Scottish Parliament, 15 May 2008

340 contributions from 78 members. The official report.

Official Report 15 May 2008

Equality and Diversity

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a statement by Stewart Maxwell on equality and diversity. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so no interventions should be made.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

In November 2007, we accepted an amendment to motion S3M-928 that asked us to make a statement on how our commitments on equality and diversity would be delivered through the Scottish budget. I am pleased to make that statement today.

The Scottish Government's investment and activity are geared around one central purpose: to create a more successful country that offers opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish. That means striving for a fairer and more equal Scotland. Addressing the inequalities in our society is essential if we are to meet the challenges of globalisation and demographic change and to ensure the wellbeing and cohesion of Scotland's communities. The spending review and budget are integral to enabling us to deliver that purpose and driving forward the changes that are needed to ensure equality of opportunity and outcome.

We have no doubts that Scotland will benefit from greater equality and that it is wholly unacceptable that people should be disadvantaged because of their race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, faith or age. Our performance framework contains a suite of outcomes that will improve the lives of people in Scotland. We expect equality to be integrated into the delivery of those outcomes and we have included a specific outcome on tackling the significant inequalities in Scottish society. That means getting to grips with the issues for equality groups and taking action across Government.

As part of developing our understanding of the inequalities in Scotland, I have attended several events and met equality groups. I and my Cabinet colleagues the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning have also met the Equal Opportunities Committee. Those meetings have enabled us to discuss how best to address discrimination and promote equality of opportunity.

Access to education and support for learning are vital to delivering a more successful Scotland and reducing inequality. Improved access to pre-school education benefits both child and parent. We increased the number of hours of pre-school education to 475 in August 2007 and we have announced a further increase to 570 hours from August 2010.

Our abolition of the graduate endowment fee will benefit about 50,000 students—particularly those on lower incomes, such as disabled people and lone parents, most of whom are women. That will encourage participation in learning and reduce debt. Children of asylum seekers will be able to access tuition fee support and we are reviewing provision under the disabled students allowance. From 2008-09, eligible students who require the assistance of a helper will benefit from an increased allowance of up to £20,000.

We have established respectme, the national anti-bullying service, and we have commissioned Learning and Teaching Scotland and LGBT Youth Scotland to produce guidance and training materials for school staff on dealing effectively with homophobic incidents.

It is unfortunate that many barriers to employment still exist for—among others—disabled people, some ethnic minority communities and women. Employment remains a reserved matter, but we are progressing activity to address those issues. We have created Skills Development Scotland, a key part of whose role is to promote and deliver equality of access and opportunity in service delivery and the wider lifelong learning landscape.

Through workforce plus, we are developing a framework and standards to provide better opportunities for those with a disability. We are working with local organisations to address the needs of clients with mental illness and we are working to understand better the labour market challenges that ethnic minority communities face. We are making £9 million available over three years to progress the strategy on English for speakers of other languages.

Poverty and deprivation will be addressed as part of our economic strategy. Anti-poverty work will be an important means of advancing equality. In our consultation on tackling poverty, we have highlighted the gendered nature of poverty and sought views on the implications for other groups.

As part of the local government settlement, we are providing £145 million per annum for a fairer Scotland fund to tackle poverty and to help more people to access and sustain employment opportunities. We expect community planning partnerships to take into account equality issues and to involve communities, including key equality groups, in strategic investment of the fund.

Concern is shared about health inequalities and we have established a ministerial task force to identify what more needs to be done; it will consider poverty and inequality as part of its work. The continuing work to achieve a healthier Scotland is being progressed through the better health, better care programme.

We will provide £97 million over the next three years to abolish prescription charges. That will benefit everyone but will particularly benefit those who suffer from long-term conditions—the previous Government's disability working group highlighted that issue.

Additional funds of £16 million will be provided to modernise and redesign national health service wheelchair and seating services and £64 million will be provided for the prevention, screening and early detection of serious illnesses, which includes a new immunisation programme to protect women against cervical cancer.

Proposed legislative changes will benefit equality groups. We support the hate crime bill proposal that Patrick Harvie MSP has lodged, because we believe that no one should be victimised because of their sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability.

We recently consulted on proposals to reform the law on rape and other sexual offences and we expect to introduce a bill on those matters in 2008.

An investment of £1.5 billion is being made in new and better housing in areas throughout Scotland, including deprived areas. Every new-build house that is funded through the Scottish Government must be built to be usable for people with disabilities or mobility problems and to be adaptable to cope with any further deterioration of a person's abilities.

We know that transport is a key issue for disabled people, so we continue to support nationwide concessionary fares for people who are over 60, disabled people and young people, with £181.4 million in 2008-09.

We are negotiating with local authorities on their single outcome agreements. Like the Scottish Government, local authorities are bound by the duty to secure best value and the public sector equality duties, which we expect them to reflect in their single outcome agreements.

Across the range of work that we undertake, we expect equality to be integrated and our policies to be equality impact assessed. An increasing number of assessments—21 to date—have now been published. Those include assessments on the right to adapt for private tenants, which benefits disabled occupants in the private rented sector who need work on their house to make it suitable for their accommodation, welfare or employment; on the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill, which I mentioned; and on the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill—that assessment highlighted several issues that will need to be considered in the delivery of the games.

We are fulfilling our responsibility to equality impact assess our policies not only because that is a legal requirement, but because it will help us to realise our outcomes. Assessing the impact on equality groups of our policies will enable us to develop policy that responds to people's different needs and to distribute appropriately the resources that are allocated in the budget.

