock transfer measures, which would wipe out all the debts and give social housing a fresh start in most of our country?

Let us put the numbers into perspective. At the recent SNP conference, Nicola Sturgeon was quick to boast that the Government will allocate £25 million in the next three years to councils to help finance a new council house building programme. By comparison with the moneys that are on offer from stock transfer, that is peanuts. As I pointed out in an earlier housing debate, the summit of the SNP ambition is to build half the number of council houses in the next 10 years that the Conservatives built in our last 10 years in government.

Nothing gives me greater pleasure than highlighting such delicious ironies, but the more substantial point is that the new council house building programme runs entirely contrary to the direction of policy that has been pursued by successive Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Governments in Scotland in the past 30 years. The consistent policy has been to encourage home ownership, in line with the aspirations of the vast majority of our people; to use the sale proceeds from the right to buy to improve the homes of those who wish to remain tenants and to build new social housing; and to use locally based housing associations as the owners and managers of homes to rent.

Overall, there is no doubt that the policy has been a great success. We have 480,000 new home owners who have improved their homes at their expense, rather than the expense of the taxpayer and tenants.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

rose—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Excuse me.

For those who have remained as tenants, all the indications are that they receive a far better service from housing associations as managers than they did from their council landlords. The proof of that particular pudding is to be found in the conclusions of an Audit Scotland report that was published in 2006 that examined the experience of tenants who had been the subject of stock transfer. The conclusion was that

"tenants are finding the service provided after transfer is better, new landlords are investing in the housing stock and keeping rent increases within agreed limits and transfers have promoted greater control for tenants."

The record of Conservative Governments demonstrates clearly that there is no incompatibility between giving tenants a right to buy and building new affordable homes for rent, whether the builders are councils or housing associations. That incompatibility is a myth perpetrated by those who are instinctively hostile to the policy. The policy does not stop people finding affordable housing, because it matters not whether a house is occupied by a tenant or an owner; the relevant factor is that it is occupied and, accordingly, not available for occupation by anybody else.

The fundamental issue is stock transfer, which can unlock investment in affordable housing far in excess of that which the Scottish Government proposes. Some will say that the Treasury should pay off the accumulated housing debt, transfer or no transfer, with arm's-length management organisations often touted as an alternative to stock transfer to housing associations. However, railing against the present rules is, frankly, of little use, because they are not going to change.

In the meantime, more than 450 homes in north Sighthill in my constituency are scheduled for demolition in a programme that is now under way, while the Liberal Democrat and SNP-run council has not a clue as to how those houses will be replaced in that community, in contrast to the situation that applied under the original transfer proposals.

The situation is not good enough. The Government should work with the Treasury and our councils to release the funding, rather than stand and girn on the sidelines. In the last analysis, the motion, which I will have much pleasure in moving, calls on the Government to get a move on, which it should do as a matter of priority.

I move,

That the Parliament regrets the failure of the Scottish Government to actively pursue and promote housing stock transfer by local authorities to community-based housing associations and thereby obtain a debt write-off from HM Treasury of over £2 billion; believes that the role of social landlords is best undertaken by housing associations and other not-for-profit, co-operative bodies, and deplores the introduction of any further restrictions on the right to buy.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

As our amendment to David McLetchie's motion makes clear, the Government believes that local democracy extends to local authority tenants deciding whether their homes should be transferred out of local authority ownership. That means respecting tenants' right to retain their local authority landlord where they vote to do so and supporting transfers where they enjoy local support. That is why, in December 2007, I was happy to approve the transfer of Inverclyde Council's stock to River Clyde Homes.

Under current Treasury rules on debt write-off, deciding against a transfer has serious implications for future investment in stock. We believe that the rules are unfair and penalise tenants who choose to remain with their local authority landlords, which is why we asked the Treasury to consider write-off where transfers do not take place. I regret that the Treasury was not prepared to contemplate flexibility in the interests of supporting tenants and respecting their right to choose. As matters stand, we must live with the Treasury's intransigence—we do not have the powers or resources to do otherwise. Perhaps other members should support the transfer of the powers, rather than moan about the fact that the Treasury will not agree.

Local authority tenants suffer the consequences of reduced investment in their homes. That is unsatisfactory. We made it clear in "Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland" that we would consider proposals for full or partial transfers, particularly where they qualify for debt write-off. However, we will not press tenants—some might say bribe or blackmail them—into voting for a course that they do not believe is in their best interests. At root, the Tories are dogmatically opposed to local authorities being landlords, and that antipathy lies behind their motion. We do not share their antipathy—quite the opposite; we acknowledge that local authorities continue to play a large role in providing social housing, and we want to support them in that role.

Two weeks ago, Nicola Sturgeon announced £25 million for the next three years to kick-start a new generation of council house building, and we will soon announce the housing association grant allocations for 2008-09. Our proposal has been widely welcomed, with the huge majority of respondents to "Firm Foundations" expressing clear support for it. It is easy to see why. There is an acute shortage of affordable housing to rent. The policies of previous Administrations have not been a huge success, as David McLetchie claimed. Our support for local authority house building will help to address that shortage by encouraging councils to start building again. We will discuss with our partners in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities how the money can be used to best effect by encouraging local authorities to augment, as cost effectively as possible, the supply of new social housing in areas of need.

It is worth stressing the point about augmenting new supply. The Tory motion implies that we undervalue or are somehow trying to undermine housing associations and other not-for-profit and co-operative housing bodies, but that is quite simply not the case. We acknowledge that the not-for-profit sector has made a huge contribution to the provision of high-quality, affordable homes across the country and to the regeneration of communities and neighbourhoods.

We were clear in "Firm Foundations" that we expect the not-for-profit sector to continue to supply the great majority of new social housing. We need the sector to thrive and grow as a key player in a housing system that is much more responsive to demand for affordable housing across all tenures. Unlike the Tories and the Labour Party, we have no difficulty in contemplating a world where the not-for-profit sector and local authorities both help to create a system that better meets Scotland's housing needs. I am encouraged to note that the not-for-profit sector appears to share that view.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the minister give us a rough, ball-park figure for how many houses the Government expects to get out of its £25 million? Will he confirm that the announcement of 240 council houses for West Lothian is a direct result of the previous Executive's decision to change the rules on prudential borrowing?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I will give Johann Lamont an exact figure for the number of houses: it will be exactly a hell of a lot more than six.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the minister give way?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Johann Lamont has had her intervention. The fact remains that Labour failed utterly to build any council houses over the past four years. I have to point out that the six council houses that were built were built in Shetland, so they were not exactly available to people in West Lothian, Glasgow or anywhere else in the country.

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

Will the minister give way on that point?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

No.

In the coming weeks, we will make a statement to Parliament setting out the broad direction of our housing policies in light of the responses to "Firm Foundations", which will include our plans for ensuring that the not-for-profit sector can deliver the maximum possible number of sustainable, good-quality homes for the available level of public expenditure, and our plans for support for first-time buyers.

I want to make one point absolutely clear: nothing in the proposals in "Firm Foundations" for reforming how we distribute subsidies for new social housing is intended to undermine the diversity of the not-for-profit sector or its ability to respond sensitively to local housing needs.

The Government knows that the right to buy has had a profound effect on our housing system, and that in many, but by no means all, cases it has been positive, not least in providing great diversity of choice for households throughout the country. However, policy should not stand still, as the Tories appear to want, but evolve to address emerging challenges. That is what we intend to do with our proposal to end the right to buy new social housing, which will effectively safeguard for future generations our planned investment in new supply. That proposal attracted near universal support among respondents to "Firm Foundations"—94 per cent of respondents supported it. That does not suggest that many will join the Tories in deploring our willingness to propose a major change in policy that will serve the interests of those who are seeking affordable housing. Similarly, few will follow the Tories in ruling out any attempt to review how the policy applies to existing stock, such as exploring ways of achieving greater flexibility for the modernised right to buy in light of evidence on how it has operated.

I move amendment S3M-1812.2, to leave out from "regrets" to end and insert:

"respects the democratic right of tenants to determine the ownership of their homes; regrets that HM Treasury will only write off local authority housing debt where local authority housing stock is transferred; believes that housing associations and other not-for-profit, co-operative bodies continue to have the lead role in providing new social housing but welcomes the Scottish Government's encouragement of local authorities to augment the supply of new social housing as part of their role as landlords, and endorses the Scottish Government's plans to end the right to buy on new social housing and to review how right to buy applies to the existing stock of social housing."

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I welcome this important debate. The intention of my amendment is to get the Government to focus on taking responsibility for its actions and delivering a housing strategy worthy of the name. It is most unfortunate that the Government makes assertions with no evidence whatsoever. We should be focusing and developing policy on a huge range of housing issues, such as affordability, homelessness and the needs of disabled people, but we are stuck with a Government that is more interested in spinning headlines than taking action.

Over the past eight years, we built a real consensus around the key issues and built 36,000 houses for social rent, but we now have a minister who will not even tell us what his target is, and who claims that his £25 million will go some way to addressing need.

It is depressing that with this Administration we get assertion rather than action and headlines rather than creative solutions. Despite being instructed to do so, it cannot even say whether the £2,000 first-time buyers grant is in or out—it cannot say yes or no to that. Perhaps the minister will address that in his summing up.

What is the Government's strategy? Despite the spin, Nicola Sturgeon acknowledged the role of housing associations in providing affordable houses, which will remain central. I am therefore at a loss to understand the distinction that the Government makes between council housing and housing that is built by housing associations and co-operatives. It is meaningless to say that we built only six council houses, given that we built 36,000 houses of a high standard for social rent.

Despite what the Government says about supporting housing associations, the evidence is that there are going to be significant cuts to HAG. There is uncertainty in the sector because the minister will not even tell us what the allocations are. Housing associations are fearful of the consequences. They will have to borrow more at a time of volatility in the private markets, they will have to put up rents, they are unable to plan and they fear that development programmes will be halted. At the same time, the key strategy of the Government's "Firm Foundations" document, which has been widely criticised, is to drive efficiencies into housing associations—with no evidence about where the inefficiencies are—with a single developer model, which I am sure the minister will acknowledge has been criticised by the people who responded to the consultation.

The minister has managed to create the impression that the sector that has been most successful in terms of housing strategy for the past 30 years has been living off the fat of the land. The Government is attacking the key element of the housing association movement, which is community ownership.

I understand that the Government needs to address the discomfort of its own back benchers, given that £260 million is going unconditionally to businesses and that the Government is going to drive efficiencies into the housing association sector. We hear all the nonsense about the £25 million. In the last year of the previous Executive, £501 million was spent on addressing affordable housing issues. The £25 million is a nonsense. It cannot go to the local authorities that the SNP urged to vote against stock transfer, because of housing debt. The money is going to be top-sliced off HAG and redistributed to areas that do not have the greatest housing need.

The reality is that the Government is committed to not addressing the key issues of affordable housing and to keeping its own back benchers sweet. A moment's scrutiny shows that it is not doing what it is claiming to do on the right to buy. At the same time, it is flat-lining budgets for community regeneration and wider action. The Government is paralysed when it comes to making the hard decisions and addressing the real problems. It is settling for easy headlines that a moment's scrutiny shows to be nonsense.

I move amendment S3M-1812.3, to leave out from "the failure" to end and insert:

"that, following the parliamentary debate on 20 March 2008, ministers have not yet reported to the Parliament on the future of the £2,000 first-time buyers grant, despite the Parliament agreeing that they should, regrets that ministers have not yet reported to the Parliament on how the Scottish Government plans to respond to the consultation on Firm Foundations which identified serious criticisms of the Scottish Government's approach to housing; notes the critical role of housing associations and housing co-operatives in delivering affordable homes for rent; condemns the Minister for Communities and Sport for not yet announcing the allocation of Housing Association Grant, and reaffirms its view that the Scottish Government has no coherent housing strategy."

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am grateful to the Conservatives for using their time to debate the vital issue of housing. David McLetchie's central point about the opportunities that debt write-off offers is entirely valid. The loss of a potential £2 billion in housing spend is a mistake of significant proportions by the SNP Government. I have to ask the minister, as the SNP often asked us when we were in Government, what is plan B? We have heard clearly that there is no plan B; there is no alternative and the Government's approach is all hot air.

Apart from the fact that the Government in London was never going to write off the debt without conditions, I am not sure that unconditional write-off is the correct approach in principle. The dynamic link between debt write-off and community empowerment was what made the policy fly.

I say to the minister with respect that the SNP Government's housing strategy is one of its weakest points. "Firm Foundations" is a poor document. The fatal flaw at its core is the idea—which, as Johann Lamont said, is not backed up by evidence—that centralised procurement has the potential to save money and be more efficient. In reality, such procurement jeopardises the future of the unique Scottish system of community-based housing associations. It will cost more and it will be hugely bureaucratic. That is the reality, despite the minister's weasel words on the matter.

In contrast, Liberal Democrats believe that communities should be the source of power. In housing, a dynamic partnership between councils as the strategic elected body and housing associations and co-operatives, which deliver local participation, is often a strong tenant empowerment mechanism. The SNP makes great play of the historic concordat, but it has shown most clearly in its housing policy that it does not trust local people, as its strategy tends to strip local councils and housing associations of power.

Even more central is the challenge of providing enough affordable rented housing—whether it is socially rented housing or council housing is substantially incidental—yet the SNP is lamentably and demonstrably failing to rise to that challenge. There is total confusion and uncertainty about the Scottish Government's programme. It should be a simple task to answer the question—which has been put to the minister—of how many houses for rent in the public sector the SNP Government plans to build or how many houses the £25 million that has been reallocated to council housing will produce.

The Government pulls all the relevant levers, particularly through the funding from central sources to councils and housing associations, but despite pressure from housing organisations such as Shelter, the SNP continues to duck and weave. As with many other issues, it seems determined to brazen it out with a smoke and mirrors act rather than come clean. The reality is obvious—fewer houses than ever before will be built in the public sector under the SNP, and housing has a distinctly lower priority under the SNP than it had when Liberal Democrats were in government.

It is time for the SNP to come clean. The minister can end all uncertainty by telling us the investment that the SNP will make in housing over the spending review period, how many affordable houses for rent it is able and proposes to build over that period, and the breakdown between providers. The SNP has made much play of the fact that it is allowing councils to build houses, but there is nothing terribly new in that, and the numbers involved are tokenistic, as has been said. In its briefing, Shelter suggests that fewer than 20,000 rented houses will be built from 2008 to 2011, and that the small number of extra council houses will be funded from a reduced allocation to housing associations.

The SNP Government must learn that it cannot govern by press release, that the art of government imposes constraints on ludicrously extravagant promises, and that the ultimate test is delivery.

I move amendment S3M-1812.1, to leave out from "believes that" to end and insert:

"recognises that local councils are best placed to assess and meet varied local housing needs and to determine their local housing strategies; believes that the role of community-based housing associations and housing co-operatives is vital to such diverse local strategies which should also include the ability to mould right-to-buy policy to fit local needs, and calls on the Scottish Government to produce clear figures on its housing plans including the number of affordable rented houses to be built from 2008 to 2011."

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I have no doubt that every member has at some time campaigned or spoken on housing. Scotland faces a housing shortage in the public sector. East Dunbartonshire faces a social housing crisis, which is due in no small part to the voting down by Conservative councillors there of a target for a minimum percentage of social housing for rent. When the opportunity arose in January to provide for a substantial percentage of social housing for rent, the Tories, along with Labour and the Liberals, did not take it. The SNP group even offered to lower its 15 per cent target to 10 per cent, which the ruling Labour-Tory administration preferred, but that figure was still rejected.

East Dunbartonshire Council has a waiting list with which the current council housing stock cannot cope. When the right to buy was introduced, the area had more than 10,000 council houses. That figure was reduced to just over 3,600 by 2006-07, whereas the number of people on the waiting list is about 4,500. The council also has a backlog of homelessness applications. As a result of all that, local people cannot stay in the area. Where will they go? Perhaps they will move to another local authority area and add to its overstretched waiting list. Our local authorities face such problems, but effective social housing can help to alleviate them.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Your regional responsibilities include Inverclyde. Do you welcome the decision of people in Inverclyde to support stock transfer? Do you regret the campaign against it in other areas, where people will not receive the benefits?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I remind members not to use the second person unless addressing the chair.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I will talk about the Inverclyde situation later.

The actions—or lack of them—of the previous Scottish Executive have left Scotland facing a housing shortage. The SNP Government has been clear in its aim—which has received overwhelming support—to build 35,000 new homes in the next decade.

Right to buy has been a bone of contention, but I make no bones about saying that the Tory position, which dates back 30 years, shows clearly that the Tories are behind the times. The proposal not to remove but to restrict the right to buy for new social housing was supported by 94 per cent of respondents to the Scottish Government's recent consultation. If that measure is not taken, research shows that 90,000 socially rented homes will be sold in the next 10 years. As I have shown, we do not have enough social housing to allow that to happen.

Moreover, it is no secret that the Labour Party, along with its Tory pals, took to encouraging tenants to vote for housing stock transfer. In Inverclyde, tenants voted overwhelmingly to transfer to a large housing association—that was up to them; it was their choice. However, since then, some constituents have asked me why they were forced down that road. Some have even mentioned the word "bribery", because if they had rejected the offer the housing debt would not have been written off. Those tenants were given no option, because if they had exercised their democratic right to vote against transfer, they would, in effect, have been punished.

A year into the SNP Government, we have had a commitment to create a fairer Scotland and to clear up Labour's mess again. The investment of more than £1.6 billion over three years in housing and regeneration from the tight budget settlement is just one example of action.