We are committed to implementing effectively the EQIA process throughout Government, so we are working to improve the evidence base and the equality data that are available; to provide staff with support to undertake impact assessments; and to improve our ability to monitor progress through the business planning tool and certificate of assurance processes.

Mainstreaming equality is one element of the work that the £61 million that is allocated for equality will support. That represents a significant increase in funding. In the context of the tightest settlement since devolution, that is another strong indicator of our commitment.

With that resource, we will tackle issues of race equality, including those for Gypsies/Travellers. I will say more on that following the finalisation of our funding decisions. We will support work to integrate refugees, asylum seekers and new migrants; to promote interfaith activity; and to challenge sectarianism and religious intolerance. We will progress the work in relation to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities, including support for transgender work, and we will respond to the report of the LGBT hearts and minds agenda group in the summer. We will also advance our work on British Sign Language and linguistic access and on independent living for disabled people. Those matters deserve specific attention and I intend to provide more detail on our proposals before the summer recess.

Our money will also support a range of key organisations that deliver in the equality field, help to challenge negative attitudes—through our one Scotland and domestic abuse campaigns, for example—and support implementation of the public sector equality duties.

Gender issues that are evident in pay, occupational segregation and violence will be part of our programme. In particular, we are dedicating £44.54 million to tackling violence against women. That will provide support for key national organisations, the rape crisis network, helplines and 73 local projects throughout Scotland; fund women's aid groups throughout Scotland to provide crucial support for children and young people who are affected by domestic abuse; contribute to implementation of the national delivery plan; and fund partner support work, which is a key part of effective perpetrator programmes This is an important time for equality work—we have the advent of a new legislative framework, the new Equality and Human Rights Commission and key issues to address. It is an appropriate time for us to shape the next phase of progressing equality in Scotland. We intend to have our new approach ready in 2009, which marks the Parliament's 10th anniversary. We look forward to working with the commission, all our partners, equality stakeholders, communities and—of course—the Parliament.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. We have approximately 20 minutes or so for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank the minister for making his statement available to us this morning. It reflects the broad range of issues that an equality strategy has to address; they are significant matters and I hope that the Equal Opportunities Committee will consider them further so that we can have a further debate on them in the chamber. Assertion and aspiration in relation to equalities is one thing, but delivery can be different, and that is where the budget becomes crucial to the identification of any patterns of inequality, and we must follow the money to see whether the aspirations can be delivered.

The minister will be aware of concerns about the Government's retrograde step in its budget, given the absence of an overarching equalities statement and equality impact assessments in the portfolio spending proposals. Will the minister confirm that the next budget will address those flaws, and can he outline what action is currently being taken to ensure that that happens?

Will the minister explain his understanding of the purpose of an equality impact assessment, given that, for example, the controversial decision has been made to merge the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland with the Public Transport Users Committee but the equality impact assessment is being done only now, with a report to be produced at an as yet unspecified time?

Will the minister outline what action the Scottish Government will take to ensure that single outcome agreements are equality impact assessed before they are agreed? The minister said in his statement that he expects that local authorities will ensure that equalities are addressed in the agreements, but how will he ensure that? What equalities elements, if any, are compulsory parts of single outcome agreements? What action will the Government take if its expectations of single outcome agreements are not realised?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I thank Johann Lamont for her questions.

Her first point about further debate is helpful and, at some point, I would be happy to go through the business managers to accommodate time for a further debate later this year.

The individual policies that the budget funds will indeed be equality impact assessed. No equality impact assessment had taken place when we came into office—I am aware that the tool was only made available for use by December 2006—and 21 are now in place. I am not saying that that is the end of the matter; much work remains to be done. We need to do more across Government, and the quality of the assessments must be better. However, we have made a significant start to using the equality impact assessment tool.

On the amalgamation of MACS and the Public Transport Users Committee, there is no doubt that MACS had a significant role, but it is important that we do not segregate and that we look forward to mainstreaming areas of the work. Therefore, it was quite right for the Government to amalgamate the two groups and bring MACS into the Public Transport Users Committee so that disabled people become part of the main stream. Representatives of the disabled community will be on that committee.

We are in the process of negotiating single outcome agreements with individual local authorities across the country. I made my expectations for them very clear. Until the agreements are negotiated and published, it would be unreasonable for me to comment on them, other than to say what I have already said about my expectations.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. As president of the Highland Disabled Ramblers Association, I particularly welcome the £16 million to modernise and redesign NHS wheelchair and seating services in Scotland, which is long overdue. We also welcome the right for disabled tenants in the social rented sector to adapt their homes, and the measures to improve access in new-build houses.

How and where will the £9 million announced for the teaching of English for speakers of other languages be allocated over the next three years?

We are glad that the minister intends to tackle the issues faced by Gypsy Travellers, but will he look again at the Scottish Government's repeated refusal to meet representatives of the Scottish section of the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain? Travelling show people are a distinct and important section of Scotland's community and cultural fabric, and I am hugely disappointed that ministers have refused to meet them to discuss some of the issues that mean that they are discriminated against more in Scotland than in England.

Finally, the percentage of males who suffer from domestic violence has increased by 138 per cent since 1999. Does the Scottish Government recognise that there is a need to address that worrying concern and, without loss of resource to female victims of domestic abuse, ensure equality of care and remedial action?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I thank Jamie McGrigor for his welcome for the increase in funding for the wheelchair services redesign. That will be widely welcomed across the chamber.