I hope that, in summing up, the Tories—and perhaps even the Labour Party—will explain why the United Kingdom Treasury will write off housing debt only if housing stock transfer takes place. Surely if the Treasury can provide £50 billion to the UK financial sector because of the credit crunch and can pour a similar amount into Northern Rock, paying £2 billion to wipe out the housing debt is a mere drop in the ocean. I urge members to back the Government amendment.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate, which is on an important topic. I will support the amendment in the name of my colleague Johann Lamont.

I do not often have the chance to thank the Tories for anything, but I thank them today, as they have at least brought the subject of housing to the chamber, unlike the SNP Government, which does not want to talk about devolved issues such as housing—at least not here.

It is gratifying to hear Mr McMillan taking such an interest in my constituency. I welcome the debate, as it gives me the opportunity to mention an event that I will attend this afternoon in Kirkintilloch, where the leader of East Dunbartonshire Council's Labour-Conservative coalition—members will not hear that phrase often—will officially open a new development of affordable homes.

The completion of those 40 new properties is a major boost for the town's Harestanes area. They comprise 28 homes for rent and 12 shared-equity properties that have been built under the first low-cost initiative for first-time buyers—LIFT—project in East Dunbartonshire. The development involves a partnership between Castle Rock Edinvar Housing Association, Lothian Homes, Cruden Estates, Communities Scotland and the council. Such is the demand for affordable housing in my constituency—I thank Mr McMillan for the update on the figures—that more than 200 applications were made for the 12 homestake properties. However, the good news is that there are plans to build more such properties in Bearsden, Bishopbriggs and Milton of Campsie.

As I have said, that is the good news. Elsewhere, the situation is not as rosy. In the Hillhead area of Kirkintilloch, which is an area of multiple deprivation, Hillhead Housing Association is still waiting to find out whether Communities Scotland will reinstate an offer—which had been deferred—of £4 million that it requires to proceed with phase 2 of redevelopment in the area. HHA has been told that officers from the Government's housing and regeneration directorate, which was Communities Scotland, want to wait for more up-to-date costs, because the directorate's investment team apparently wants to appraise the scheme's costs against the new housing association grant assumptions. Under those arrangements, which Mr Maxwell introduced, an association could be forced to use reserves to back its bid—although HHA has none—or to think about increasing rents, but Hillhead is an area of deprivation, so that is not an option, either. The intention is to allow HAG to be spread more thinly. That seems to be the SNP's idea of how to make housing associations more efficient. The result is that tenants must pay more.

HHA will be able to increase its borrowing only if lenders view the business plan as viable. The scheme will cost £7 million, and even with £4 million from HAG the association will still have a shortfall of £3 million, at a time when the cost of borrowing new money is more expensive than ever. All that happens against the background of some lenders pulling out of the social rented sector. The irony is that East Dunbartonshire Council's area has been identified as facing a severe homelessness crisis, so the council wants to maximise the number of new units that are approved this financial year.

Scotland needs more homes to be built, and several applications to build are outstanding in my constituency. The question is how many of those new homes will be in the affordable or social rented category. The SNP's "Firm Foundations"—if ever a document had a dodgy title, that is it—refers to building 35,000 houses a year by 2015, but offers no commitment on the number that will be in the social rented sector. Robert Brown asked about that, and I repeat his question. I had hoped that the minister would tell us his target today. Shelter believes that fewer than 20,000 affordable homes will be built in the next three years. Is that right, or will the minister care to give us another number—in fact, any number?

I would like the minister to tell East Dunbartonshire Council what its housing grant allocation will be. He said that it would be announced soon; today's ceremony would have been an ideal opportunity to release that information. Phase 2 of Hillhead Housing Association's plans, involving 142 units, is waiting to go.

A large number of people in my area are living in overcrowded or unsuitable accommodation. The people of Scotland deserve better than they are getting from the Government.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

As members have said, housing is one of the most important issues that Scotland faces. We support speeding up the planning system for housing, the shared ownership scheme and having more rural homes for rent. It is also right that the Government works with the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association and community groups to utilise potential homes more fully by bringing properties up to standard. However, there is no doubt at all that stock transfer has the potential to transform social housing in Scotland. To be honest, stock transfer is the only game in town. It is unfortunate for tenants in Scotland that the Government does not support it.

We must not only consider the costs of building new homes; we must also increase our focus on energy efficiency to ensure that homes are cheaper to live in. It is all very well for people to get affordable homes, but if they cannot afford to live in them there is little point in having them. As Shelter has said, 6,000 families are evicted from their homes every year. We can be sure that a percentage of those families were unable to pay utility bills and other bills. Better insulation and energy efficiency could address that problem.

Many families are evicted as a result of the lack of support to get people back into training and employment. In fact, when many people get a house, they lose contact with support systems and fall back into old ways. In the past 10 years, the number of people in temporary accommodation has doubled, and the number of households living in bed and breakfast accommodation has more than quadrupled. The current economic conditions are leading to even greater difficulties for first-time buyers. In Scotland, the average age of first-time buyers is 37.

As David McLetchie said, the stock transfer policy is a means of addressing the housing shortage in Scotland. It is a means of not only writing off debt but refurbishing existing homes and building new ones. I remind the minister that, thanks to the Conservatives' policy, which Labour supported, more than 300,000 families in Scotland exercised their democratic right to buy the home in which they lived.

In 2006, tenants in the Highlands voted on housing stock transfer. Not only would transfer have wiped out the £153 million council housing debt, there would have been money for new homes. One of the major incentives to vote for the housing stock transfer was that 41p in every pound of rent that was paid to the council went towards paying off the debt. That situation is unsustainable in the current economic conditions, because less money is available to invest in properties. We can look towards a deteriorating housing stock in future.

There were additional benefits. The housing stock transfer would have guaranteed rent rises of no more than the rate of inflation for five years, and in the following five years rents would have risen by only 0.5 per cent above inflation, and probably by less than that. There would have been even more tenant control and improved repairs and services. Tenants would undoubtedly have been far better off.

I support the motion in the name of David McLetchie. My experiences are from the Highlands, but it is no surprise to me that a motion has been lodged that states:

"That the Parliament regrets the failure of the Scottish Government to actively pursue and promote housing stock transfer by local authorities".

Highland Council has one of the largest housing debts in Scotland. Things could have been different if the party in government, supported by the Scottish socialists, had not carried out their concerted campaign.

Quick action needs to be taken to address housing problems. I urge the Government to have a rethink, and to work with the stock transfer moneys and housing associations to benefit tenants in Scotland.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am grateful to the Conservatives for securing this debate on housing, although having said that, there is little in the motion with which I agree.

The first proposition in the motion pertains to promotion of housing stock transfer by local authorities. I am proud to be a member of a party that does not try to coerce council tenants by way of the bribe that capital debt write-off, in tandem only with stock transfer, represents. If the Treasury is capable of servicing council house debt, why will it do so only under the conditions of stock transfer? Mary Scanlon said that

"stock transfer is the only game in town",

and David McLetchie said that the present rules are the rules. I say that the rules of the game are wrong.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Is Jamie Hepburn, as a member of the SNP, proud to have urged people in Edinburgh to vote against stock transfer and now to have a Government minister who has said when there have been problems that rents should be put up, land should be sold, or jobs should be got rid of? Is the member proud of the response to those who voted no to stock transfer?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I wonder whether Johann Lamont is proud to be a member of the party that tries to bribe council house tenants. If the Treasury is able to service the housing debt, it should do so.

It is clear that housing stock transfer is little more than an attempt to hammer nails into the coffin of council housing in Scotland. Council tenants in various local authority areas have stood up against such moves—that is to be applauded. They have doubtless been partly inspired to do so as a result of having witnessed the shambolic handling of the housing stock transfer in Glasgow under the previous Administration.

The second proposition in the Tory motion is

"that the role of social landlords is best undertaken by housing associations and other not-for-profit, co-operative bodies".

That is a seemingly innocuous proposition, but it masks what the Tories really mean, which is that there should be no role for local authorities. If stock transfer was meant to be a nail in the coffin of council housing, the Tory-inspired right to buy was designed to be the first blow struck against it.

I will qualify what I have said. I accept that many families have benefited by buying their council homes—indeed, many people in my family have done so. Equally, however, others—such as my step-father's father—have on principle refused to buy their council homes because they recognise the value of local authority housing remaining available for future generations. Individuals have benefited from the right to buy, but we must also recognise the gross failures of the policy. Many children and grandchildren of people who have bought their council homes are now struggling to secure their own roofs over their heads. That is why Wendy Alexander's talk of families aspiring to own a second home is misplaced. Thousands of people still aspire merely to renting their first home, never mind to owning a place in the sun. In 2006-07, there were almost 60,000 homelessness applications in Scotland. Those are the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

To respond to the demand for homes, we need a mix of housing tenure, but above all we need a new generation of council housing. The policy that the Government is pursuing of restricting the right to buy in respect of new council homes is a huge incentive for local authorities to build such homes. We are already seeing plans to construct more council homes than have been built for many years. That is another sign of progress in Scotland under an SNP Government.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I thank the Conservatives for bringing a housing debate to Parliament.

Sheep seem to be following the minister, which is strange.

Since 1999, members have worked hard to put housing, which is important to us all, high on the political agenda. However, it is essential that the Opposition parties continue to raise housing issues in Parliament because it is clear to us that the SNP Administration will not bring housing policies to it for parliamentary debate and scrutiny.

In a debate in March on a Labour Party motion, Stewart Maxwell complained that only a few minutes were available to him to speak. It is disappointing that he has been unable to persuade his ministerial colleagues to allow him time to lead a housing debate in the chamber, and to give him an opportunity to outline the SNP's plans. Could it be that the SNP does not have any plans, or could it be that its policy is in tatters as a result of the amount of spinning that the Administration has done in order to convince itself and SNP back benchers that it is doing something that takes housing seriously and deals with the housing needs of the people of Scotland?

How many affordable rented homes will be built between now and 2011? That question has been put here today. The minister was happy to shout from a sedentary position earlier, but he would not answer members' questions about the numbers, nor has he answered the same questions when they have been asked by people in all sections of housing. There has been no answer from the SNP.

The ending of the right to buy was announced by the Administration in a flurry of press releases as a means to appease its back benchers as they were being guided through their masters' right-wing budget plans. Who are they kidding? The SNP has not abolished the right to buy, as we will realise as we go forward. Shelter points out correctly that the right to buy was conceived in a very different landscape back in the 1970s. It seems to have passed the current Administration by that the previous Administration modernised the right to buy to take account—[Interruption.] Presiding Officer, would the minister like to intervene?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

All right. The right-to-buy policy originated in the 1970s, as Cathie Craigie suggested, but why is her party still defending one of the arch Thatcherite policies from the 1970s, which is now utterly unsuitable for the 21 st century when we have a housing crisis and supply that is nowhere near enough to meet demand?

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am surprised that the minister got to his feet to embarrass himself by not even understanding the changes that were made to the right to buy during the previous Administration—supported by the majority in Parliament. When is the minister going to give us information on how that policy is working?

We have to continue to meet housing demands and our priority must be to increase availability of high-quality affordable housing. Housing impacts on so many aspects of our lives, as we know.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

Will the member give way?

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am in my last minute. People need to work in partnership with councils and housing associations, as happens in my constituency, where people have moved into their new housing association houses in the past month and owners are working with local authorities and housing associations to improve their housing. It is not either/or; it is a partnership that can suit everybody's needs.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

As one of people who has been referred to not by name but just as a bank bencher, I am very proud to be a member of this party of Government. Collectively, the unionist parties have an absolute cheek to lecture anyone on housing. Let us look at their record.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Will the member give way?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am sorry; I have just started. With the introduction of the right to buy, the Tories single-handedly scheduled the social housing market and completely skewed the situation, making it very difficult for social rented accommodation to be made available to people who could not afford the right to buy. It is a disgrace that the Tories want to further that right: I will not take a lecture on that from Mary Scanlon or anybody else, particularly when her party is backed up by the Labour Party, as she mentioned.

Let us have a wee look at Labour and the Lib Dems. What can I say about them? The Liberals propped up the Labour Party on the housing stock transfer to the Glasgow Housing Association—an absolute monster about which the previous Labour-Liberal Executive did nothing.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Will the member give way?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am sorry, Margaret; I have only four minutes.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member should use full names when referring to other members in the chamber.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I apologise, Presiding—Deputy Presiding Officer. [ Laughter. ]

Only now that the Liberals and Labour are in opposition do they complain about the GHA: they bleat about second-stage transfer and Robert Brown bleats about wanting an Audit Scotland investigation. What did you do when we were propping up the Labour Party to make that second-stage transfer? Absolutely nothing happened and yet you have a cheek—sorry, Presiding Officer. The Liberals and the Labour Party have a cheek to try to lecture us. Where were their members when the housing associations, owner-occupiers and tenants held meetings and went to constituencies and offices to complain and talk about their concerns about the situation with the GHA? No one from the Liberal and Labour Parties turned up. It was left to the SNP Opposition of the time to take up those people's concerns. I am pleased that the minister listened to us about those concerns. I ask Robert Brown: please do not pretend to be on the side of the owner-occupiers and tenants of Glasgow because it is the SNP that is on their side. It was the SNP that brought concerns about the GHA to the chamber, while the Liberal-Labour Executive did nothing about them.

We are now celebrating one year of an SNP Government, which is absolutely fantastic. Let us look at what has happened—much more than the other parties ever achieved—since the SNP took control. The GHA has been taken to task, 16 local housing associations have been given approval to move to second-stage transfer and there are another 17 in the pipeline. After just one year, that is worthy of congratulations. Liberal and Labour members who were in Government for years did nothing to help the people of Glasgow, apart from introduce the monolithic GHA. We are now ending the right to buy—the proposal to do that received the support of 94 per cent of respondents to the Scottish Government consultation on housing.

I say to David McLetchie and the Tories that even one of their councillors, Jim Millar, has said that his party's defence of the right to buy is simplistic. If the Tories want more information about that, they can look at his blog, which contains lots of other bits and pieces.

The SNP Government has also increased investment in housing and regeneration and has set a target for increased building. There is also the recent announcement that Scottish local authorities will be given £25 million to build new council houses, which is a step towards the future. I congratulate the SNP Government on what it is doing.

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

The minister's amendment begins with the words:

"respects the democratic right of tenants to determine the ownership of their homes".

The minister stated in a recent intervention that he condemns the "arch Thatcherite" policy of the right to buy as being totally unsuitable in today's housing crisis. However, the Government will not even move towards abolishing that policy. Sandra White castigated stock transfer, but today the minister said that he welcomes new stock transfers. That goes to the heart of the difficulty of SNP housing policy. Its "Firm Foundations" document is built on sand.

In my constituency, council housing stock was transferred in 2002 from the Scottish Borders Council to the Scottish Borders Housing Association. It was the next stock transfer after Berwickshire stock was transferred. The move was opposed tooth and nail by the SNP, which did not just voice opposition, but campaigned consistently against it and continued to oppose the Scottish Borders Housing Association. That was the case until May 2007 when the minister took office—if he is listening. The SNP then said that it fully supports housing associations and new stock transfers; indeed, the minister said in his speech today that he was very happy to see them.

The minister's contribution to the debate this morning was extremely complacent and disingenuous. Again he attacked the previous Government for building only six council houses, which gives the impression that only six affordable homes were built under the previous Administration. Up until 31 March this year, the previous Lib Dem-Labour Government provided an outturn budget of £8.631 million with 76 units approved in the Borders alone. In 2006-07, the outturn budget was just over £7 million and last year's figures equate to a 200 per cent increase from the year in which I was elected.

I joined the minister when he took delight in opening new social rented homes in Galashiels in my constituency last year. The challenge to his Government today is absolutely clear: it must ensure that the Borders continues to be recognised as an area of particular pressure, as it was when Margaret Curran was Minister for Communities and working with Eildon Housing Association, with me and others to stress the particular pressure that the Borders faces. Eildon Housing Association was provided with additional funds by the previous Government to take an innovative land-banking approach, delivering more homes for the same funding. Those were real results from real investment; now there are questions about the future. "Firm Foundations" proposes a regionally centralised lead developer that may not be in the Borders, and which would focus on an Edinburgh and Lothians approach away from the Borders.

The Government has revised its rental assumptions—assuming higher rental income from tenants—and it is top-slicing that from HAG, which will mean that fewer homes will be built. The revised guidance for local housing strategies has been horrendously delayed and there is huge concern locally that resource allocation for housing grant will not take into consideration population growth and rurality in the Borders.

We need less complacency and more action from the minister. He has on his desk the allocation drafts for 2008-09—housing associations and councils need to know that information. The minister refuses to give a figure for how many houses he expects to be built, but he knows exactly what the figure is. He should tell Parliament the figure—he should not be as disingenuous as we have heard him being this morning.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I have been an MSP for quite a number of years, but I have rarely heard a debate in which the speeches of SNP back benchers lacked evidence and argument as much as they have in this debate. The minister finds himself not so much on "Firm Foundations" as on shaky foundations, because the housing sector today faces serious challenges.

This welcome Conservative debate on housing follows quickly an earlier Labour housing debate, a number of questions from which remain outstanding. Certain requirements go with holding ministerial office: you have an absolute requirement to answer questions from the Parliament; it is a principle of democracy that you answer Parliament's questions. I hope that you will do that in your summation.

As Jeremy Purvis pointed out, there are a number of issues around your lack of decision making. You will know that the housing sector is deeply concerned about it. When will housing association grants actually be allocated? You said in your speech that Nicola Sturgeon would announce them very soon. Can we be told what "very soon" actually means in SNP-land? You know that some people are worried about real cuts, and you need to address that immediately.

There is, too, the issue of the lack of accountability. On 20 March, Parliament agreed a motion that said that required you to come back to Parliament and answer on where the first-time buyers grant—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I ask the member to become a bit more non-you.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I apologise. I will repeat what I said. The minister was required to come back to Parliament and tell members what was happening with the first-time buyers grant. Where is that statement, minister? You should do that straightaway.

There is also a lack of transparency. Where is the first-time buyers grant? It is reasonable, particularly in the current housing market, that first-time buyers, who I presume voted SNP because of that wonderful offer, should be told what is happening to that grant. If it was such a central part of your policy for the election, where is it now? If you cannot tell us, it is reasonable to conclude that it was just an election con. You still refuse to answer those questions.

Over the weekend and today, we heard the great announcement of £25 million, as if it were somehow the answer to Scotland's housing problems. We have learned quite a bit about the SNP today. When we asked for a precise figure on how many houses that sum will translate into, the answer was

"a hell of a lot".

It is no wonder that some of the Government's figures go awry, if that is its idea of precision.

We have tried to model how many houses would result from £25 million. If the minister wishes to challenge this model and contradict me, he can do so. We estimate that about 100 new houses would result from £25 million. We have SNP back benchers telling us that the right to buy is at an end, and about the terrible onslaught on housing and the crisis that the right to buy has created. The sum total of the great masterstroke from the SNP is that the £25 million will result in 100 new houses. To the SNP, those 100 houses represent a fantastic policy, but the SNP denies recognition of the 36,000 houses that were built by the previous Labour-Lib Dem Administration. In addition, it is an insult to the housing association sector not to acknowledge its contribution. You can give warm words in your speech, minister, but if you deny recognition of that sector's record and deny it the means to continue that record—the housing associations think that is what you are doing—it will take that insult seriously.

We have had no answer on the first-time buyers grant—we have a lack of decision making from the minister. We have had no plan of investment for those who are in greatest housing need, and no answer on stock transfer. One year on, it is a grim record: no vision and no grasp of the strategic issues that the housing sector faces. Robert Brown was right to say that housing is one of your weakest areas, minister. Your complacency is deeply shocking. I tell you: you have got serious answers to face.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I tell you this, boy—sorry, Presiding Officer.

It is particularly ironic, I feel, that we are having this interesting debate today of all days. Today, of course, is 1 May, which is May day—and international workers day. The Labour Party in Scotland has decided to recognise the day by fighting tooth and nail in defence of the arch-Thatcherite policy of selling off council houses. Generations of comrades must be proud as they watch Wendy Alexander's new socialist party stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tory party in defence of Thatcherism. However, before Labour decided to come to the aid of the Tories in opposing the end of the right to buy for new-build social housing, perhaps it should have checked who it was up against.

On one side of the argument are those who oppose abolition of the right to buy for new-build social housing, such as the Labour Party, the Tory party and—actually, that is about it. That is the complete list of those who oppose the policy. However, in favour of our policy to abolish the right to buy for new-build social housing, we have local authorities, big and small housing associations, housing lobby groups such as Shelter and housing commentators. In fact, the whole housing sector approves our policy. It even won support from a certain Wendy Alexander. The Herald of 22 October 2007 stated:

"The abolition of the right to buy council houses came a step closer yesterday after ... Wendy Alexander indicated that her party would look favourably on proposals by the government."

I do not know whether the Labour party is coming or going on this issue. Unfortunately, neither does it.

Robert Brown asked how much will be spent on housing over the spending review period. Robert, perhaps you should have checked—I am sorry. Perhaps the member should have checked the budget. Over £1.5 billion will be spent over the spending review period, which is an increase of £131 million on the previous Executive's plans. That is a 19 per cent increase over the next spending review period versus the 2005-08 plans. It is clear that much more money is going into housing over the next three years.

I thought the speeches of Stuart McMillan and Jamie Hepburn were good. They clearly expressed the supply problems that we face. David McLetchie and others said that the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Tory policies on housing are a huge success, but still talked about the crisis that housing faces, particularly the social rented housing sector. Their policies cannot have been a huge success, given the housing crisis that we face today. It is clearly the case that this is a huge inherited problem, which we now have to face up to.

David Whitton talked about the homelessness crisis in his area—what a success his party's policies have been over the past few years. He talked about "dodgy" documents. I will take no lessons from the Labour Party on dodgy documents. We know fine well about dodgy documents from the Labour Party; it has had far too many over the past few years.

Margaret Curran talked about the fact that there has been no statement to Parliament. As I said, there will be a statement to Parliament in the coming weeks. We have said that that will happen, and we will ensure that it will happen. On the discussion about the £25 million for new council houses, that is but one policy on housing—it is not the only policy on housing—and it has been widely welcomed. We are in negotiation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities as to exactly how that policy will be implemented.

Both Johann Lamont and David Whitton talked about the dire, desperate, doom-and-gloom housing situation and the collapse of the housing association movement—I think that that sums up their views on our proposals. However, just this week, the Scottish Housing Regulator's financial digest published the fact that housing associations have cash deposits in excess of £300 million, and a gross surplus of £113 million. There is clearly not a crisis in, or a collapse of, the housing association sector.

Jeremy Purvis said that our proposal will cause rents to rise. It will not, because the changes that we are making reflect exactly the performance that housing associations have reported to the Government. Therefore, our proposals are exactly in line with those of the housing associations.

Cathie Craigie welcomed the fact that the Conservative party had chosen to use its debating time to discuss housing and claimed that the Government had not had any housing debates. I gently point out to her that we had a housing debate in the Parliament in the first month of our Government, in June 2007. Our second housing debate took place in October 2007. We will have another debate or statement very soon. We will have had three housing debates in our first year in Government, whereas Labour failed to have a housing debate in the Parliament in its first year in Government either in 1999 or 2003.

I ask members to support the amendment in my name. Clearly, we need to tackle the problem that we inherited from the frankly disgraceful Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

During the first parliamentary session, the SNP's Christine Grahame and I were taken on a tour of Glasgow's worst housing areas by the Evening Times . The vast difference between the desperately deprived council areas and the improved areas that had been taken over by housing associations was glaringly obvious to both of us. Why, in that case, is the SNP returning to the failed policies of the past in encouraging councils to build? Councils have proved themselves to be poor landlords. We would prefer housing associations to be given the funding to build new social housing for rent in Scotland. Furthermore, we maintain that the SNP must recommence housing stock transfer in Scotland so that councils can take advantage of Treasury money to eliminate Scotland's £2.2 billion housing debt. What is the point of £25 million over three years compared to that?

As my colleagues David McLetchie and Mary Scanlon said, the Scottish Conservatives have real concerns about SNP ministers' rhetoric on council house building. Where is the proof that local authorities are best placed to build houses for rent at the most competitive prices and in successful mixed communities? Do ministers not realise that housing associations the length and breadth of Scotland have expertise and experience and are ready and willing to deliver effectively affordable housing in diverse communities? Should not the priority be to support our housing associations? Having spoken to many people at the National Landlords Association reception in Parliament last night, I know that the desire of the private sector to help with affordable housing is plain to see. Why does the Government not engage more with the private sector to come up with a solution?

On the right to buy, the Scottish Conservatives will always be proud that our policy transformed the lives of tens of thousands of ordinary people in Scotland, providing them with the best advance ever in their lifetimes. The SNP's proposal to curtail the right to buy is a clear indication of its dogmatic anti-aspirational agenda. We will resist that wherever we can. Why should a new generation of social tenants be denied the right that is enjoyed by current tenants?

In a recent written answer, the Minister for Communities and Sport revealed to me that Scotland has more than 100,000 properties that are classified as vacant dwellings or second homes. Of those, housing experts suggest that 87,000 could be empty properties, which equates to 3.8 per cent of our housing stock and is a higher rate than the UK average. Many of those empty properties are in rural areas. All members would surely agree that bringing back into use even a small percentage of those redundant or dilapidated houses would, at the very least, ease the affordable housing crisis that many of our communities face.

The Government has said that the rural empty properties grant scheme is one way of tackling the number of empty properties, yet another recent answer from the Minister for Communities and Sport confirmed that only 101 properties in the whole of Scotland have benefited from the grant since 1998-99. That is a drop in the ocean. The Scottish Conservatives are positive about the rural empty properties grant scheme, but the scheme obviously needs to be improved if it is to have a better impact.

Along with the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association, we are also positive about the rural homes for rent grant scheme, which recognises—as we have long argued—that the private sector is well-placed to provide affordable rented housing. However, the scheme is small in scale and will provide only 100 properties for rent by 2011. Again, on behalf of our hard-pressed rural communities, we look for more from this new Government.

As I have, members will have received a useful briefing today from Leonard Cheshire Disability. One in four households includes a person with a disability, and there are real concerns about the availability of social housing for young disabled people. Can the minister say what his Government will do to involve disabled people in the planning, design and management of homes in the future?

The Scottish Conservatives will continue to press the Government to take fundamental action to ease Scotland's affordable housing crisis. That means providing effective reform of the planning system, addressing development constraints, working with housing associations, utilising effective shared-equity schemes and—crucially—working closely with the private sector to create a dynamic rented sector.

I agree with Robert Brown that "Firm Foundations" contains serious flaws. As David McLetchie rightly said, £25 million over three years is peanuts. What could housing associations do with £2 billion, though? We continue to support wholeheartedly the transfer of local government housing to communities. Such housing should be run by locally accountable housing associations, co-operatives and companies—a process that was started by our party. We believe that that makes housing officials more accountable to tenants and provides more local management. The SNP seems to have a policy-free zone on stock transfer. Perhaps the minister can enlighten us on what its policies actually are.

While he is at it, perhaps the minister can confirm that the first-time buyer's grant that the SNP pledged while in election mode—and which most people in the housing sector believe would be an inflationary measure—will be scrapped, if it has not been scrapped already. Will he also consider scrapping the single seller survey, which is set to become another unnecessary hurdle for the housing sector despite the disastrous pilot scheme? The single seller survey will be costly and will lead to multiple surveys, so it will not even achieve its intended result. That is not just my opinion but the opinion of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, whose representatives I met only the day before yesterday.

Food Security

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1803, in the name of John Scott, on food security.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I declare an interest as a farmer and I refer members to the register of interests for my other farming-related interests.

In considering food security, it is important that we analyse how we have reached the current position of emerging global food shortages before we look at what can be done to address the problem. The second world war is perhaps the best starting point. As we all know, Britain was almost starved out of the war by German U-boats, so "Dig for victory" and rationing became the order of the day. In the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, huge increases in food production were achieved in Scotland and throughout Europe, as politicians of all countries feared that Europe would have insufficient food to feed its then 350 million population. Milk lakes, butter mountains and wine lakes followed in the mid-1980s, which resulted in common agricultural policy reforms being introduced. Essentially, the reforms reined in food production by encouraging alternative land use policies, particularly environmental enhancement.

From 1988 to 2008, we have had, in an almost biblical way, 20 years of plenty, but the situation has now changed. Once again, the spectre of food shortages has emerged, with world grain prices rising by 60 per cent in the first three months of this year and China buying land in Russia and South America to feed its growing population.

The problems that we are contemplating today have come about for three main reasons. First, oil has—unexpectedly—reached $120 a barrel, largely because of the growing awareness that oil is a finite resource and because of concerns about peak oil. That has encouraged farmers worldwide to grow crops for biofuel production on land that was previously used for food. In Brazil, for example, 90 per cent of new cars can now run on ethanol.

Secondly—and, again, unexpectedly—global warming is taking more and more land out of agricultural production both north and south of the equator. Australia has suffered a seven-year drought and much of southern Europe and north Africa is a virtual desert in terms of food production. Sea levels are beginning to rise, too. Although no one can tell us by how much they will rise, we know that a 1m rise in sea levels—a distinct possibility within the next 100 years— would reduce by a third the land that is available to feed an already hungry world.

The third reason for the problems that we are examining today is population growth and rising standards of living. Man has been the most successful species since the dinosaurs, and the world's population is heading towards 9 billion by 2050. Increased living standards, especially in China, India and Japan, have resulted in those countries moving to western styles of food consumption, based on consumption of meat rather than rice or grain. That has put still more pressure on grain growing, so that animals can be raised for human food consumption.

The perfect storm is emerging, due to rising oil prices, global warming and world population growth. Today, we must acknowledge those facts and start to consider what we in Scotland can do to help to feed a daily more hungry world.

It is self-evident that we must encourage our farmers to do all that they can to grow more food. That will have to be done in a sustainable and environmentally sensitive way, but—to use a metaphor—growing two blades of grass where one grew before will again become important in food protection terms, as now Europe must not only start to feed itself for the first time but feed other, less favoured, parts of the world as well. Europe, the United Kingdom and Scotland are not even self-sufficient in food production at the moment.

Increasing production will require investment in research and development, to increase crop and animal production. Research into enhanced food techniques, some of which could take place in Scotland, will need to be carried out on behalf of developing countries, as they have neither the expertise nor the finance to carry out research to bring into production the huge swathes of potentially fertile land in, for example, sub-Saharan Africa. Land that is serviced by rainfall will become even more precious and water storage and irrigation systems will need to be further developed in Europe. That is the case even here in Britain, especially in England, as predictions suggest that Kent will have little agricultural value in 25 years' time unless irrigation systems are in place by then.

In Scotland, we can all help by wasting less food. At the moment, 40 per cent of food that is put into the supply chain is wasted, lost or thrown out unused, with 30 per cent of our shopping baskets thrown out weekly and 10 per cent of food damaged or lost before it reaches the point of sale. It is vital that we play our part in avoiding food shortages by addressing food wastage in the home and in the catering trade.

"Dig for victory", the slogan that encapsulated our wartime need to maximise food production from our own resources, may again become the order of the day. In our back gardens and allotments, recycling domestic waste and grass cuttings into growing vegetables could again become important, as food price inflation reaches almost 12 per cent. On average, families are paying £750 more this year for their staple diet than they paid last year. Conservatives have long advocated a policy of buy local, eat local where reasonably practical, to increase sustainable and socially responsible food consumption. Greater public procurement of local food and drink must be encouraged, as must greater collaboration in the development of the food supply chain. Agricultural support systems, which were recently agreed until 2013, may have to be revisited before then, as the Scotland rural development programme already looks out of date and is the product of thinking that did not anticipate oil prices of $120 a barrel, peak oil or the consequences of global warming.

The issues to be addressed are now stark. I have given the Conservative party's thoughts on how we might proceed. I hope that others will bring ideas and suggestions to the debate to help to inform the Government on how we in Scotland can best move forward from here. As Annabel Goldie announced yesterday, Scottish Conservatives will work with colleagues in the UK and Europe to produce a report over the summer that will try to chart the way forward. We will also be happy to work with other parties to find the right sustainable solutions. In that spirit of co-operation, we will be happy to accept the amendments that have been lodged by other parties today, to allow the Parliament to speak with one voice on this matter.

I move,

That the Parliament expresses its concern at the potential for global food shortages; notes the recent cost increases in many basic food products here in Scotland, with food price inflation now exceeding 6%; further notes that many developing countries are experiencing growing social unrest as a result of food pressures, and calls on the Scottish Government, Her Majesty's Government, the European Union and other relevant bodies to work closely, and with the appropriate urgency, to seek solutions.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I thank the Conservatives—not something that members will hear me say often—for bringing this important debate to the chamber this morning. John Scott set out his stall well, especially in relation to local food procurement.

In recent months, food security has raced up the political and public agenda here in the UK, but for many people in the world it has been an all too familiar struggle for far too long. There are no easy solutions, but it is key that we ensure that farming across the world is sustainable and able to meet the challenges of the coming decades.

Our amendment focuses on two issues: the reality of climate change and the rush to biofuels. Fluctuation of the temperature of both land and sea and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events will have a pronounced impact on food supply. Here in Scotland, we need to assess how our crops and livestock will cope with those changes and how we can adapt our farming processes to deal with the challenges that we undoubtedly face. New animal diseases are arriving on our shores, and we need robust mechanisms to deal with those. Farming is also a key part of the process of reducing our emissions. How can we use technological change to our advantage? Can we use slurry more effectively? Are there on-farm solutions that reduce emissions and can be supported and developed quickly? The CAP has a role to play in facilitating change, which will be achieved through joint working. Will the Minister for Environment indicate what progress has been made and what steps he and his colleagues will take to facilitate change in the coming months?

In the developing world—in countries such as Malawi—we can see just how extreme weather events are impacting on food security. In 2005, I saw at first hand how devastating drought had been to food production in Malawi. This year, the food supplies of many people have been placed at risk by flooding. Malawi contributes little to our emissions, but her people suffer disproportionately. Both here and in countries such as Malawi, food security is intrinsically linked to poverty. The poor in Scotland suffer most from rising food prices, which force them to limit their food intake and to reduce the variety of foods that they eat. In Malawi, it is the poor who face starvation as their crops—their only source of food—are wiped out. Can members really imagine what it would be like not to know where their next meal was coming from, or whether it would ever come?

Tackling climate change is crucial and reducing emissions is paramount, but the consequences for the rest of the world of solutions to those problems must be more thought through than the perverse rush to biofuels has been. I say "perverse" because it is undeniable that biofuels take food out of the mouths of starving people and divert it to be burned in the car engines of the world's richest people. In the words of the United Nations' special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, that is nothing less than a "crime against humanity". Are we really prepared to sit back and say to the world's starving millions, "We'll burn your food in our cars while your children die around your feet." Next year, the amount of corn used for ethanol in the US is forecast to rise to 114 million tonnes— nearly a third of the projected crop. American cars now burn enough corn to cover all the import needs of 82 nations that are classed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations as low-income food-deficit countries. If that is not perverse, I do not know what is.