The £9 million for teaching English to speakers of other languages is the overall amount. I am not able to say today exactly where all that money will be used—that will be decided in the coming period—but I will be happy to write to Jamie McGrigor with the details once they are available.

I understand Jamie McGrigor's comments about Gypsy Travellers, although I am not aware of the specific issue that he mentioned. The Equal Opportunities Committee has taken up the issues faced by Gypsy Travellers in some detail. We will make a further statement on that within the coming two months. The Equal Opportunities Committee's work will form part of the national statement and it will be used to assess the impact of our work on Gypsy Travellers. It is important that we take cognisance of the particular group that Jamie McGrigor mentioned. If there is a particular issue that is different from the general problems, I am happy to meet Jamie McGrigor if he wants to discuss it with me.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

May I ask for clarification?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

No, I am afraid not; this is just questions and answers.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I make no apology for the fact that the Government takes a gendered view of domestic abuse. In the overwhelming majority of domestic abuse cases, the victims are women and children, so they form our primary focus. At the same time, and while women and children need specific services, support services for men are widely available. We are taking the correct approach to domestic abuse. It is only right and proper that we concentrate on the fundamental problem, which is male violence against women. That should be our priority.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

I, too, thank the minister for his statement and for giving us the opportunity of an advance look at it.

I want to ask about mediation services. Yesterday, the Evening News reported that European migrants in Edinburgh are being unfairly labelled as neighbours from hell because of ignorance and prejudice. The most common complaint was of the laws on houses in multiple occupation being broken by cramming as many people as possible into a confined space, even though that is not always the case. Mediation services across the city are proving to be successful in resolving difficulties and misunderstandings between neighbours. What will the Government do to encourage the development of community mediation services across the country to support the integration of migrant groups into Scottish society, as a recent study showed that many of them intend to settle in Scotland permanently?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I did not see that newspaper report yesterday, but I support mediation work. In that area and across many others, mediation services have an important role to play.

If we are to ensure that the new Scots can integrate when they come to settle here, the Parliament must send out a very strong message that we will not tolerate the abuse of individuals and families who wish to work and live in our communities. It is essential that we send out that clear and strong message.

I am happy to look at the role of mediation services in that area for Jim Tolson, and to discuss with him the issues he sees in the Edinburgh, Fife and Lothian areas.

Mediation services are an important part of our work in this area, because it is clear that if we can make people understand the problems that people who come to Scotland face, many of the tensions will be diffused. It is more positive to use mediation than it is to tackle problems that arise once a situation has become inflamed. We should deal with such situations early on and ensure that local communities are fully aware of the incoming communities that will live among them. I pay tribute to the work on migrants, immigrants and asylum seekers that has been done in parts of Glasgow over the past few years, which is an example of best practice. Many of the fears that were expressed by some parts of the community have now been dealt with.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We come to back-bench questions, for which only 10 minutes are available, so I insist on one question per member.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for the copy of his statement, which I have just received. It contains many positive points and a great understanding of the areas in which more work must be done. I request that the statement be passed on to the Equal Opportunities Committee, so that we can consider it in more detail.

I know that the minister will agree with me—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question, please.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

—when I say that the Parliament must reflect the diversity of the people of Scotland. We know that women and ethnic minorities are not represented in certain groups.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question, please.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will that anomaly be addressed as part of the impact assessment process that the minister has just announced, which is most welcome, to ensure that such groups are represented in certain public bodies?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I will be more than happy to pass on a copy of the statement to the Equal Opportunities Committee, although as most of its members are in the chamber, they probably already have it. However, it is right and proper that the committee should examine the statement, if it so wishes, and I am sure that we will have further engagement on the matter.

As I said in my statement and my first response, it is important that we increase the number of equality impact assessments that we carry out on policy issues. It is a new tool, which came in only in December 2006. Although we have managed to publish 21 equality impact assessments, I do not think that that is enough—we must go much further. I and my colleagues are clear that equality impact assessments must be used across the range of Government work. The public sector must adapt to the new way of working and must use equality impact assessment tools in policy so that we get the best outcomes from our budget spend and ensure that, rather than unintentionally having a negative impact, our policies have a positive impact.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I thank the minister for his statement. I particularly welcome the funding for tackling violence against women. I agree that the statement ought to be passed on to the Equal Opportunities Committee for scrutiny, as it raises many questions.

One of those questions is about the consequential £34 million funding for the national health service, local government and other agencies to assist disabled children and families. Is the minister aware that in a report on services for disabled children, Tom Clarke MP said:

"If government is not persuaded to ring-fence additional resources for disabled children ... Ministers must be able to convince parents and professionals that alternative mechanisms exist to ensure that the resources reach the children who need them"?

What does the Government intend to do specifically for disabled children and their families?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I thank Elaine Smith for the welcome that she gave to our funding for action on violence against women. I was keen to ensure that we funded work in that crucial area properly, and I pay tribute to the work of the previous Administration, on which we hope to build.

A number of streams of work are being progressed on disabled children and their families, in many cases by local authorities. The £34 million to which the member refers is, of course, part of the local government settlement. That money is still there; it has not been lost. It is within the ambit of local authorities to spend that money as they see fit. It is clear that they must be able to use it in ways that are appropriate to local circumstances.