In many places in the world, food is being priced at the same level of fuel. The fact that increasing quantities of food are being sought by energy markets for biofuels has again pushed up prices for the world's poor. Targets on biofuels were not designed to do that. I welcome Gordon Brown's comments last week in The Scotsman. He said:

"Now we know that bio fuels, intended to promote energy independence and combat climate change, are frequently energy inefficient. We need to look closely at the impact on food prices and the environment of different production methods and to ensure we are more selective in our support. If the UK review shows that we need to change our approach, we will also push for change in EU bio fuels targets."

The UK Government has also called on the World Bank to examine the impact of biofuels production on food markets. Those are welcome steps, but we need consistency of approach. I encourage Scottish ministers to play their part in facilitating the change that has been proposed.

Food security is an issue of social justice, both at home and abroad. In the consensual spirit of the debate, I welcome the other amendments that have been lodged. The right to food at a price that people can afford is a basic human right. This debate gives us an opportunity to develop our ideas, but there is no doubt that we will return to the issue in the months ahead. I have pleasure in moving the Labour amendment in my name and urge the chamber to support it at decision time.

I move amendment S3M-1803.1, to insert at end:

"that take account of the growing pressures on agriculture from both climate change and the rush to biofuels".

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

We are moving from an era of food surplus to one of food shortage. The global population is growing fast. Our farmers and food producers in Scotland are struggling with increases in the price of animal feed, fuel and other raw materials.

The issue is undoubtedly serious and it is commendable that the Scottish Conservatives brought the debate, so it is disappointing that the motion is somewhat banal, to say the least. During the past year, under a minority Administration that is scared to introduce legislation, we have had to debate some fairly inoffensive Government motions. However, for a party that is supposed to be providing opposition and which claims to harbour ambitions of forming a Government, at Westminster if not in Scotland, to lodge a motion that calls on

"the Scottish Government, Her Majesty's Government, the European Union and other relevant bodies ... to seek solutions",

without offering an indication of what the solutions might be, is hugely disappointing.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Mike Rumbles did not listen to my speech.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am talking about the motion in John Scott's name.

It is no wonder that the Government is not interested in opposing the motion. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats lodged an amendment that adds beef and suggests practical ways forward, to add to the warm words in the Conservative motion.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The minister should look behind him—where are the Scottish National Party members?

It is clear that the best way to ensure food security in Scotland is by recognising the role that our primary food producers can play in ensuring the long-term capacity and capability of our food supply. We all know that Scottish produce is of the highest quality, but there can be no doubt that there has been a change in eating habits in recent years and we have become used to having whatever we want at any time of year, regardless of where it has been imported from.

Progress has been made on the issue in recent years and I am sure that most of us make a point of buying Scotch beef, for example. However, at a time when our pig industry is facing its toughest challenges, how many of us check the bacon and pork products that we purchase at the supermarket to ensure that they are Scottish and not German, Dutch or Danish imports? In that context, why has the Scottish Government failed to apply to the EU, as the French have done, for assistance for our pig industry after it incurred losses as a result of the foot-and-mouth debacle? That failure to act is simply a disgrace.

We can all do our bit by buying Scottish produce, but the Scottish Government has a role to play. Our amendment calls on the Scottish Government to encourage the development of local supply chains through public procurement. The Scottish ministers could and should be taking action—I am sure that members remember the word "action"—to encourage public sector bodies to take the lead by purchasing local, seasonal food. Instead, ministers have carried out yet another exhaustive round of discussions. Scotland has some of the best food in the world, so ministers need to make sure that more of it ends up on Scottish plates. However, if that is to happen, ministers need to give a lead and take action.

There is nothing in the Conservative motion with which anyone could disagree, but we desperately need specifics, which is what the Liberal Democrat amendment provides.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I do not have time, unfortunately.

Reducing the regulatory burden on our farmers would help. Do members remember the SNP's commitment to take away a regulation every time it imposed a new one? I hope that the minister is listening. Every month, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee creaks under the weight of the new regulatory burdens that the current Administration imposes on our farmers but, despite their promises, ministers—in particular the Minister for Environment—have failed to tell us that even one regulation has been removed. Ministers have not done what they promised to do.

By taking steps to ensure that Scotland's primary food producers are recognised and assisted, we can guarantee food security for Scotland, which will assist efforts to prevent global food shortages. The first steps towards achieving that must be taken by the Scottish Government. I therefore urge the Parliament to support the Liberal Democrat amendment, which makes clear to the Scottish Government exactly what we expect it to do.

I move amendment S3M-1803.2, to insert at end:

"recognises the role of Scotland's primary producers in ensuring the long-term capacity and capability of our food supply; and further calls on the Scottish Government to encourage the development of local supply chains through public procurement, address the imbalance in power between the big supermarkets and our food producers, reduce the regulatory burden on farmers, and ensure that our primary producers operate on a level playing field with foreign competitors."

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members' interests. I am a member of the Soil Association.

I thank John Scott for bringing the debate and I thank Karen Gillon for a sensible speech from the Labour benches. As for Mike Rumbles, who's like him?

It should come as no surprise that the Greens' amendment acknowledges the growing pressure from peak oil—a concept that some people still find difficult to comprehend. The head of the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, Dr Colin Campbell, who is a former vice-president of several major oil companies, including BP and Shell, said that the concept of peak oil is quite straightforward and is easy for any beer drinker to understand. He said:

"The glass starts full and ends empty and the faster you drink it the quicker it's gone."

Scotland's oil supplies from the North Sea peaked in 1999 and the global supply is expected to peak at some point during the next few years. Estimates vary, but the French Government's conservative view is that global oil output will start to decline in five years' time. In the meantime, our society's thirst for oil continues—we keep using the stuff like there's no tomorrow. Government's responsibility is to prepare for the age after oil: to build an independence from oil and not to rely on independence built on oil.

Environmentalists and geologists have been sounding the alarm on peak oil for some time, but there is growing consensus among economists and capitalists that the global production of crude oil will soon reach a maximum rate, or peak, and then decline. Despite warnings from geologists and bankers, no Government of any party has made serious preparations for a life after oil.

The consequences of peak oil and of our failure to prepare for it are wide ranging. One of the biggest impacts will be on our food production and distribution. Food security and energy security are inextricably linked. On food commodities, the United States investment bank Goldman Sachs warned this year of rising energy costs and the centrality of agriculture in the equation. The rush to biofuels, which Karen Gillon talked about and which is mentioned in the Labour amendment, is a reaction to peak oil that risks aggravating food shortages as well as accelerating climate change.

Scotland's food industry is overreliant on oil. Our only viable future is a low-carbon one, which means that we must rethink and relocalise our lives. We must think about how we produce and consume our food. Driving miles to the supermarket to buy food that has been transported from around the world on oil-based transport will have to be rethought. Farming that relies heavily on fertilisers and mechanical processes will have to be rethought. Overpacking our food and carrying it home in plastic bags will have to end. Modern agriculture has been described as

"the use of land to convert oil into food".

One way or another, that will have to change.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

No more bananas.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

If we are to avert the worst impacts of climate change and peak oil, we must now gear up our economies to make the transition to a low-carbon economy.

I am not sounding the death knell for the quality or enjoyment of our lives—despite mutterings from the Conservative benches. Indeed, what I am talking about is quite the reverse. It is about grasping the opportunity and acknowledging how much innovative work needs to be done.

Communities throughout Scotland are putting the Government to shame. Transition towns are emerging throughout Scotland to face up to the reality of peak oil and what that means. The challenge for us all is to respond by making Scotland the world's first transition nation, to embrace the benefits and to avoid the appalling consequences of the current approach. Economics as if there is no tomorrow risks fulfilling that prophecy.

I move amendment S3M-1803.1.1, to insert at end:

", as well as the peak in oil production."

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am standing in for Richard Lochhead. I am sure that the whole chamber will join me in offering congratulations to Richard and Fiona on the arrival of their son, Fraser, who was born on Monday. [ Applause. ]

The Government congratulates John Scott on bringing the motion to the chamber, which we will support at decision time. We will also support the amendments, even the Liberal Democrat amendment, despite the very hard work that Mike Rumbles put into trying to stop members voting for it.

We welcome the debate, which is an important debate on an important subject. At the outset, I will quote the great Hamish Henderson, who, in "The Freedom Come All Ye", said:

"So come all ye at hame wi' Freedom Never heed whit the hoodies croak for doom In yer hoose a' the bairns o' Adam Can find breid, barley-bree an painted room".

In the Scots mind, the connection is made between freedom and food, and between our domestic concern for food and our international concerns. I will explore that in what I say today. Scots are citizens of the world. We care deeply about what happens elsewhere and it is absolutely right that we should discuss how to respond to the emerging global food crisis—how we should do that at home and what we can contribute internationally. First and foremost, supporting and developing our food production capacity is in our national interest. It helps to build a sustainable economy; we must put our intellect, entrepreneurial skills and great experience to good use to cultivate better and more environmentally friendly ways of producing food for domestic and international consumption.

I am conscious that no one in the chamber has seriously experienced hunger or famine. However, we should never take food for granted. That is why the Scottish Government is developing the nation's first ever strategic food policy to ensure that we have a fully joined-up, consistent and coherent approach to food production and consumption. We set out that vision for food in Scotland in the national food discussion paper, "Choosing the Right Ingredients: The Future for Food in Scotland". As we say in the paper, food should make the nation healthier, wealthier and smarter, with production making communities stronger and consumption respecting the local and global environment.

The discussion period on the paper lasted from January until last Friday. The paper got a very strong response and we have a lot of interesting material to consider. It is a pity that Mike Rumbles chose to belittle that in what he said today. There was an amazing level of engagement and we will carry that forward as we develop the policy. We are reflecting carefully on what we have heard—which is what Governments should do—but we are also concerned to take action—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Ha!

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is distressing to hear Mr Rumbles laugh at the concept of Government action. Of course, he is the member of a party that was in government for eight years and did nothing. Fortunately, we have learned that lesson.

We need to look at both domestic and international concerns. As John Scott said, the context has changed since last year. Food security is now firmly on the agenda. If anyone doubts that, the fact that annual food price inflation was 6.6 per cent in January 2008, compared with a rate of 4.1 per cent for all items, should give them cause for concern.

In that context, it is important that the Government should help people by ensuring that they retain as much of their own money in their own pockets. We are doing that, for example, by freezing the unfair council tax, reducing prescription charges and doing much else. Of course, the current increase in food prices is due to a range of factors including higher consumption and low stock levels, adverse weather effects, climate change and rising energy costs. However, if people are to respond to shortages, they need to have the resources to meet them. Higher market prices present signals to farmers to increase production and to consumers to switch to less expensive substitutes and to think about growing more of their own food. I am pleased to say that, on Sunday, I was planting potatoes and onions in my garden. I hope that others are doing the same.

Increased wealth and growing populations in developing nations have led to increasing global demand, including for food. Climate change is impacting on crops and will continue to do so. We have to take concrete steps to help those in the poorest countries. There are a number of things that we are doing, but we have to do more to improve trade, help developing countries to increase agricultural production, provide appropriate technology and research, consider the appropriateness of biofuels—there is now a debate on that—and provide the necessary financial support.

Above all, we have to work together. Let the whole chamber send out that message today, despite the divisiveness of one member—I hope that his is the last divisive contribution. Let us put our heads together and work out how to solve this problem at home and abroad.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the debate. I hope that the idea of food security for this country can be translated on to a global scale, as our food security cannot be premised on insecurity for people across the globe. How we achieve that has to be part of the national food policy conversation. I will dwell on some of these issues in my speech, given that they fit into the subject matter of the Conservatives' motion. I agree that, at the outset, we are looking for action at the Scottish, British and European levels, but we have to go on to challenge the World Trade Organization. We have to ask about the right of people to have a fair deal for their produce rather than free trade in food.

If we are debating national food policy—as the minister said, there has been an enormous response to the paper—we must ask, as NFU Scotland did, "What is on your plate?" The answer to that, above all, will determine whether we are doing as much as possible to feed ourselves in this country, both in terms of quantity and quality. In that respect, I am glad that the Government is supporting more local food production and, in particular, the public procurement of more locally sourced food. That lead will encourage more people to grow more food locally and to have it bought in a secure market.

The Government has held a supermarket summit that allowed discussion with the large combines on the issue of local food sourcing. We saw an example of that in the Parliament last week. Fundamentally, we have to tackle the issue of labelling and the way in which supermarkets display their goods. Although Scottish meat may be well labelled as such on supermarket shelves, it is laid out next to the Brazilian stuff. If people are poor and on a tight budget, they will always go for the cheaper product. That cannot be allowed to be the basis on which a Scottish food policy is built. Our engagement with the supermarkets has to include dealing with the issue of labelling. We have to have the statutory controls to ensure that labelling requirements enjoy the kind of backing that will make the supermarkets come to heel.

The NFU wants a European model of agriculture to continue after 2013. In the debate on the national food policy, we should define what that model will be. As I have hinted, the kind of food security that we want, with more local production, has to take account of the ways in which we produce our food. I will therefore have to focus on biofuels. We have heard the arguments on this displacement crop. As Oxfam has pointed out in its report "Bio-fuelling Poverty", once people lose their land to the biofuel producers, they lose their livelihood. As Oxfam says:

"Many end up in slums in search of work, others will fall into migratory labour patterns, while some will be forced to take jobs on the very plantations which displaced them and where labour standards can be horrific."

That is the downside of biofuels. Scotland's biofuel capacity from oil-seed rape could instead produce cattle cake; it could become a local source of animal feed and the like. We have to build that into the policy. I ask members to ensure that, when we come together, we base our efforts on

"Maintaining the diversity of the animals bred and plants grown."

The principle that

"For both historic and economic reasons we must preserve the biodiversity of the land"

should be at the root of any food policy. It should be applied not only in this country but across the world.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Like others, I welcome the debate and the fact that John Scott chose to promote this subject. I congratulate him on his thoughtful speech. As Karen Gillon said, the issue is racing up the political agenda. It is good that the Parliament is addressing it in the comparatively early days of the debate on the subject in Scotland.

We tend to take our food for granted. We go to the supermarket or shop and it is there on the shelves, waiting for us to purchase it. When we run out of food, we return to the supermarket and—lo and behold—as if by magic, the shelves have been restocked. As a society, we understand very little about how food gets on to the shelves or where it comes from. It is a scary thought indeed that, one day, we could go to the supermarket or shop and find that there is not enough food on the shelves or that the food on display is above the price that most of us can reasonably afford.

More than any other generation, this generation is far removed from an understanding of how food is produced. Nowadays, virtually no one is self-sufficient in food; no locality in this country, or in Europe, is self-sufficient in food. In part, today's debate is about ensuring that when we go to supermarkets and shops in future there will be food at prices that we can afford and that food will be locally available wherever we happen to live. It is about highlighting the potential risks to the cosy existence that we take for granted; it is not about advocating that we all go for "The Good Life" style of living, although moving in that direction might not be a bad thing.

It is important to take policy initiatives that will help to combat the big changes that are taking place in the world. As Karen Gillon said, the developing world understands that far better than we do. It has always faced food shortages. I do not want to repeat the good points that Karen Gillon made, but around the world we are seeing massive changes and massive challenges to all that we have previously taken for granted. There are food riots not only in undeveloped countries but in comparatively developed countries. There are riots because of shortages, but also because of the price of certain commodities. There is also an increase in the number of failing harvests around the world. John Scott rightly said that the big drought in Australia is having an impact worldwide. Climate change is contributing to the problem and grain and cereal production is falling, so shortages are emerging, which is leading to price rises around the globe.

Other members have referred to some of the changes in world agriculture. Rob Gibson mentioned that, in large part, biofuels are driving the big series of changes that are taking place. More land is being used for crops for fuel rather than for food. Potentially, biofuel crops reach a higher price than food crops, because the rise in oil prices means that the price for crops for biofuels is also rising. If farmers get a better price for that than for food crops, that is what they will grow. Therefore, more people are moving out of food production, the problem is compounded and we are in a cycle of difficulty. It is a complex international policy issue, but our domestic policy needs to take it into account. Not so long ago, we had land in set-aside because of the surpluses in Europe. We thought that we could build on that land, but we must rethink that policy.

We set targets for biofuels and I am glad to say that Gordon Brown is talking about rethinking that, as we must keep people in food production. Notwithstanding the fact that I did not agree with the tone in which Mike Rumbles presented the case, the pig industry is a classic example of a Scottish industry that is suffering because of world trends. I hope that we can do more about that.

That all points in the direction of us doing much more locally to produce food, which plays into the Government's strategy on local food—I wish it well in that and I hope that it goes further than it has so far planned to do. We must think about how we produce locally more effectively in Scotland. We must also think about how we engage people to address household poverty and food poverty, and how we encourage people to cook more in their own homes, think more about local food and search for the answers to the profound questions that face our whole world society.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In the five years that I have been a member of this Parliament, awareness of the issues that we must face up to in order to achieve a sustainable future for the world in which we live has grown rapidly.

We have begun to accept the need to tackle the effects of climate change, we are beginning to realise that fossil fuels are a finite resource and we are waking up to the fact that although the absolute level of food production around the globe is still rising, the world's population is increasing faster, which is leading to real concern about food security. We now have a global problem that can be overcome only by co-operation among Governments and other relevant bodies, as John Scott's motion proposes.

In four minutes it is impossible to deal with all the complexities surrounding food security, so I intend to focus on our local situation. We must face up to the fact that food is becoming more expensive and that we are significantly less self-sufficient than we were a decade ago. Coupled with that, we are constantly reminded that the health of our nation is being compromised by an increasing incidence of obesity, with the resultant problems of conditions such as type 2 diabetes, which now affect people in younger age groups.

I am old enough to remember the rationing of food just after the second world war. There was little or no imported food, vegetables were locally grown and available only in season and there was little choice in the shops. Mangoes and pineapples were virtually unheard of, I was married by the time I ate an avocado and grapes and bananas were almost luxury items.

I was fortunate, because my father was a keen gardener with an allotment, so we had a variety of home-grown vegetables that were unknown to many of my contemporaries. Overall, we had a healthy, if basic, diet and we had few problems with obesity.

By the 1970s, we had got used to a wide choice of cheap imported food, with fruit and vegetables available all year round. Since then, home cooking has increasingly been replaced by ready-prepared meals, which are available in abundance in the supermarkets, are convenient and are relatively cheap, but that situation cannot continue indefinitely. In recent years, our dairy industry has taken a huge knock and, as has been said, the pig industry is now having major problems because of the high cost of feed. If Mr Rumbles were in the chamber, I would say to him that I look for the Scottish label on pork.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. If no member of a party that has an amendment is in the chamber, does the amendment fall?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

No. That is not a point of order.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I note that no representative of the Liberal Democrats is in the chamber.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

l attended a meeting yesterday with Scottish road hauliers. They are facing such serious problems because of high fuel prices that a number of them no longer transport livestock or milk. That puts further strain on our agricultural industry and carries the threat of scarcity and high prices for consumers.

As a nation, we are currently wasteful of food. No longer do we see the clean plates expected of my generation when we were young; food is now picked at and thrown away. We could save enormous amounts of money if we bought only the food that we intend to eat, and if we put more effort into preparing food, we might be less likely to throw it out.

The other day I heard the encouraging comment from a garden centre that more people—particularly young people—are buying vegetable seeds and seedlings rather than flowers. There is also a large and increasing demand for allotments, with councils being pressed to make many more sites available, and the farming industry is making efforts to bring children into the countryside to show them where their food comes from. Increasing efforts are also under way to encourage the recycling and composting of food waste. Farmers have an opportunity to get back to their main interest, which is growing food. They will need Government help with reduced regulation, better food labelling and the achievement of realistic prices at the farm gate, but the potential is there. We must also give people incentives to minimise waste, in the interests of both food security and combating climate change.

Now that food prices are increasing and there is a growing awareness of the need to reduce our carbon footprint, the time is right to promote home-grown food and home cooking and to encourage the already increasing interest in high-quality Scottish produce. That will not solve the global problem, but it would be a small step forward, and it would help our people to become healthier and, indeed, greener.

I fully support John Scott's motion and I hope that the rest of the chamber will too.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

At the first Rural Affairs and Environment Committee away day last summer, we discussed, among other matters, the possibility of a food policy inquiry. At the time, it was felt that there was little urgency and that we should get on with more pressing matters. Mike Rumbles was involved in those discussions and I do not recall him arguing differently at the time—he has clearly developed a degree of hindsight. That fact makes his contribution to the debate even more inappropriate—we have all had to learn about this subject. Fast forward to March 2008 and the UK Government's new chief scientific adviser warned us that a food crisis will take hold before climate change. We seem to be in a whole new world of trouble.

There has been no escaping the recent news stories linked to problems with the food supply. Governments are now threatened, which in turn threatens regional and global stability. Hardship is being experienced in much of the developed world, and even on our own doorstep people are beginning to remark on the frequency with which food prices are rising and the effect that that has on the choices that they make.

The issue poses a huge challenge to us all. If the escalating cost of rice has forced a number of countries to limit their exports of that grain, we know that in the near future we, too, will all be paying a great deal more if rice is what we want to eat. I take on board the points made by Robin Harper about that.

We need to address many key issues; I will flag up three of them. The first is biofuels, which a number of members have mentioned. Last year's next best thing is rapidly turning into this year's nightmare as we contemplate the wholesale switch from food production to fuel production to reduce our reliance on oil—a switch that has led directly to food shortages and higher food prices.

To paraphrase one commentator, who has been quoted already, we are now taking out of the mouths of babies in order to keep our cars on the road. There is no finger of blame here: everyone bought into the biofuel idea. We all thought that it was a great idea, but we had not thought through the consequences of an unregulated market and we now know better. We will have to address the problem before even more tracts of good land are put to that use. What do they say about the road to hell? It is time to rethink the targets and what we consider to be a good biofuel and what we do not.

The second topic I will discuss is land use. At a Rural Affairs and Environment Committee-run event on housing last year, I listened to people who knew something about the history of the planning system and understood clearly for the first time that much of it was drawn up in the aftermath of world war two, when food rationing was still in force and there was a strong desire to ensure that agricultural land stayed in agricultural use. It became a mantra that one of the obstacles to house building was that we could not get more land rezoned for housing. However, here we are potentially facing some of the same food security issues that had to be addressed post war, so who now would argue too strongly for removing land from food production? Instead, we should think about increasing domestic food production and how that knocks on to building the number of houses that we need in Scotland. It also has implications for the future of flood management, as we have discussed in the committee.

My third point is about food sufficiency, which Peter Peacock touched on. We will never be self-sufficient in bananas in Scotland, but can we be self-sufficient in some basic foodstuffs? As boring as that might be to contemplate, there may now be an argument for Government establishing levels of food sufficiency and working towards achieving them if that goal has not already been achieved.

It seems appropriate to raise the fact that Perth, in my constituency, is Scotland's first cittaslow town, and is now being joined by Linlithgow. All MSPs should encourage that movement in their own towns and villages, and I hope that they will.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

It is probably worth going through some of the reasons for the food price increases that are affecting people around the world, not only in Scotland. The first is increased demand for food, which arises partly from population pressures but also due to changing patterns of expectation. Affluence in places such as China is leading to increased demand for meat and dairy products, which in turn affects grain supplies, because grain is used to feed animals that it was not previously used to feed.

We have climate-change pressures. John Scott mentioned the drought in Australia, which has had a particular effect in that part of the world. However, in many parts of Africa and Latin America, soil erosion and deforestation are affecting the fertility of land, which has an important impact on the amount of food that is produced.

So far, members have not mentioned the amount of speculation that is taking place in commodities. In the past, the financial markets speculated in other things, whether financial products or other types of commodities, such as metals. There is now greatly increased speculation in food, which is driving up prices.

Increased energy costs are a factor. They affect not only farmers but food distributors. The costs of transportation, as well as the costs of production, are increasing.

Finally, there is the drive to biofuels, which has a perverse impact on food security. It is paradoxical that the drive towards biofuels is generated by another security fear: the fear of fuel insecurity. There is a direct substitution. Karen Gillon referred to the huge proportion of US corn and maize that is now being used for biofuels. The bread-basket that fed the world in the hungry years of the 1930s and 1940s is now being used to provide fuel for cars and, in the process, is driving up emissions and exacerbating the pressures that lead to climate change. That is also happening in Britain: wheat that would have been exported from Britain is now being converted for use in biofuels.

Countries such as Brazil and Indonesia—huge countries with massive populations and a significant proportion of the world's forest—are engaged in massive deforestation, which is also associated with increased use of biofuels such as ethanol. There, and in places such as South Africa—countries where there is a food shortage—crops are being planted specifically for biofuels. The expansion of sugar cane production and the planting of jatropha—a tree that grows in poor soil and arid conditions—in southern Africa will substitute for food production.

The food supply is being undermined and it is right that we reconsider the current target for biofuels. The Department for Transport is reviewing the renewable transport fuels obligation, which is currently at 5 per cent and which the European Community wants to double to 10 per cent by 2020. I am not against biofuels in principle; the issue is their sustainability. We need to find a sensible approach to developing biofuels production, where that is appropriate and sustainable, and food production. We need to consider the indirect impacts of a drive towards biofuels on food availability as well as fuel availability.

We are faced with two perils: food insecurity and fuel insecurity. We need to ensure that we have a balanced approach to both.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I welcome the debate and congratulate John Scott on securing it.

One question can make even the most seasoned politician squirm in their seat. It is the moment at the end of an interview when the journalist, with a glimmer in his or her eye, leans over and cheekily asks, "One last question: how much is a pint of milk?" Every member present is perfectly aware not only that the average price of milk is around 40p a pint in our local supermarkets, but that it has gone up by around 31 per cent. As we all know, a broad range of wider macroeconomic and social consequences is attached to that rise.

I would prefer that we were back in the days when whether one knew the price of milk was a frivolous journalistic question rather than the serious question that it is now. Now, especially for people on lower incomes, the question is foremost in people's minds locally and around the world.

As we have heard, put simply, the global market is failing and prices are soaring. For example, the average world price of rice has gone up by 217 per cent. That is one thing for those of us who enjoy curry dishes—as at least one or two of the members present do—but it is quite another for the more than 500 million people in India and China who, despite their countries' economic growth, according to the United Nations still live on the equivalent of $1 a day.

We have gone over the causes already: the effect of high oil prices on fertility and transportation; droughts and poor harvests that may or may not be related to climate change; the growing middle classes in some parts of the world spending money on larger and richer diets, particularly in China, where there is a growing demand for meat products, which, of course, consumes other basic products; and the poor implementation of biofuel expansion, which draws on land that was previously used for farming. It is a sobering fact—to add to the other facts—that the amount of maize needed to fill one tank of petrol is the same as the average African eats in a year.

There are lessons from history that many Governments so far have not learned. The famines of the 1980s and the debt crisis that began then—which, despite the fantastic efforts of the make poverty history movement, still plagues most of the developing world—all stem from a first great wave of movement in agriculture away from growing food towards growing cash crops such as cotton or coffee. The idea was that those luxuries would raise more money, which would allow the farmers to buy food with room to spare. Of course, the price of coffee went down and the price of grain went up; and the poor stayed poor and hungry.

I am glad that the Parliament is discussing the matter. It is as weighty and immediate as it is domestic and global. I am pleased to see that we have been remarkably consensual—in fact, almost unanimous—in the face of it. We must also look beyond the causes and determine what can be done. Anyone who has seen the television pictures of the situation in Haiti—where starvation is now a real prospect for many people who, although poor, until now largely were able to buy the food that they needed to sustain themselves—knows that we all have a responsibility to consider it.

Even here in Scotland, we must think about the plight of a pensioner in Alloa who squints at the shelves to find something that she can afford. The situation exists in our local communities, so we must think of solutions, which is not easy. I agree with the Conservatives that we require Government action at all levels, including in Europe, which I am pleased to see mentioned in the Tory motion. Such action must include influencing a system that has been governed and failed by a free market.

John Scott presented a compelling picture of what he eloquently described as the coming of a perfect storm, and he asked for ideas. Where necessary, we should allow Government intervention. We should increase aid to developing countries to allow them to improve their infrastructure and production. In my view, we should oppose the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization when they make unreasonable demands for poorer countries to cut their subsidies while saying that the richer ones may continue with their own. We should not allow the problems of growing first-generation biofuels to make us abandon all renewable and alternative fuels. In my view, climate change is likely to cause more shortages. If it does not, the ever-increasing price of oil definitely will, as we heard from Robin Harper.

We must support local producers, as I recently did in my constituency, in conjunction with the Alloa & Hillfoots Advertiser, when we highlighted local suppliers to the local population. People are willing to support local retailers, but it helps to make them aware of where the local suppliers are.

There are public concerns about the role of supermarkets, and I am delighted that the First Minister recently met representatives of supermarkets operating in Scotland to discuss the various issues.

There are some ideas about what we can do, and I am delighted to support the motion.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

There has been a wide welcome for the debate that the Conservatives have chosen today. It comes at a stage when we can all identify a number of issues on which there is broad consensus. However, that consensus is not complete and there are areas where we diverge. John Scott described humanity as the most successful species on the planet, and he highlighted population growth. The issue is sensitive, but it is unavoidably linked to food production and consumption and environmental impacts such as climate change, as well as the energy issues that we raise in our amendment.

John Scott is a long-standing advocate of many things that we, too, are keen on, such as farmers markets and changes to procurement practices. However, the consensus breaks down at a certain point. The call for renewed determination about

"growing two blades of grass where one grew before"

gives me cause for concern. The pursuit of intensive production methods and the changing of our food chain into an industrial process form part of the problem. We should not risk repeating the mistakes of previous generations in response to the problems that they have left us with.

Karen Gillon properly identified the important links between our plates, shopping baskets and consumption and the impacts on some of the poorest people in both developing and developed countries around the world. She acknowledged the problems with the current policy on biofuels, both in her amendment and in her speech. It is clear that, unless the policy is dropped, the impact will be most severe on the poorest people in the world.

The Oxfam briefing, as well as my motion of last month, outlined many of the problems with biofuels. If we are agreed that the policy is ill-thought out and must change, what is the alternative? It was designed to increase fuel supply and energy security, but our best opportunity to achieve that now lies where it always did: in reducing consumption and reducing waste. In both of those, our approach to food is crucial.

In speaking to the Green amendment, Robin Harper outlined clearly the growing concern over peak oil production and its connection with the food security debate. He also mentioned the dominance of supermarkets, a subject that the Greens brought to the chamber in the previous session. Our concerns were dismissed at the time, but they are now widely shared—but, sadly, not by the Competition Commission, which responds to supermarkets' dominance by calling for an easing of planning restrictions to allow even more of them to open. I hope that, as someone who was also brought up on the produce of a local allotment, Nanette Milne will encourage her party at Westminster to object to the Competition Commission's recommendations.

For me, Mike Rumbles's contribution was the only disappointing one. He seemed to imply that the only thing that Opposition parties ought to do is to attack others, rather than open up new space for debate. I do not agree.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

In a moment.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You have one minute left, Mr Harvie.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I do not agree with other parties 100 per cent of the time, and I agree with Mike Rumbles significantly less frequently than that, but I certainly welcome the debate. It allows different solutions to come forward, and we should be open to it and welcome it with a constructive tone.

May I allow a brief intervention?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Very briefly please, Mr Rumbles.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The member missed the point that I was making. I was calling on the Government to take some action. It has been in power now for a year.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I come now to the Government. Michael Russell began by welcoming the cabinet secretary's recent contribution to population growth. I hope that he enjoys fatherhood, of course, and I wish him well. I also wish that, when he returns to the office, he devotes the same commitment and enthusiasm to taking the Government's food policy to another level. The Government's discussion paper does what John Scott's speech did, in a sense: it opens up space for debate and it mentions many positive things that we would all support, although it fails to articulate the transformational approach that, from listening to Rob Gibson's speech, I think many SNP members would welcome. We need a more radical approach. We need a transformation of our food culture as well as of the economic activity that supports it.

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

We have recently seen how fragile our economy is, with a fortnight of concern caused by a two-day walk-out at an oil refinery.

There was some panic buying, and who in the chamber will deny that they filled up their tank, just in case? Farmers in my constituency were unable to get red diesel for four days, despite the First Minister saying that there was an abundant supply. Scotland is overreliant on oil.

As with fragility with fuel, so it is with food. The two are, of course, connected. Biofuels are not a black-and-white issue. Local biofuel policies are positive; the real problem has arisen with the international trade in biofuels and the international pressure on many developing countries. The UN World Food Programme's executive director, Josette Sheeran, refers to a "silent tsunami", with high global food prices threatening to plunge more than 100 million people into hunger.

There have been a number of reasons for the high price rises, but the connection with energy policies is clear. With their higher economic growth and increased purchasing and use of energy, the two biggest nations on earth have a disproportionate effect on global processes and food prices. Already, China has decided that her priority is to feed herself. Further exports of fertiliser have effectively been blocked by the imposition of an export tariff of between 100 and 135 per cent—effective this week. Not surprisingly, that caused the nitrogen price to rocket by a further $100 overnight.

Feed prices now fluctuate as oil prices do, with a futures industry in wheat and grain that the industry and the consumer structure are ill equipped to accommodate. Oil price fluctuations affect a small number of very large organisations, and the consumer sees the effects on the forecourt. Small farming units—tenant farmers in my constituency and elsewhere—are operating in an already perilous cash-flow situation and cannot absorb such fluctuations. The issue is not theoretical. Feeding wheat was £96 a tonne a year ago; this week, the price stands at £155 a tonne. Milling wheat was £101 a tonne a year ago; this week, it costs £183 a tonne. This time last year, oilseed rape, which Rob Gibson mentioned, cost £160 a tonne; this week, it costs £326 a tonne.

Last week, Josette Sheeran told the UK Parliament:

"The response calls for large-scale, high-level action by the global community, focused on emergency and longer-term solutions."

Scotland's response will affect our own policy choices and consumer demand here.

One of the largest employers in my constituency is Glenrath Farms. The company has grown from a small operation to become one of the leading egg producers in the UK. That highly professional company is faced with having to adapt to the new 2012 deadline for changes to hen cages, and it needs to expand. Inevitably, that means new planning applications and investment in enriched cages and free-range sheds. In response to consumer demand for more free-range eggs, some retailers such as Marks and Spencer now market all their egg produce as exclusively free range. It is estimated that nearly a quarter of egg producers will leave the business before 2012, as a result of not only the high costs of the business but the change in consumer demand.

The Scottish Government has a role to play, and the requirement for a robust food policy is urgent. If the policy is robust, it will get a fair wind from the Parliament, but it must be short on words and firm on action. That is why our amendment asks for the Government to be more robust, with local procurement targets and genuine understanding on its part. As Rob Gibson said, we need action on labelling and marketing support. A campaign on local procurement is being led jointly by the Conservatives and, in the south of Scotland, my colleague Jim Hume, and moves on local procurement and the consensus around that must be backed up by Government, perhaps through legislation.