I gently point out to Elaine Smith that Barnett consequentials have always been dealt with in such a manner. The previous Administration never wrote a blank cheque in the sense that it never said that it would always spend the money in the same way that the United Kingdom Government did. The money was always allocated to the budget of the Scottish Executive, which decided on the best way to spend it. This Government is doing likewise. It is clear that we are committed to working with local authorities to ensure that disabled children receive proper support. Any attempt to paint the situation as a lack of commitment on our part would be unfortunate. Nothing could be further from the truth—we fully support the work that local government is doing. The Scottish Government funds a number of projects to help disabled children and their families.

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I thank the minister for his statement and welcome the commitment to ensure that every new-build house that is funded by the Government will be accessible. I hope that he will consider requiring all private developments to include a percentage of accessible housing.

Has the Scottish Government been consulted on the UK Government's proposals to make significant alterations to the disability living allowance and the attendance allowance?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The straight answer to that is no. The consultation document for the UK

Government's review of social care in England that was launched earlier this week acknowledged that any changes to UK-wide benefits could have implications for devolved social care systems. However, it does not include any specific proposals, and there has been no consultation with Scottish ministers.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the minister ensure that Skills Development Scotland makes timely use of equality impact assessments before, rather than after, the fact? In particular, will they be used to examine the modern apprenticeship scheme? Can the minister comment on the significant decline in the number of women who participate in that programme and the continued gender patterns of occupational segregation that are evident in it?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

As I hope I have made clear, we intend to continue our work with equality impact assessments. In response to an earlier question on equality impact assessments, as well as saying that we have published 21 of them thus far, I should perhaps have mentioned that a huge amount of work is being done in this area across Government. The fact that an equality impact assessment has not been published on a particular policy does not mean that such work is not going on. I am encouraging people across Government to ensure that that work results in the development and publication of equality impact assessments in skills development, among other areas. Such work should be done across the range of Government policies.

In addition, I have made clear my concern about occupational segregation. Any decline in the take-up of skills development opportunities by women is a challenge that we must face up to. I hope that the whole Parliament will ensure that we do as much as we can within our powers to ensure that occupational segregation is dealt with. We must tackle it head on, as it is one of the biggest problems that women face. It is a long-standing problem that we must do everything possible to address.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I welcome much of what the minister said in his statement. Equality and diversity is a broad topic and the Liberal Democrats would welcome a debate on it.

The minister might be aware of this week's announcement by the Fostering Network that, next year alone, 450 new foster carers are needed to meet demand. When will the Scottish Government introduce changes to the fostering regulations to allow same-sex couples to foster, which would assist with the quest to provide loving and stable homes for many of our most disadvantaged children and young people? Is the minister aware of the problem whereby many councils are reluctant to let people adopt children if they have not first had a chance to act as foster parents?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

That is a sensitive issue for many people. The best thing that I can do is offer to meet the member to discuss it in detail. As Margaret Smith will know, my views on the matter are clear. The most important consideration is that children should be in a home where there is a loving and stable relationship. That is the central point. As the issue affects a number of Government ministers in different areas, it would be best if Margaret Smith and I met to discuss it in detail. I would be happy to do that.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

If the forthcoming statement on Gypsy Travellers that the minister mentioned brings with it sufficient resources for services and facilities for that group, it might receive a broad welcome. Will the statement also cover some of the legislative proposals that representatives of that community have called for? Will the minister agree to meet the Gypsy and Traveller Law Reform Coalition before decisions are made about the next legislative programme?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am more than happy to meet the groups and individuals to whom the member referred, if Mr Harvie thinks that that would be helpful, and I am sure that a meeting can be arranged as soon as possible.

As I said, the national statement will be made in the not-too-distant future. It would be inappropriate for me to talk about the detail in the statement at this stage, because the statement is not ready—if it had been it would have been issued. We will consider all aspects, including the work of the Equal Opportunities Committee and, in particular, input from the Gypsy Traveller community and local authorities and other partners who work in the area.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I am convener of the cross-party group on disability and people regularly express to me concerns about the lack of consultation before changes are made to Government policy or practice. Is the minister aware that during the past few months I have asked a number of parliamentary questions in respect of those concerns, the answers to which have not satisfied disability groups in particular? Will he at last say what consultation took place with national organisations that represent disabled people and ethnic minorities on the closure of the fair for all disability and fair for all race projects before—not after—the establishment of the equalities and planning directorate in NHS Health Scotland?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Michael McMahon answered his own question when he said that he has received answers from ministers to his parliamentary questions. I do not think that I can add anything to the answers that he has received.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I appreciate that the minister has made an overarching statement, but I am sure that he would acknowledge that the part that covered race equality was rather limited. What support is the Government giving to Black and Ethnic Minority Infrastructure in Scotland as part of the one Scotland, many cultures campaign, which I hope will continue? Will the Government review the funding support to BEMIS, to ensure that we maximise the potential to make an impact that the organisation has demonstrated?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

My statement was indeed overarching and I tried to cover a wide range of areas. I am aware and supportive of BEMIS's work and I have met members of the organisation on a number of occasions. The important point is that I will not comment on individual funding allocations during this item of business. I am sure that Margaret Curran understands the reasons for that. If she wants to raise a specific issue with me, I will be more than happy to discuss it with her.