We cannot isolate ourselves from global considerations, nor can we alone solve the global crisis, but we can play our part. That is the people's expectation of our Parliament and Government. We need action, both locally and in playing our part in the world.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

This has been an excellent debate, with knowledgeable and insightful contributions from across the political spectrum. I congratulate John Scott on the motion, which was excellent. I hope that my congratulations do not damage his political career, but I liked the stress on the international aspects of the issue.

We have all seen the images of this global problem. Keith Brown was quite right to talk about the incident in Haiti, in which four people were killed in food riots. In Italy, mothers have marched against the increase in the price of pasta and, in Bolivia, there have been violent protests against the doubling of food prices. The World Bank has forecast that 100 million people are facing starvation. What has caused the crisis? Many members have speculated about that, suggesting reasons such as climate change, dietary change in China, global overpopulation, biofuels and even the credit crisis, which has brought about speculation in commodities futures following the collapse of the financial derivatives market.

Do we now need, as the World Bank and the United Nations have said, a new deal for food? A recent Economist editorial said:

"Agriculture is now in limbo. The world of cheap food has gone. With luck and good policy, there will be a new equilibrium."

What can be done on the international stage? A number of members, such as Rob Gibson and Peter Peacock, have come up with innovative suggestions. However, it is clear that we need to refinance the World Food Programme, which is the world's largest distributor of food aid—the barrier between hungry people, such as those families in the developing world who exist on a dollar a day, and starvation. The purchasing power of the World Food Programme has been slashed because of the rising cost of grain. To distribute the same amount of food this year as was distributed last year would cost an extra $700 million. Oxfam has argued that we need to act earlier. For example, in 2004 and 2005, early warnings alerted the world's donors that Niger needed aid in order to avert famine, but delays and inaction caused the death of thousands of children.

As many have said today, we need to reassess the mandatory biofuel targets and highlight more responsible and sustainable policies. We must be careful about taking agricultural land out of production.

John Scott gave a good speech. Like others, I liked his analogy about the perfect storm and his encouragement of farmers to grow more food in sustainable ways and consumers to waste less food. I particularly liked his quote about digging for victory, which was relevant—clearly, he has been watching his Winston Churchill tapes again over the weekend.

Karen Gillon spoke well about the need for farming across the world to be done sustainably. The stress on climate change is important.

I do not have time to touch on a number of speakers' comments, but I thought that Mike Russell gave a well-made speech. His promotion—albeit temporary—is well deserved. I am sure that, like me, he will be supporting Labour's plans to extend paternity leave in the United Kingdom.

At the end of 2006, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published an interesting report on food security. It said that the real issues extend beyond the UK, beyond agriculture and beyond food, and that food security cannot be the object of a single policy, but needs to be supported by a range of cross-cutting strategies, such as strengthening energy security, developing international research and development and looking into the impact of climate change on global food potential.

Food security is an international issue. The developed world can play a key leadership role in refinancing the World Food Programme and advocating fair trade and aid, and can light a candle to snuff out the darkness of hunger, malnutrition and death in the developing world.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I congratulate John Scott on bringing this debate to the chamber. Indeed, I congratulate every speaker, with two exceptions, for contributing positively and enthusiastically.

I did not agree with everything that I heard, and the Government will not support every proposal that was put forward. However, Patrick Harvie was absolutely right to say that it is important in such debates to air ideas, show the depth of experience that exists across the chamber and focus on real and important issues.

Alas, the two exceptions were Liberal Democrat speakers, who were the only Liberal Democrats present during the debate. Indeed, at one stage—as I pointed out in a point of order—no Liberal Democrat was present. Would that that had continued. If it had, we would have had a better debate.

I note that in the public gallery is my friend, Norman Leask, the former chair of the Crofting Foundation. He lives in Shetland, and we have had long conversations about why people continue to support the Liberal Democrats. I find it amazing, too. To be fair, he makes the strong point that the Liberal Democrats contributed an enormous amount to the Highlands and Islands, particularly in relation to the establishment of the present crofting system. It is sad to see that they have fallen so far, and that the diet of Opposition does not agree with them in any way. We have heard endless sour grapes and not a single positive idea. During the consultation period on "Choosing the right ingredients: The future of food in Scotland", Mr Rumbles did not submit any ideas at all. That is a tragedy—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will not take an intervention from Mr Rumbles, who was not present during any of the back-bench speeches—I want to put that on record. That was very unfortunate.

I will now address the serious points that were made by serious politicians.

Biofuels have been a constant and extremely serious issue in the debate. The Gallagher review into the indirect impacts of biofuels will report at the end of June. Food security is the prime issue, and I know that many of the non-governmental organisations acting in the area have made submissions to that review.

Currently, biofuels make up only 2.5 per cent of the mixture of fuels at the pumps in this country. There is a prospect of what are called second generation biofuels, which can be made from the chemical processing of both agricultural and forestry waste. They are currently being researched, and are some 15 to 20 years off. However, it might well be that the prospects for those sustainable biofuels are being adversely affected by the genuine worries that exist about the cultivation of crops for fuel. We should keep our eye on the fact that using waste material to produce biofuels might provide some answers for us. We must be cautious about how we address that issue.

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

Will the member give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, I am sorry, but I said that I would not take any interventions from Liberal Democrats in my summing-up speech, and I continue to say that.

John Scott made the point that there needs to be flexibility in the Scottish rural development programme. I can guarantee that there will be that flexibility. It is a flexible programme that can react to market changes.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I would like the minister to address the issue of flexibility with regard to regulations. Clearly, we need a level playing field for the farming industry, and we need to take our environmental obligations seriously. Does the minister have some fresh thoughts on that issue?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I have some very fresh thoughts on that, because the issue of regulation is something that concerns me and all my colleagues at all times. We have to distinguish between the regulations that come to us largely from the EU and are transposed into Scots law, and the regulations that we make. We want to ensure that we do not add to that regulatory burden and that we continue to simplify. Of course, there will always be regulations. Interestingly, the things that the Liberal Democrat amendment calls for would require regulation. We bear the issue in mind constantly, and I assure Sarah Boyack that we will continue to do so.

"Choosing the right ingredients: The future of food in Scotland" represents a genuine consultation on the national food policy. The document seeks information and takes a consensual approach to the issue. It is fascinating that the issue has become even more important since the document was published at the start of the year. The issue is an ever-changing one, but I hope that our final policy will reflect the concerns that we have heard in this chamber.

Page 11 of the document, which is concerned with the actions of the Government, shows that there are too many such actions to list. Those actions are a precursor of a food policy that will not only embrace national and international issues but take account of all the constructive comments that we have heard in this vitally important debate.

I again congratulate John Scott on securing this debate, and note the degree of experience that he brings to this issue.

Roseanna Cunningham mentioned the cittaslow movement. It is individual actions—people working together in ways that are exemplified in that movement—that will make all the difference. I have visited Perth, and look forward to Linlithgow being one of the cittaslow towns. As long as people are prepared to work together, think together and act together, we will get through the difficulties.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is my great pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Conservatives. I am sure that all of us on the Conservative benches would want to send our congratulations and best wishes to the cabinet secretary on his new arrival. I have to say that, even in the era of SNP-Tory co-operation, we did not expect him to go so far as to give his son the excellent Christian name of Fraser, but that is nonetheless welcome. On that note, I say to David Stewart that, having recently had the benefit of two weeks of paternity leave, I am not sure that I would necessarily rush to extend that period.

This has been an excellent and well-informed debate on all sides. It was largely consensual, with the usual exception of Mr Rumbles, who never disappoints with his ability to get the tone of the debate completely wrong. Having upset the whole chamber, he disappeared for almost the entire duration of the debate, no doubt to issue a press release about how he was entirely right and everybody else was wrong.

Throughout the debate, we heard pretty grim statistics on food from members of all parties. World grain stocks are at a 35-year low. We have only 52 days' supply of grain in the world. The price of food has been rising for the past two years, which reverses a 30-year downward trend. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization predicts a 55 per cent growth in demand for food between 1998 and 2030. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has warned that food prices could increase by between 20 and 50 per cent during the next decade. Here in Scotland, it is estimated that food inflation will push up the average family's food bill by £750 this year alone. The UK's self-sufficiency has dropped from 72 per cent in 1996 to 60 per cent.

I am sure that all members agree that those statistics make grim reading. Behind the statistics, some of the poorest people in the world are unable to pay for food, real lives are being lost, and there is the possibility of new famines in developing countries.

As the debate showed, the causes of rising food prices are varied and complex. As John Scott and others said, countries such as India and China are changing to western-style diets, which is creating a massive increase in demand for meat products. I suspect that even the First Minister's frequent visits to curry houses cannot balance out the changing diets of the people of India. Further factors that are driving price rises in food include the loss of land due to climate change and the growth in demand for biofuels, as well as rising oil prices and rapid increases in the global population.

Our motion mentions solutions. What can be done? We are, of course, a devolved Parliament, but it is possible for us to lead the debate and underline to the UK Government and the EU the urgency of the matter. Here in Scotland, we can take action and set an example to other countries on what can be done to try to stop the emerging food shortage. For a long time, it was Government policy to reduce food production at home, but today's new circumstances need a new approach. The Conservatives believe that the Government must respond to the issue by encouraging our farmers to increase production once again to meet growing local and worldwide demand.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will not. If Mr Rumbles had bothered to stay for the debate, I might have been more sympathetic and taken an intervention.

The Government must be on the side of the farmers. It must stop forcing red tape on them and start cutting it instead. I have had many conversations with farmers in Angus and Perthshire, and many of them tell me about the pressures that are placed on them and their struggle to keep their businesses viable and worth while under the burden of bureaucracy.

On that point, I welcome the news that, just the other day, the Competition Commission recommended that the supermarkets should have an independent ombudsman to oversee relationships between retailers and suppliers. Scottish farmers have been understandably reluctant to produce more food while they are not getting a fair price. They will produce more food if they receive a fair price for it. Our supermarkets have been using their excessive power in the marketplace for too long, and that has dissuaded our farmers from increasing production. I hope that the new ombudsman will police the supermarkets and ensure that there is fairer trade between supermarkets and farmers. I call for the ombudsman to be set up as soon as possible.

We must encourage more Scottish consumers to buy local produce. I am wearing a badge for the Conservatives' buy local, eat local campaign, which I encourage members to support. I opened a newspaper this morning and saw the headline

"Grow your own vegetables, says MSP".

It refers, of course, to my colleague John Scott. However, we need to be a little bit careful in encouraging self-help. I recall that a previous Conservative politician, Edwina Currie, got into trouble for urging pensioners to wear woolly hats and socks in bed in order to cut down their heating bills. I know that the mental image that is conjured up when I use the words "Edwina Currie" and "bed" in the same sentence will upset the stomachs of many members, but there is a serious point to be made. As Nanette Milne said, we need to grow more of our own food, and I hope that members will lead by example.

I hope that the debate will kick-start a wider debate in Scotland and encourage the Government to take action. I hope that, at decision time, notwithstanding the best efforts of the Liberal Democrats, the Parliament will unite to support the motion and amendments. The issue must be taken seriously.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Public sector organisations have various funding routes for major capital projects available to them, including various forms of partnership delivery with the private sector. We have further developed the non-profit-distributing model and we have not started a standard private finance initiative project since May last year. We will introduce the Scottish futures trust to take a further step towards more cost-effective means of delivering major infrastructure projects.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Presiding Officer,

"With no detail on how SFT would be capitalised, structured, governed and crucially, managed, it is not possible to comment specifically on the financial viability of SFT at this stage. There is however a clear danger that SFT could prove to be a more expensive method of delivery than we already have and that would be to the benefit of no-one."

Those are not my words, but the words of the Bank of Scotland on Mr Swinney's proposal. Likewise, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities says that it does not have the powers that it would require, and most of the private sector is baffled about why anyone would get involved in the Scottish futures trust.

Is Mr Swinney prepared to commit his Government—as the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and others in the Cabinet have done—to match brick for brick Labour's pledge to build 250 new schools, including 100 by the end of 2009?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Government will set out its proposals on the Scottish futures trust in due course. We examined with interest the information that came back in the consultation exercise. I saw a lot of encouraging remarks from various authorities, including Labour-led East Renfrewshire Council, which made an encouraging contribution. Ministers will set out our proposals in due course.

On the question about schools, the Government is taking forward the investment programme that we inherited. We gave a commitment that we would match brick for brick the previous Administration's commitment on school building, and that is precisely what the Government will do.

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

The cabinet secretary is fully aware that the commitment gave the impression that we would have new schools being delivered in Scotland, rather than just the completion of schools that had already been started. Recently, Audit Scotland told the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee that it was aware of no new school building programme being commissioned under the Government in the past year. Audit Scotland called on the Government to produce a financial strategy on how it intends to fund such programmes. Will the Government produce such a strategy?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As I said in my answer to Mr Kerr, we will set out our proposals on the Scottish futures trust in due course. I am sure that Mr Purvis is aware that, at the end of March, I published the Government's infrastructure investment plan, which sets out the approach that we will take to schools investment. Obviously, the Government will continue to invest in the fabric of Scottish society and the infrastructure of our country. Our proposals are set out in the infrastructure investment plan.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

To ask the Scottish Executive how much funding the voluntary sector will receive in the 2008-09 financial year. (S3O-3131)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Scottish Government will support a number of third sector organisations in 2008-09. The number and identity of organisations, together with associated levels of funding, cannot be determined at this stage, particularly as many funds are competitive in nature. Historically, the Government has collated and published levels of support to the third sector retrospectively, and it will continue to do so.

We have committed to £93 million of direct investment by our third sector division between 2008 and 2011, which represents an increase of 37 per cent on the previous spending review. That investment will build capacity and sustainability in the sector. It underlines our commitment to the development of the third sector, including support for the social enterprise business model.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The minister is aware of concerns about funding across the voluntary sector in Scotland, and of stories of impending redundancies. I have a simple question for the minister. Has he instructed his officials to find out how many redundancies are occurring in the voluntary sector, or is he not bothered?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

On a weekly basis, my officials meet representatives of COSLA, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers—if Johann Lamont would stop muttering during every one of my answers I would complete the sentence—and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, which is the representative body of the voluntary sector in Scotland. We engage in discussions on a weekly basis on the roll-out of funding to the voluntary sector, in order to monitor the impact of the arrangements that we have put in place through the concordat.

I am clearly interested in the health and vitality of the third sector in Scotland. The Government has put formidable resources into the sector. Into the bargain, we encourage local authorities to continue that support at local authority level. In some of the information that I am receiving, some of the publicly expressed concerns about a possible negative impact on individual voluntary sector organisations are not coming to fruition. I welcome the fact that local authorities are co-operating to substantially support and fund voluntary sector organisations.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

That is the second time that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has accused me of muttering, which is not an accusation that has ever been laid at my door previously.

The cabinet secretary may recall Rob Gibson's explanation of the Government's strategy on the voluntary sector—that it was a means of getting rid of the dross and dealing with the poverty industry. Will the cabinet secretary define "dross" and "the poverty industry"? Would he be willing to come to my constituency to meet local organisations that are experiencing funding cuts to tell them why those cuts are being made?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Any objective observer of the comments that I have put on the public record about the third sector since I became minister last year could only be convinced that I have the strongest possible support for the third sector and that I deliver that support. In a very tight financial settlement, I have delivered a 37 per cent increase in funding for the third sector. The Government has put its money where its mouth is in terms of investment in the public sector.

I would be delighted to visit the Glasgow Pollok constituency and to see voluntary sector organisations in place. I am sure many good organisations are active in that constituency. Clearly, there is always change in the provision for third sector organisations. That has not just happened since the concordat came into place; there is change every year, as local authorities and other organisations configure services to meet the needs of individuals. I would be delighted to learn more about that in Glasgow Pollok.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what support is available to grandparents and other relatives who bring up children. (S3O-3099)

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Estimates suggest that there are more than 10,000 grandparents and other relatives who have responsibility for looking after children. For the first time, the Scottish Government has made resources available for local authorities to pay a weekly financial allowance to the kinship carers of more than 2,000 looked-after children. In addition, local authorities have existing powers to provide support to children in need.

All kinship carers will benefit from the Scottish Government's funding of a national advice and information service by Citizens Advice Scotland and our work with United Kingdom ministers to improve access to benefits. In addition, we are developing jointly with COSLA an early years framework, which will include support for families.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I recognise the complexity of the issue and welcome the extent of the progress that has been made on it by both the previous Government and the present one. May I press the minister a bit further, particularly regarding dates? In the information note that was circulated to members today, the minister indicated that

"The Scottish Government and COSLA have agreed that sufficient resources have been included in the total financial settlement"

to meet the commitment to pay foster care level allowances to kinship carers of looked-after children. Why did the same note go on to say that it was

"up to local authorities to ... prioritise and allocate funds ... to meet their commitments locally"?