The Government acknowledges the work of many groups that work in race equality. It is important that the Government should carry on with the one Scotland, many cultures campaign and build on the previous Executive's work, which was groundbreaking in many ways. We are keen to ensure that that work continues.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The minister completely avoided answering my question, which I asked because my parliamentary questions have not been answered. I specifically asked the minister to say what consultation had taken place with disability and ethnic minority groups prior to the establishment of the equalities and planning directorate in NHS Health Scotland. The minister refuses to answer that question. Can you advise me on how I can get the minister to answer the questions that I ask rather than the questions that he would like me to ask?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

As the member is aware, I am not responsible for the content of answers. The member has a point, but I am afraid that it is not a point of order.

Crofting

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is a debate on the Shucksmith report and the future of crofting in Scotland.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It gives me great pleasure to open the first of many debates and discussions that will take place as we begin work to put in place a firm foundation for the future of crofting in Scotland.

The Government made a commitment in its programme for government to reform crofting following the work of the committee of inquiry on crofting. That was consistent with our drive to promote a wealthier and fairer Scotland, a safer and stronger Scotland and a greener Scotland. On Monday, I formally received the committee's final report at an event in Stornoway. I took the opportunity then and I do so again to thank all members of the committee and particularly the chairman, Mark Shucksmith, for the public service that they have done. I am sure that the whole Parliament extends its thanks. I also thank everyone who contributed to the production of the report through their participation in the committee's public meetings earlier in the year or through their submissions in response to the call for evidence.

On Tuesday morning, I was pleased to read the universally positive coverage of the report. I was particularly struck by a comment from Patrick Krause, the chief executive of the Scottish Crofting Foundation, which was quoted in The Herald. He said:

"There is no doubt the authentic voice of Scottish crofters is in this report."

That is true. The report is a testament to the consultation that was undertaken when the report was being produced.

Since then, I have been struck by the intelligent and positive coverage of the detailed recommendations in the report. For example, in today's Press and Journal, the National Trust for Scotland indicates its support for many elements in the report, although it asks questions that should be asked. I have also been impressed by the response from NFU Scotland, which also asked questions. I am sorry that John Farquhar Munro is not in his usual place in the chamber, because he has been positive about the report, although he defends the Crofters Commission in this morning's Press and Journal. I, too, defend the Crofters Commission. However, the report is not about the future of the Crofters Commission; it is about the future of crofting.

The committee of inquiry was established by the previous Administration in September 2006, to consider the future of crofting. Mark Shucksmith was appointed in December 2006 and the other members of the committee were appointed in April 2007. The committee was asked—I pay tribute to the previous Administration for this—to identify

"a vision for the future of crofting"

and to make recommendations designed to secure specific goals: to sustain and enhance the population; to improve economic vitality; to safeguard landscape and biodiversity; and to sustain cultural diversity.

When I became Minister for Environment a year ago, I encouraged the committee to be radical, because radical change is needed to reverse years of decline in crofting. I share the committee's view that there is a clear and present danger to the future of crofting and radical action is required.

Radical recommendations are the culmination of the committee's work, which is the most significant investigation into crofting since the report of the Taylor commission in 1954. Indeed, in future, a history of crofting—I will not attempt such a thing—will regard the work of the Napier commission, the Taylor commission and the Shucksmith committee as three pillars in the building of the crofting system. Of course, members of the Shucksmith committee did not have to be shipwrecked twice, as happened to members of the Napier commission, in order to come to their conclusions.

The report makes bold recommendations on the land and environment, the rural economy, housing, governance, crofting regulation and enforcement, and the crucial issue of attracting new entrants into crofting.

On land and environment, the report makes recommendations on the single farm payment, the less favoured area support scheme, the Scotland rural development programme and the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme.

On the rural economy, it makes recommendations on development investment, on the relationship between the work of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and local authorities, and on in-migration, return migration and population retention.

On housing, it makes proposals for the croft house grant scheme and on the provision of housing for non-crofters.

On governance arrangements, it recommends winding up the Crofters Commission and separating the functions that the commission currently undertakes. Regulation and enforcement would be discharged by a new structure.

Development would become the responsibility of a crofting and community development body, possibly within HIE. The report recommends that responsibility for the register of crofts be taken over by Registers of Scotland and that grazings committees be modernised and given an expanded role.

On regulation and enforcement, the report recommends that the rights that were laid down in the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886, in relation to security of tenure, succession, fair rents and the value of improvements, be enjoyed only

"by those resident on or near their croft and using the land beneficially."

It is strange that such a recommendation might be regarded as controversial, because it is axiomatic that the benefits of crofting should accrue to crofters themselves.

The report recommends that croft houses be tied to occupancy through a real burden, which would take effect when the croft was next assigned or purchased and would run for ever. Decrofting the house site or purchasing the landlord's interest would not extinguish the burden.

The report argues that the combination of those recommendations and other proposals on regulation would create more opportunities for young people and attract new entrants to crofting.

The committee's vision of a growing, prosperous, inclusive and sustainable crofting community is one that I whole-heartedly share. Crofting delivers social, economic and environmental benefits and is part of the cultural landscape of the Highlands and Islands, which is famous throughout the world. It should be advanced to secure more of those public benefits, not simply to preserve tradition, although that is good in itself. No one can understate its role. Crofting should be preserved because crofting per se is worth pursuing in the modern age.

The principles of localism and communality are central to the report's recommendations and, like the committee of inquiry, I believe that they are at the heart of crofting. The Government believes strongly in empowering communities to take control of their own destinies and in enabling people to make the plans and take the decisions that affect them and their communities. Through direct participation in those processes and decisions, individuals can see the benefits of that approach and communities can generate new life.