Is there not a contradiction between national commitment and local discretion? Will there be a national legal minimum payment for kinship carers? Why do councils such as Glasgow, with more than 25 per cent of such children, say that they do not have the budget to meet the scheme's expectation? The figures bear them out on that.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

COSLA and the councils will work with the Scottish Government to deliver the commitments that are set out in the concordat. Obviously, local authorities will implement the commitment as soon as they possibly can. They have been provided with early guidance on implementation. It is up to local authorities to provide support for kinship carers. Where a looked-after child is already living with a kinship carer and the authority's approval process is in place, local authorities have some discretion on the provision of funding to kinship carers.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Does the minister agree that the Government anticipates that local authorities will make direct payments to kinship carers of looked-after children at the earliest opportunity during the three-year concordat? Does she also agree that that will mean additional support to kinship carers of 2,000 looked-after children—there are more than 550 in Glasgow alone—that the previous Executive failed to deliver? Does she further agree that there is nothing to prevent local authorities from supporting other kinship carers in any way that they see fit?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The member is correct; those families are being supported. The previous two Executives had eight years in which to help those kinship carers; they have not been helped in the past, but they are receiving help from the Government now.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Question 4 has been withdrawn.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how and when it intends to commence planning appropriate celebrations in Scotland to mark the diamond jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen in 2012. (S3O-3067)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The Scottish Government's process of planning appropriate diamond jubilee celebrations in Scotland for 2012 has not yet started. The Scottish Government will liaise with Buckingham Palace on the content and timing of any such celebrations.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Her Majesty remains in robust health. I accept that her jubilee will in all probability be celebrated after the present Government has left office. Nevertheless, it will fall on the Government's shoulders to ensure that planning for fulsome but not ostentatious celebrations is undertaken in a timely manner. The people of Scotland will wish to pay tribute to Her Majesty's service over 60 years to the United Kingdom, just as the peoples of Australia, Canada and her many other realms will wish to do. Most of those countries are entirely separate from the United Kingdom—a circumstance in which, the minister may wish to confirm, the overwhelming majority of Scots appear not to wish to find themselves. Given the new monarchical enthusiasm sweeping through the Government, as evidenced in many ways by the First Minister, can the minister assure us that Scotland will lead the way in 2012 in celebrating Her Majesty's jubilee in what will inevitably be a busy year?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We will, of course, liaise with Buckingham Palace on the content and timing of any such celebrations. We would wish to involve a representative cross-section of the population of Scotland in the planning for any such celebration. I am more than happy to outline such details to the chamber at the appropriate time.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it has any plans to monitor the effect on the public of seeking out-of-hours access to public buildings that have been private finance initiative or public-private partnership funded. (S3O-3091)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Contracts for the provision of public buildings, whether PPP, PFI, or any other kind, are specified, procured, and monitored by the relevant public body. Under standardised PFI contract forms, for many years it has been possible for the public body concerned to specify the requirements needed to meet user interests, including the effect on the public of seeking out-of-hours access to public buildings.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The cabinet secretary is well aware that we are trying to encourage children to engage in sports and activities. That is a good initiative, but increasingly we find that people cannot access the facilities that we, the public, have paid for. I hope that the cabinet secretary can devise a scheme to free up those facilities so that we can engage with children, get them off the streets doing useful exercise, and help the community in general.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Paterson makes an entirely fair point. It is essential that we use all Scotland's public infrastructure to maximum effect, particularly in providing opportunities for young people to exercise and be involved in extracurricular activities. Mr MacAskill has taken several decisions on the distribution of resources through the proceeds of crime funds that have been designed to create exactly the type of circumstances to which Mr Paterson refers. The Government will encourage all public bodies to ensure that, as part of their integrated planning for the use of public facilities, they take into account the issues and concerns that Mr Paterson fairly raises.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what benefits it considers will accrue by paying for the new Southern general hospital by traditional procurement methods. (S3O-3088)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Scottish Government has sought to ensure that the project is deliverable, affordable and sustainable and that it represents best value for money for the taxpayer.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the traditional procurement method has its place along with the Scottish futures trust, prudential borrowing and the non-profit model in providing Scotland's public services?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I agree with Christina McKelvie. The Government is taking sensible and pragmatic decisions on refurbishing Scotland's public infrastructure. The decision to invest in the Southern general hospital through traditional procurement methods indicates that there is confidence in the Government on the long-term planning for Scotland's infrastructure—confidence for which the Government should be applauded.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

In that confident vein, will the minister set out for Audit Scotland the papers that are associated with the decision that he has made, particularly those on the management of risk, so that Audit Scotland can test whether traditional procurement methods or alternative methods are a better way of handling the risks that are associated with such a major capital project?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Audit Scotland can make any request that it desires to the Government for information—it is not my business to set out Audit Scotland's agenda. With all the Government's capital infrastructure projects, we are determined to ensure that we work at all times to protect the public purse and deliver projects efficiently and effectively. That will be a significant improvement on the situation that we inherited from the previous Administration.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to support Scotland's tourism industry. (S3O-3130)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government's purpose is to create a more successful country, through increasing sustainable economic growth. A strong, vibrant and growing tourism industry directly supports that purpose and our strategic objective to realise our full economic potential with more and better employment opportunities. We will continue to work closely with the tourism industry, individual tourism businesses, agencies and local authorities to help them grow revenues by 50 per cent by 2015.

As part of that approach, I was involved in meetings as part of Scotland week to promote Scotland as a tourism destination. The First Minister and the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture highlighted 2009 as the year of homecoming during their meetings in the United States of America. We have acted to reduce the costs that thousands of small tourism businesses face, through our decision to reduce business rates. Those are just two examples of the range of efforts by the Scottish Government and VisitScotland to maximise the economic opportunities in the tourism sector.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

We support the 50 per cent growth target, which is shared between Government and the industry. In the minister's discussions and meetings with the industry, surely everyone will tell him that raising skills levels in the tourism workforce is central to achieving the growth that we want. However, how can that possibly be achieved by the sudden ending of adult apprenticeships in hospitality, travel and tourism, with no programmes to replace them?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

There are modern apprenticeship opportunities for 16 to 19-year-olds in the hospitality sector. The sector is working together with much greater cohesion than was the case previously. The Scottish Government, VisitScotland, EventScotland, VisitScotland.com, local authorities, Historic Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and enterprise agencies are pulling together £90-plus million. There is also the industry's investment, which includes investment in its training requirements.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am delighted to say that His Excellency Dr Kuban Mambetaliev, the Ambassador of Kyrgyzstan, has joined us in the Presiding Officer's gallery for First Minister's questions. Ambassador, I warmly welcome you on behalf of the Scottish Parliament.

First Minister's Question Time

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Questions to the First Minister will be answered by the Deputy First Minister.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I begin by wishing the First Minister a full and speedy recovery and welcoming the Deputy First Minister, who is taking his place.

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-718)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I now have very different engagements from those that I had planned first thing this morning. As Wendy Alexander said, the First Minister has been laid low with a bug. He has cancelled his public engagements for the rest of the day, but he will chair, by phone from Bute house, the Cabinet sub-committee on the on-going fuel situation. The First Minister expects to be back in business tomorrow. I am sure that we all want to wish him well. Later today, other ministers and I will have a range of meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

That is heartening news all round, on the First Minister's health and—in relation to Grangemouth—on the fact that when the Government wants the union to work, it does work.

Today is significant for pupils throughout Scotland, because it is the start of their exams. I am sure that the Parliament will want to join me in wishing the very best of luck to everyone who is sitting exams today. Of course, exam success requires more than luck. It requires hard work, dedicated staff and a committed Government.

This Government made five key education pledges last May: £210 million to reduce class sizes; £30 million for additional support needs; £46 million for sports facilities; access to a nursery teacher for every nursery child; and a programme to match, brick for brick, Labour's programme to build 200 new schools. Why has the Scottish National Party Government failed to fund a single one of those five promises?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I say to Wendy Alexander that it is getting a bit predictable—another week, another baseless, inaccurate scare story from Wendy Alexander. No wonder her personal approval ratings are plummeting—minus 39 per cent and falling. I say to the Parliament and to the country that not only has this SNP Government in its first year in office made considerable progress towards meeting all its election commitments, but it intends to continue to meet all those commitments.

I say to Wendy Alexander that everybody in Scotland will welcome the key education commitments made by this Government. Education in Scotland is free again, unlike the situation under the previous Administration. We are building new school buildings and we are employing new teachers. All in all, that is not a bad record for the first year in office, but we are intent on achieving much more.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

That is the SNP for you—a PhD in poll ratings and dunces on education. We know that the SNP is good at making promises; the problem is the delivery. Just look at the five promises that the SNP made last year. There is no dedicated money for class sizes, no extra money for additional support needs, no cash for nursery teachers and not a single SNP school brick has been laid.

The problem is getting worse. There is not just a raft of broken promises; there are education cuts all the way when it comes to SNP local government. Yesterday in Aberdeen, it was announced that five schools are to be closed and £8 million is being cut from the budget. The problem is not just in Aberdeen: £10 million has been cut from education in Edinburgh; £4 million in Highland; £3 million in Renfrewshire; £2.5 million in Fife; and £1 million in West Dunbartonshire and East Lothian. How does the SNP justify £30 million of education cuts in councils where it is in power?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I have been thinking about Wendy Alexander's approach to First Minister's questions. The fundamental weakness in her approach is that the basis of all her questions is untrue.

Wendy Alexander accused me of giving her a PhD thesis on poll ratings. I was only getting started on them. The reality for her is this—[Interruption.]

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Now—one year after the historic election of Scotland's first SNP Government—more people than a year ago say that they would vote SNP, whereas the poll ratings of Wendy Alexander and Labour are plummeting.

I will tell Wendy Alexander what the Government has delivered on schools. In addition to restoring the Scottish principle of free education, we have delivered more teachers and a concordat with local authorities to reduce class sizes to 18 or fewer in primaries 1 to 3—she has even abandoned that policy. [Interruption.]

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Wendy Alexander asked about school building. Since the Government's election, seven projects, which encompass 45 schools, have been signed off and completed. [ Interruption. ]

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Aberdeen City Council and Falkirk Council are working on 12 new and two refurbished schools under the non-profit model, which provides much better value for money than the private finance initiative model that the previous Administration pursued. In this parliamentary session, we will have 250 new or refurbished schools. All in all, the Government has a good record on education. If I can coin a phrase, that can only get better still.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

As we have come to expect, the opening line is always about the SNP's poll ratings and never about what is happening in Scotland. The SNP is more interested in its poll ratings than in what is happening in Scotland's schools. We know that the First Minister does not answer the question, but I had hoped that the Deputy First Minister could do better on the day when Scottish schoolchildren must provide exam answers. I asked about five promises, but the only answer that we heard was the claim that school projects that were started under Labour were in some sense a step forward by a party that has commissioned not one single school in a year.

We learned this week that, in Aberdeen, not one probationary teacher will be taken on in a primary school next year. A headteacher in East Lothian has written that he fears that he will be unable to fill permanent posts next year. Edinburgh school budgets are being cut. Parents are up in arms throughout the country. Given that, does the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning—I am not sure whether she is here—who has presided over that mounting chaos, still have the full confidence of her Cabinet colleagues? To use a phrase that Ms Sturgeon used to employ—yes or no?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Oh yes. The problem is not that Wendy Alexander is not receiving answers to her questions, but that she does not think about her questions before asking them. When she receives the answer at the first time of asking, she really should ask a different question. She got the answers about new schools, more teachers and class sizes coming down. The Government will continue to deliver on education, as on all other matters, for the people of Scotland.

It is breathtaking that Wendy Alexander mentions in the chamber the three words "Aberdeen City Council", because administrations that the Labour Party led in Aberdeen were jointly responsible for a £50 million overspend by that council, which the current administration is dealing with. It would be better for her and her colleagues to take some responsibility for the dreadful mess that they left when they left office in Aberdeen.

I will return for just a moment to Wendy Alexander's favourite subject—poll ratings. Poll ratings are about what is happening in Scotland. [Interruption.]

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

While Labour moans, girns and offers nothing positive for Scotland's future, the poll ratings show that the people of Scotland approve of what the Government is doing. That is why we will continue to do it and why we will continue to win in the poll ratings while those of Wendy Alexander continue to go through the floor.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The Deputy First Minister said nothing about why support for independence is at an all-time low. She claims that she is answering the questions; in a moment, she will have the chance to decide whether she will deliver her pre-prepared script or listen to the real concerns of real parents. I am talking about parents such as Fiona Wilkie, who fears that her daughter, who attends Gleniffer high school, will not be able to study the subjects that she needs to study to do medicine because only two advanced higher options will be offered next year instead of five. I am talking about parents such as Lydia Jack, who is the chair of Renfrew high parents council—Renfrew high school is a stone's throw from the Deputy First Minister's constituency. Lydia has complained about cuts to moneys for tackling indiscipline, supporting homework and improving results; she says that such cuts

"can only be detrimental to our children".

Will the Deputy First Minster address the concerns of Paisley grammar school's school council? That council has called an emergency meeting tonight to discuss its fears that the school will not be able to deliver a full curriculum next year. What will the Scottish National Party do to address the fears of hundreds of anxious parents who are expected to attend crisis meetings tonight on the SNP's education cuts?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Wendy Alexander, reading from a pre-prepared script, said that I was reading from a pre-prepared script. My, oh my.

Wendy Alexander should listen carefully, because I will directly address the point that she made about Gleniffer high school. Her latest scare story about the number of advanced highers offered being reduced to two is absolutely untrue. I ask her to think about withdrawing that smear. The reality, of course, is that advanced higher subjects are decided locally on the basis of uptake in individual schools. That is the right approach for pupils and parents and is in the interests of local accountability. Wendy Alexander and her Labour colleagues are so desperate and inept that they have had Simon Pia phoning around Renfrewshire this morning trying to stir up this story. The headteacher of Gleniffer high school was so concerned by Labour's scaremongering that he phoned the leader of Renfrewshire Council to complain about Labour's tactics. [Interruption.]

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Wendy Alexander has again been exposed. She has come to the chamber and done nothing but try to scaremonger. She has no facts to back up what she is saying. It is a good job that she has asked her final question, because otherwise she would have been well advised to deploy the no-further-questions approach.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I, too, am sorry to learn of the First Minister's indisposition. Personally, I blame the opinion polls. There are sometimes aspects indigestible; of course, there are sometimes aspects more palatable, which are welcome. However, I hope that he makes a speedy recovery.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-719)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The First Minister has no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland at present.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

This morning, we were greeted by disturbing headlines about the alarming toll of underage youngsters with alcohol problems. We know that the underlying causes of such problems are complex and diverse and that many of the solutions will take a generation or more to succeed, but there are things that we can and must do now.

In 2006, there were more than 17,000 liquor licences in Scotland and more than 1,300 licensing offences were recorded, but—this is a significant but—only 30 licences were suspended. Is the Deputy First Minister, like me, surprised by that?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I, the First Minister and the Government share Annabel Goldie's deep concern about the picture reported in the papers today. She is right to bring such a serious question to the chamber and absolutely right to say that there are no overnight solutions; we are dealing with a long-term challenge. It is important that we all come together to face up to that challenge and give it the serious attention that it deserves.

I will say a word or two about actions that the Government is taking before addressing her point about what comes next. As Annabel Goldie knows, the Government is already cracking down on rogue retailers by introducing tougher penalties and rolling out alcohol test purchasing throughout the country. We are taking steps to strengthen alcohol education in schools by establishing an expert steering group on substance misuse education. Crucially and significantly, the Government will invest an additional £85 million to tackle alcohol misuse over the next three years. It is the single largest increase ever for tackling the problem in Scotland and it is in addition to the current baseline of £12 million. I hope that Annabel Goldie and the whole chamber accept that this Government takes the issue very seriously and that we have already signalled our obvious intent in the area.

Annabel Goldie is right to press for even further action. That is why, over the next few weeks, the Government will produce a new action plan to tackle alcohol misuse over the coming years. That plan will be radical and innovative and will not shirk from the challenges that we face. The kind of issues that Annabel Goldie raises today will be covered in that action plan and I look forward to debating it in Parliament in due course.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The Deputy First Minister might not be aware that for many years my parents ran a licensed grocer's. Yes, I am a grocer's daughter. I can tell the chamber that my parents knew one thing—just one breach of the law and they could lose their licence. Ten days ago, the Scottish Conservatives revealed that one in seven premises sold alcohol to underage youngsters during test purchasing. Unbelievably, there were premises that failed that test a second time.

Does the Deputy First Minister find it acceptable that those who flagrantly break the law and endanger our children should continue to hold a liquor licence?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

No, I do not, is the short answer. In my answer to Annabel Goldie's first question, I hope that I gave her a real sense that we take the issue seriously. Alcohol misuse should not divide parties in the chamber; we should come together on the issue. I give the member an assurance that if any party represented in this chamber has ideas or suggestions to make, the Government will listen very carefully to them.

The member is right to highlight some of the current weaknesses in the law, which will change further in September. It is also important that we look carefully at what more we need to do to address some of the weaknesses that Annabel Goldie spoke about. That is why we are publishing an action plan in the next few weeks; it is why we want to debate that plan fully with all interests in the chamber and around Scotland. I hope that the chamber will be able to come together to agree a radical set of proposals that, over the medium to long term, could see us making an inroad into the kind of figures that Annabel Goldie and I find so appalling.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I also wish the First Minister a speedy recovery.

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-720)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

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

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The First Minister gave a BBC interview last week. He was asked why the Government had dropped its promise to write off student debt. In reply, the First Minister said:

"We've published a consultation document on student debt, which is out for consultation at the present moment. I am sure that's available to read."

Is anything that he said in those two sentences true?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Everything that the First Minister says is true. I thank Nicol Stephen for giving me an opportunity to reiterate the great progress that the Government has already made in improving the lot of students in Scotland. Thanks to the action of this Government with—I say this with all due grace—the assistance of the Liberal Democrats, we have abolished tuition fees in Scotland, restored the principle of free education and saved graduates in Scotland more than £2,000. I hope that everyone in the chamber, even those parties who did not support it, will welcome that action. We will consult on further proposals to reduce and tackle student debt. It is outrageous that, under the previous Labour-Liberal Administration, levels of student debt in this country soared. That is why this Government sees it as a priority to reverse that trend and improve conditions for students in our country.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The First Minister was very clear last week that he had published a consultation and that it was available to read. However, we made a request for the document under the freedom of information legislation and we got the following back from the Government:

"We believe that releasing information on the policy proposals would not be in the public interest at this time."