Crofters are not bereft of

"reserves of knowledge, experience and leadership",

as the Taylor committee suggested 54 years ago. The Taylor committee suggested then that

"initiative must come from without".

Now, it can come from within. The greatest chance for success will come if crofters feel that they have ownership and control of their future. On Monday, I saw a wonderful example of that in the Lewis township of Coll, where a new grazings committee has come together and is working within the community to bring new life to it. Crofting needs to serve Scotland well in the 21st century, and the report can help that to happen.

I turn to the recommendations and the Government's response to them. I shall consider the report carefully over the summer and announce a detailed response at the end of the summer. The recommended changes to the governance arrangements for crofting need a great deal of consideration. As in any such report—particularly a radical one—the devil will be in the detail, but I hope that the whole Parliament will find ways of participating in that discussion and debate, the outcome of which I expect to be legislation although, obviously, I cannot confirm that today. For example, we need to ensure that any new governance structure facilitates local input but does not create a bureaucracy that is at odds with our agenda of simplifying the public body landscape.

I accept strongly that Registers of Scotland, which has expertise in the registration of property, should take over responsibility for the register of crofts, although I recognise that there is considerable work to be done before that can happen. I need to consider how to take it forward and finance it.

I accept recommendation 3.15.9, which is that

"The Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act 1857 should be amended to make a crofting lease registrable and hence eligible for standard securities."

That is one of a range of recommendations that will be easy to accept. Accepting that recommendation will make it easier for crofters to access commercially available loans so that they may build or improve their homes without having to decroft.

I keep open the option of implementing the recommendation on what the report refers to as real burdens that would require occupancy of croft houses. On Monday, I made it clear that the Government may introduce retrospective legislation if it recommends to the Parliament that that proposal be adopted. That would be necessary to reduce the risk of a rush to decroft and avoid the provisions of any future legislation.

I suspect that all the parties and the individual members present, some of whom are highly knowledgeable about crofting, will conclude that reform of crofting cannot be undertaken instantly. Today, we are at the end of 122 years of complex legislation, and perhaps the most difficult task will be to simplify that legislation in the way that the committee envisages, which I support.

However, we continue to make changes, even while we consider the next steps. Last winter, we consulted on powers under the existing crofting legislation to designate new areas where crofting tenure could apply. The consultation proposed that Arran, Bute, Great Cumbrae Island and Little Cumbrae Island, as well as areas within Moray Council and Highland Council that are not already within the crofting counties—an historical anomaly that many people felt should have been resolved a century ago—be so designated.

Responses to the consultation, which closed in March—although we took account of late comments—broadly support the proposal for an alignment with the HIE boundaries. Accordingly, I am minded to designate those areas for crofting tenure, and I expect to move to implement that measure in the coming year. Obviously, I wish to ensure a level playing field for all crofting areas, so I will take forward the future of financial support for them in light of Shucksmith's recommendations.

We will now give careful consideration to the report of the committee of inquiry on crofting and decide how best to take forward its recommendations. We will start work on producing our detailed response to the report and look for the earliest opportunity to introduce consequential legislative change.

I greatly look forward to hearing members' views today and on future occasions. The inquiry was conducted independently, and I hope that its independence will command the respect that allows us to come together and build consensus on the way forward. One thing above all should motivate us and leave us in no doubt that we must act: crofting is in a perilous state and we have an obligation to ensure that it carries on into future generations. Mark Shucksmith and his colleagues have done a great service in helping us to ensure that it does. The decisions will now have to be taken, and we will have to take responsibility for the actions.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I very much agree with Michael Russell's expression of thanks to the committee of inquiry for the work that it has carried out over the past few months.

In its consideration of the Crofting Reform etc Bill in the previous parliamentary session, the Environment and Rural Development Committee came to the conclusion that the bill as introduced was simply too complex. We wanted to ensure that the Parliament got crofting right, but the bill did not provide for a consolidation of the legal framework. We were not convinced that the measures to sort out the market in crofts would work and we wanted to get the right controls and assignations to ensure that crofting was retained.

However, we did not want to jeopardise the chance of a crofting bill being passed at that time because we wanted to ensure that the recommendations on new crofts that Michael Russell is implementing were provided for. We thought that there should be a new set of discussions on crofting and the possibility of new legislation in this parliamentary session.

Therefore, I warmly welcome the work that the committee of inquiry on crofting has done—in particular, Mark Shucksmith's work in pulling it together and the excellent analysis in the report. The process has been inclusive and the report is all the stronger for that. However, I admit that, although I enjoyed reading it, I have not yet fully digested all its recommendations. Along with the minister, I certainly want the time to reflect on them all; they are radical and far reaching. We now need to have a positive debate on what we agree with but we must also take the time to consult more before we come back to the Parliament to set out our stalls in detail.

I am keen that this debate be the start of the Parliament's consideration of how the vision for crofting in the 21st century that is set out in the report should be implemented. That is why I welcome the minister's commitment to come back with a response to the debate before we legislate again. It is important to learn the lessons of the previous crofting bill to ensure that we do not address matters only through legislation or pile everything into consideration of proposed legislation but instead examine all the issues.

The report's analysis is spot on, but we need to think through the detail of the recommendations and talk to the crofting communities about how we implement it. As the minister says, we must look through the detail, which is where the difficulties will come. We need to ensure that there is widespread consultation and consideration, and I note the NFUS's request for a detailed discussion at a later date.

There are two ways in which the report can be implemented. The first is to consider matters that do not require legislation and on which the minister and his colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment can act now; the second is to consider the potential legislative issues that arise from the report.

We need to address the urgent housing and agricultural support issues that can be acted on now. The minister should simply set out what he thinks in detail. I welcome his initial response, but I want to see the Government's response to all those recommendations to determine what can be acted on swiftly.

We also need a response on the issues that clearly require legislation. However, we need agreement on the Government's overall policy stance before we get to the detailed drafting, because the significant changes that were made halfway through the previous bill's passage made it difficult for the Environment and Rural Development Committee to do its job.

The headline recommendation in the Shucksmith report to abolish the Crofters Commission needs a great deal of thought. The recommendation that regulation would remain at a Scottish level but implementation would rest at a local level needs further debate. The scope is set out for local crofting boards to regulate, but that raises the questions to what extent we would still have a common system of crofting and what level of discretion each board would have. We need to think all that through in detail. Another issue that we must consider in detail is the status of the boards and whether they will be quangos.

Given the recent downsizing of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the budget cuts that it has experienced, it is ironic for the Scottish Government that HIE is the organisation of choice for the location of the proposed crofting community development body.

There is a clear message in the report that economic factors must be central if crofting is to survive. We support the objective to bring together economic development and community and social objectives. The report notes that crofting activities account for only a third of crofters' incomes, so support for wider economic activity is crucial, including support for entrepreneurial skills and other skills that are required to run small businesses. Crofters have a host of economic opportunities in construction, renewables, wildlife interpretation, crafts and tourism, and they need skills and support in all those areas.

A critical issue is the minister's willingness to fund in full the system that he chooses to recommend to us. His choice requires a lot more thought, and I do not expect him to make it after two days' reflection on the report. Whatever decision is made, however, there is a key challenge for the minister to ensure that he supports the staff of the Crofters Commission. I ask him to make a commitment to think carefully about the rights of the staff. We considered the matter when we considered the Crofting Reform etc Bill. I hope that the minister will meet the staff, listen to their concerns and representations and ensure that he talks through the issues in detail, including the future status of the organisation and where staff will be located in order for them to be effective. Those issues, and the rights of the staff, must be considered in detail.

Where do we go next? I will focus briefly on two areas in which the minister can act now to support crofters: housing and agriculture. Housing grants are urgently needed to enable crofters to build new houses. Our discussions have been dominated by the debate on the market in crofts and the lack of sufficient rural housing for crofters and others who want to remain in our crofting areas. The issues are not easy. Sometimes the problem is the lack of land for development and sometimes it is finance.

A key issue that comes out loud and clear in the report is affordability. Rural wages are insufficient to cover the cost of building new houses and the cost of mortgages. The report is clear. It says:

"the Crofters Building Grants and Loans Scheme ... was the single most effective means of support for maintaining the population of crofting communities. The current Croft House Grant Scheme ... is pitched at too low a level to assist crofters".

That cannot be right. It must be acted on. We know from the Government's paper on housing that in rural areas, particularly the Highlands, house prices are rising rapidly and affordability is worsening. Some 96 per cent of those who were surveyed by the Crofters Commission last year said that young crofters are the most important aspect of a thriving crofting community, but 88 per cent said that housing is unaffordable for young people in crofting areas. We need urgent action to make rural crofts available, to let crofters build and to provide more land for crofters. I hope that the minister will consider the raft of recommendations on the matter. Labour highlights the proposal to enable crofters to obtain loans without having to decroft. The evidence shows that the lack of such an option is a huge pressure that leads to decrofting. I welcome the minister's clear support for the recommendation today, and I hope that he will take the matter forward swiftly.

Support is also urgently needed to guide crofters through the new rural development programme, which is overbureaucratic and lacks transparency. We fear that our most fragile rural areas will lose out unless ministers give clear signals now. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds puts the case for public benefit extremely well, and it is clear that NFU Scotland wants to engage in the debate too.

We must support active crofting and ensure that we have appropriate land management. We need to deliver environmental objectives and, crucially, support crofters' ability to manage their land. We also need support for infrastructure to support jobs in marts and slaughterhouses. The Crofters Commission, rightly, lobbied us on that in the past few months.

We believe that we need to refocus agricultural support. We agree with the recommendation that the Scottish Government should change the rural development programme now to bring that about. The report contains many detailed recommendations, but many can be acted on now, including the challenge to encourage new entrants. The report's recommendations focus on the need for new crofters so that existing crofters can retire with income and with dignity.

The report contains a fantastic vision of the future, but we need to look at the key things that can be done now. We must then debate the detailed recommendations on the future architecture for the support of crofting. The report contains many good recommendations, and we must take our time to get things right. Funding is crucial. We need to know that, whatever system we support, the Government will fund it fully so that the recommendations can be implemented. We need an inclusive approach that includes the Parliament and all the communities that made recommendations recently and during the previous session. I note the minister's willingness to have that inclusive discussion and I hope that it will happen.

We need, first, to consider the recommendations that can be acted on now and, secondly, to have detailed discussions on the major recommendations so that we get things right this time. We need to consolidate the legislation in order to bring our crofters together and ensure that they have a viable and sustainable future. We must support them in those objectives.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I, too, welcome Professor Shucksmith's report and the vindication that it contains of the Scottish Conservatives' position and views on the previous Government's Crofting Reform etc Bill, which was passed in January 2007. Regrettably, that bill failed to address many of the problems that face crofting in the 21 st century. Sarah Boyack generously recognised that in her thoughtful and positive speech.