What is it with the Government and this policy? Four weeks ago, Fiona Hyslop appeared on STV to deny that she had ever promised to write off student debt in the first place. The First Minister has now been on the BBC to fabricate an entire Government consultation. In the interview, James Watson from Glasgow, the father of a student, asked him,

"Why do you have to lie to the people to get voted into power?"

Can the Deputy First Minister give Mr Watson an honest answer?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The only person that I have seen fabricating anything on the BBC during the past few days was Nicol Stephen fabricating a story about fuel chaos the length and breadth of the country. Perhaps he should take the opportunity today to apologise for that misinformation and to congratulate the people of Scotland on their responsible behaviour.

In the interests of consensus and friendliness, I congratulate Nicol Stephen. He is making a name for himself by using these clever debating points. [Interruption.]

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I am the last person to criticise that since, as Jack McConnell will testify, I used to do it quite a lot myself.

In all seriousness, I ask Nicol Stephen to listen very carefully. I hope that he does because, unlike Labour and the Tories, the Liberals agree with us on the central issues that are facing students today. The Government is committed to tackling student debt. We have already taken a significant step towards that by abolishing the graduate endowment, and saving students more than £2,000 a year. The Government will move to consult people on the further steps that we can take to continue to make progress.

I understand all the brouhaha at First Minister's questions, but on the essential point about improving conditions for students in Scotland, I hope that Nicol Stephen and I can, for once, be on the same side.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will allow a couple of supplementary questions but questions and answers must be brief.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The Deputy First Minister might be aware of my constituent, Donna McLeish, who is currently a prisoner at Cornton Vale and is seven months pregnant. Does the Deputy First Minister share my concern that my constituent was shackled to a Reliance officer while attending Stirling royal infirmary for in-patient and out-patient appointments? Will the Deputy First Minister outline her Administration's position on the handcuffing of pregnant prisoners? What action is she taking to address the matter with Reliance, the Scottish Prison Service and health boards?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I share Johann Lamont's concern. The Government's position is very clear. We consider the handcuffing of pregnant women in hospital to be absolutely unacceptable and I hope that everyone in the chamber agrees with that.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice is meeting Johann Lamont this afternoon to discuss the issue and the particular case of her constituent in more detail. I hope that, during that conversation, she will be reassured that the Government takes the matter very seriously indeed.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

What will the Government do to address serious concerns in my constituency about the future of the Harris tweed industry, following this week's announcement that Kenneth Mackenzie Ltd's mill in Stornoway intends to lay off half its workers, with the threat of consequent additional loss of work for weavers?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank Alasdair Allan for his question. I appreciate the anxiety that is caused by the situation in his constituency. Highlands and Islands Enterprise will be closely involved with the company and the community, and the workers will be supported in the normal way by the Government. I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth will be happy to meet Alasdair Allan to discuss the matter in more detail.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take to implement the recommendations of the Sutherland review of free personal care. (S3F-739)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

We have made clear our continuing commitment to the policy of free personal care. We will take the actions necessary to address existing concerns about the policy, to improve outcomes for our most vulnerable older people and to prepare for the challenges of our ageing population. We have welcomed Lord Sutherland's report—which we commissioned—which provides helpful commentary and recommendations on those matters.

Next week, I will update Parliament on our formal response to Lord Sutherland's report and on the outcome of our constructive discussions with local government. I note the strong support from a former Labour First Minister, as well as from members of other parties in the Parliament, in favour of Lord Sutherland's conclusion that the £30 million attendance allowance funding that was withdrawn by the United Kingdom Government should be returned to Scotland. I will comment next week on how best we can reflect that shared concern to the UK Government.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Does the Deputy First Minister recall the Health Committee's care inquiry in 2006, the recommendations of which have mostly been echoed by the recent Sutherland review? Does she agree that the previous Executive missed a huge opportunity to tackle some of the problems that were already being experienced at that time?

I welcome the Deputy First Minister's comments on the attendance allowance. Will she now take the issue forward in company with all those who support the return of those moneys, including Lord Sutherland, Henry McLeish and local authorities? That would be welcomed by many, including Labour Party members—even if some of them will not admit that.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

In response to Roseanna Cunningham's last point, I hope that all members will now agree that the decision to withdraw the attendance allowance funding was plainly and simply wrong and should be rectified. I look forward to progressing that argument with the support of all those who share our view.

I recall the Health Committee report to which Roseanna Cunningham referred. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to that committee, which, particularly during the period of her convenership, undertook some important and serious work on the subject that convinced me and the Government that we should ask Lord Sutherland to carry out the review that he has now completed.

I agree that the previous Government could have taken action and did not, but it is important that we move forward by building on what has been a very successful policy. We need to sort out, in partnership with our colleagues in local government, some of the issues that have been undermining the policy. That is the approach that I am taking. I look forward to updating Parliament further next week.

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

In recommendation 10 of the "Independent Review of Free Personal and Nursing Care in Scotland", Lord Sutherland states:

"The ... future costs of long-term care means demand must be reviewed and re-modelled regularly and be reflected accurately in future local government finance settlements".

Given the demographics of the Highlands, how does the Deputy First Minister marry that recommendation with the present reality whereby Highland Council is required to make cuts in social work services of the order of at least £400,000 in this financial year?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I think that Jamie Stone has been taking lessons from Wendy Alexander on scaremongering. Local authorities are not making cuts. Local authorities have a higher share of central Government funding now than they did under the previous Administration. That is the reality.

We will take forward all the recommendations of the Sutherland review. As well as making recommendations on what immediate action needs to be taken on free personal care, Lord Sutherland makes some helpful recommendations about how we properly plan for the demographic changes that will take place over the next number of years. I assure the member that the Government will seek to do that.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government will take to resolve the funding situation at the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama to ensure that Scotland's reputation for arts and culture remains of international standing. (S3F-726)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I recognise the important contribution that the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama makes to Scotland's international reputation for arts and culture. However, as the member knows, any decisions on the funding of individual institutions and the mechanisms used to allocate funding are the responsibilities of the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. Direct interference by ministers is prohibited by legislation. Surely even George Foulkes would not encourage us to break the law.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Presiding Officer, I welcome students from the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama who are in the public gallery.

The Deputy First Minister will be aware that students from the academy are protesting outside the Scottish Parliament in a way in which only they can. Decisions by the funding council have resulted in cuts, courses being frozen and compulsory redundancies, which will impact on teaching at the academy and on its world-class reputation. Given that the Government is always keen to ally itself with Scottish cultural success, does it not realise that, unless it is prepared to act, such success will be less likely in the future? Surely the Deputy First Minister will not wash her hands of the issue, given that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning claimed credit for brokering a deal for the Crichton campus, which set a precedent in this area? What is the difference between the two cases? On behalf of students and staff at the academy and of all those who care about Scotland's future as a nation that is able to produce great actors, performers and musicians, I ask the Government to act in Scotland's cultural interests by intervening today.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

If Pauline McNeill had listened to my initial answer, she would be aware of the legislative framework within which the Government is operating. Incidentally, that framework was put in place and supported by the Labour Party when it was in government; of course, Pauline McNeill forgot to mention that.

I, too, welcome students from the academy to the public gallery. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning met student representatives earlier this week—on Monday 28 April—to hear their concerns. Officials will meet representatives of the Scottish funding council today to ensure that it is aware of those concerns. As members will be aware, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning made clear in her strategic guidance to the funding council the importance that she places on ensuring growth in graduate and postgraduate numbers in the performing arts. I hope that all members will see that as a signal of how seriously we take the sector.

I say as gently as I can to Pauline McNeill that the Government will continue to deal with the issue in a constructive and meaningful way. That will probably reap more benefits than the hectoring that we have just heard from the member. [Interruption.]

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order, Mr McAveety. That concludes question time. I apologise to Mr Purvis, whose question we did not reach.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Health and Wellbeing

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made within the health and wellbeing portfolio on efficiency savings. (S3O-3133)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The health efficiency savings target for 2005-08 was £531.1 million. The current forecast of savings achieved to end March 2008 is £613.7 million—an overachievement of £82.6 million. Of course, all savings have been retained locally for reinvestment.

The first set of efficiency delivery plans for 2008-11, setting out where we expect to make the required efficiency gains, were published on 15 April 2008. They include plans identifying efficiency savings of £225.94 million in health and wellbeing for 2008-09, against a target for the year of £215.2 million. The outturn report, setting out what has been achieved in 2008-09, will be published in October 2009.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

The success of the efficiency savings programme has been given more prominence as a result of the announcement of the planned spend on the new Southern general hospital, which commits the Scottish Government to £550 million and Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board to £270 million. In which financial years will the spend occur? Will the cabinet secretary give a breakdown of the specific spend for the Government and the health board?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The spend will be over the next five financial years.

I am extremely proud that Scotland's biggest ever hospital project will be delivered entirely within the public sector by this Scottish National Party Government. Is that not an amazing achievement? It is undoubtedly the case that, had Labour and the Liberal Democrats still been in government, the hospital would have been delivered under the discredited and expensive private finance initiative model. That is just one more reason to be delighted that we now have an SNP Government in power in Scotland.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Will any of the efficiencies that the cabinet secretary referred to in her original answer apply to the Scottish Ambulance Service?

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the incident in my constituency in which a young man lay dying while a paramedic who was on the scene was prevented, to her great distress, from taking any action to help him, because she was out as a single-person crew. Because of the circumstances, and because of the great distress caused to the family, I have called for an inquiry into the incident. I hope that the cabinet secretary will agree to hold an inquiry, so that the family and the public can know exactly what happened.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

That question is very far from being a supplementary to the question in the Business Bulletin . However, if the cabinet secretary wants to answer it, she may.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Given the seriousness of the issue, I am more than happy to respond.

I understand entirely the distress of the family concerned. The case was horrific, and I am sure that everybody in the chamber wants to send their thoughts and condolences to the family.

I have looked very carefully into the circumstances of the case. Although they were horrific, I hope that Margaret Curran will agree that any action taken by the Scottish Ambulance Service was taken to ensure that its personnel, as well as being able to respond to the case, were protected. I know, or I assume, that Margaret Curran would not advocate the sending of Scottish Ambulance Service personnel into situations that were deemed dangerous to their safety.

I will always look into individual cases to ensure that any lessons that can be learned are learned. I will also continue to work with the Scottish Ambulance Service to ensure that the service, as a whole, continues to improve its performance.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its targets are for absence rates within the NHS and what efforts it is making to meet them. (S3O-3116)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The Scottish Government has set a challenging target of 4 per cent sickness absence for NHS boards in Scotland. For the Scottish Ambulance Service and for NHS 24, we have agreed slightly higher targets of 5 per cent and 6 per cent respectively. The date for achieving those targets is March 2009. All boards have agreed to that as part of their local delivery plans for 2008-09.

NHS Scotland has a range of progressive policies in place to protect and improve the health and wellbeing of its workforce, including an innovative occupational health project known as OHS extra and policies to support good work-life balance. There are numerous examples of NHS boards actively working in partnership with their staff to achieve sustained improvements in absence rates.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary might be aware that, as of November 2007, NHS Fife had a rolling average absence rate of 5.8 per cent. That rate is above the national average, and above that of comparable NHS boards. Can she confirm whether NHS Fife is on track to meet the target of 4 per cent? If she cannot, can she outline the efforts that the Scottish Government will make to ensure that absence rates in NHS Fife at least meet the national average? Will she examine the reasons behind the absence rates of NHS staff in the region and those of the rest of Scotland's hard-working NHS staff?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

As I said in my original answer, the target for absence rates—4 per cent, to be achieved by March 2009—that we have set is, rightly, very challenging. All boards will be expected to achieve that challenging target by the due date, and they all have policies in place to achieve it.

When I chaired the annual review of Fife NHS Board last year, I was happy to discuss with it some of the work that it is doing to improve performance in that area, and I will continue to monitor that closely, as I will with all health boards.

I also said in my original answer that all health boards are expected, and have agreed, to outline in their local delivery plans for this year exactly how they intend to make the requisite progress towards the target. I hope that all members will support the actions that boards are taking to achieve the target because that will enable resources to be freed up and spent on front-line care, which I know all members support.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to extend the availability of Suboxone in the treatment of drug addicts. (S3O-3065)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The final decision on which substitute treatment to prescribe rests with the individual practitioner, in liaison with the client and based on the client's specific health needs.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the minister agree that treatment of opioid dependence with drugs such as Suboxone reduces cravings and the use of heroin? Does she agree that Suboxone appears from some trials to be less addictive than methadone, which often results, sadly, in patients swapping one addiction for another? Does she further agree that all alternatives must be carefully examined as part of the overall national drugs strategy?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

On 12 March 2007, Suboxone was accepted for use as a substitute treatment for opioid drug dependence in NHS Scotland, within a framework of medical, social and psychological treatment. Around 500 patients throughout Scotland are currently being treated with Suboxone. Ultimately, of course, it is a matter for the clinician, because whether the treatment is appropriate is a clinical decision.

Within the drugs strategy that the member referred to, we are taking forward a strategy that is based on recovery from whatever drug is being used to help someone come off their opiate-based drug dependence.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

I associate myself with Ted Brocklebank's comments about Suboxone. I know that he has, like me, visited the Drug and Alcohol Project Levenmouth, for which I have the greatest respect. It is clear that it believes that Suboxone is not being prescribed in the right quantities and to the people who need it. I ask the minister to reconsider the matter, and I invite her to join me in visiting the project to hear at first hand from an organisation that helps drug addicts and their families in the area.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

We will, of course, continue to monitor the use of Suboxone and the statistics that will follow on. I have outlined the number of patients who are already being treated with Suboxone, and we will keep an eye on how the situation develops. I am aware that a new consultant has recently been appointed in Fife and is prescribing Suboxone as an alternative treatment for drug misuse. I am happy to take up Tricia Marwick's offer to visit the local drug project that she mentioned, and I will make arrangements to do so.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Question 4 was not lodged.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment it has made of the performance of NHS 24 in meeting the needs of patients in remote and rural areas. (S3O-3102)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Everyone in Scotland has the same access to the full range of NHS 24 services and resources. In 2007-08, 96 per cent of calls to NHS 24 were answered within 30 seconds, against a target of 90 per cent. NHS 24 is committed to on-going partnership working with local NHS boards to ensure the effective delivery of out-of-hours services in remote and rural areas.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Will the cabinet secretary accept that the experience of too many people in remote and rural areas such as my Orkney constituency is that when they contact NHS 24 they face not only the problem of having to deal with cumbersome questioning and requests for information that has already been given—which, no doubt, urban callers also experience—but the additional concern that NHS 24 staff will not understand the need to take the local geography into account in dealing with the call? Will she undertake to sit down with general practitioners and patients' representatives from remote and rural areas to review how we can best provide 24-hour care in those challenging parts of Scotland?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I recognise the important issues that Liam McArthur raises. There is already a very good working relationship between NHS Orkney and NHS 24. Liam McArthur may be aware that Dr Peter Baxter, the associate medical director for the north for NHS 24, is currently on secondment to NHS Orkney as medical director. That demonstrates the commitment of NHS 24 to working in partnership with the board and ensuring that there is the understanding of remote and rural communities that Liam McArthur rightly talks about.

I am also pleased to note that the chairman of NHS Orkney will visit the NHS 24 centre in Aberdeen on 22 May. That will be useful in ensuring that the mutual understanding exists that is vital if people in parts of the country such as that which Liam McArthur represents are to be properly served by health services.

The Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that people in remote and rural areas get the same level of access and quality in their health services as people elsewhere in the country. That is why, in the next few weeks, I will launch the report of the remote and rural steering group, which will go an awful long way to securing the sustainability of remote and rural services.

I take Liam McArthur's points about the questions that people are asked when they phone NHS 24. However, he will understand that those questions are asked for good clinical reasons and that it is important, when anybody calls NHS 24, that the staff ask the right questions so that they can ensure that the person is passed to the appropriate part of the health service as quickly as possible.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the new NHS 24 service that offers psychological support, using cognitive behavioural therapy, to people with low moods and depression in Orkney. How will that initiative be audited? Does the cabinet secretary have any plans to roll it out to other rural and island areas, as I hope she will?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank Mary Scanlon for welcoming that important service development in NHS 24. It will be audited in the same way as any service that NHS 24 or any other health board delivers. She is aware that we have rigorous standards of audit and performance management in the national health service, and those will apply to new services as well.

Mary Scanlon has raised the issue on many previous occasions in the chamber and is right to have done so. I give her an assurance that we intend to up the game of the NHS in terms of cognitive and behavioural services. If we are to meet some of the other challenging targets that we have set—for example, in the health improvement, efficiency, access and treatment targets framework—it is vital that those services are in place.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

Has any work been undertaken to evaluate the working practices of NHS 24 and the impact of the inappropriate call-out of ambulances? If not, is such work going to be undertaken? I recently met front-line ambulance crews in Livingston, and I believe that that may be an issue.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Angela Constance will appreciate that there may be some specific issues behind her question. If there are specific concerns that either Angela Constance or the ambulance service has around any NHS 24 practices, those should be brought to my attention. I assure her that I will examine them carefully. I know that the management of NHS 24 would also be pleased to discuss any specific concerns with the ambulance service.

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it is aware of recent United Kingdom-wide research by the University of the West of Scotland that indicates that, contrary to reality, most students believe that their peers are smokers, thus revealing the potential for social norms interventions to reduce health-damaging behaviours. (S3O-3096)