Ted Brocklebank and the Environment and Rural Development Committee were rightly condemnatory of the Crofting Reform etc Bill. The report that we are discussing today should have been available to influence and drive the legislation in 2006 but, sadly, it was not. However, we are where we are. It has often been said that a croft is an island surrounded by a sea of legislation, and the more one looks into it, the more that becomes apparent. At the very least, simplification and rationalisation of the legislation are long overdue. Professor Shucksmith's report is a welcome precursor to that, although, like others, I have yet to fully absorb the report.

Many of the recommendations in the report are to be welcomed. In particular, the Scottish Conservatives welcome the determination to address the absenteeism and neglect that have sadly affected much crofting land in the past. To that end, we welcome the idea of the election of local crofting boards. If such boards can work together in a federation and be given powers to suspend the right to buy when that serves the best interests of the community, that will be progress. For example, good inby land should not be built on, especially as food security rises up the political agenda daily.

The transfer of powers from the Crofting Commission to HIE is a positive suggestion. I appreciate that not everyone in the chamber takes that view, but the idea is worthy of further consideration. I note the report's suggestion that the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme should be retained. I support that, and I know that the issue is dear to the heart of Norman Leask, who is in the gallery today. The suggestions to give extra support to young entrants and to support diversification through the CCAGS are measures for which I have long campaigned. My track record of support for CCAGS goes back to the early 1990s, when I was convener of NFU Scotland's hill farming committee.

I am less enthusiastic about moving towards an area basis for the single farm payment or reclassifying the less favoured area support scheme to introduce a mountain classification, but that is a Scotland-wide issue and is perhaps a debate for another day.

I do, however, want to consider carefully and positively the idea of reintroducing national envelopes and the possibility of reintroducing bull and ram hire schemes for crofting areas. That is essential if neglected land is to be returned to agricultural production. My colleague Jamie McGrigor will expand on that.

In the context of good agricultural practice, I welcome the suggestion that, if crofting land is sold, it must be retained in agricultural use. Our general thrust is that of following good agricultural practice and sustaining and enhancing the environment as we do so. The simplification of dispute resolution is another welcome recommendation. I wish whoever will be responsible for doing that more success than some of the grazings committees enjoyed in the past.

What is particularly positive about the debate is the fact that the Scottish Crofting Foundation has welcomed the report too—including the proposal to tie all croft houses to residency. The proposal to backdate a residency burden to 12 May 2008, which would tie a new owner to occupancy and working the land, is also to be welcomed.

The introduction of an enhanced croft house grant and loan scheme, which would allow for house building without the need to decroft, is very welcome too. It will help in encouraging population retention and migration into the crofting counties. Proposals to support the development of affordable housing are essential in sustaining fragile communities. Those proposals should be looked at in a positive light.

In the governance of crofting, it makes sense to separate the function of crofting regulation and enforcement from the function of crofting development. The maintenance of a register of crofts, to be administered by the Registers of Scotland, also seems to be a sensible idea.

However, I sound a cautionary note. There is a danger of too many cooks spoiling the broth if Highlands and Islands Enterprise is to be responsible for a new crofting and community development body, local crofting boards are to be tied into a federation of crofting boards, and grazings committees are to be transformed into crofting township development committees. I acknowledge the need for separation of functions from a governance point of view, but there is still a danger that all those proposed structures—all with their own ideas, input and secretariats—will make the situation just as complicated as it was before. The need for all those administrative functions has to be very well discussed before legislation is introduced.

Scottish Conservatives very much welcome this hugely comprehensive and solution-driven report. We have still to digest much of it, but it is obvious that it provides a springboard for the creation of new legislation. If the minister decides to introduce a bill, we hope that it will rationalise and simplify the various pieces of legislation that go back into the mists of time. I hope that one piece of legislation will be able to cope with the enormousness and complexity of such a task. If the minister decides to proceed on the basis of the report, Conservatives will work positively with the Government.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Shucksmith report, and we acknowledge the work that Ross Finnie, Sarah Boyack and Mike Russell have done to bring it to fruition. As a Liberal Democrat, I recognise that no election address is complete without a reference to Gladstone; many of us still get elected on that basis. We agree with Shucksmith's broad thrust, and we welcome the debate that the report continues. For many people this summer, the report will be a useful starting point for discussions over the farm gate and around the cattle pens and showgrounds. I associate myself and my party with the gratitude that has been expressed this morning to all involved. Across my constituency of Shetland, I plan to have a series of meetings with crofters on the recommendations of the committee of inquiry on crofting.

Mark Shucksmith and his colleagues finished their report after a year when the local, national and global issues affecting crofting have changed dramatically. The minister acknowledged that in his opening remarks. Food price inflation and food security are the talk not just of crofters but of the governor of the Bank of England. My starting point is therefore that reform must be about securing food production, cattle and sheep in the crofting counties. Livestock means families; families mean schools; and schools mean a future for the islands, glens and high hills of Scotland. Paragraph 1.5.9 of the report stresses food security, and I agree with what it says.

This Liberal Democrat wants the debate to be about the measures to support livestock production and enable crofters to get on with what they are best at—producing the quality stock that underpins agricultural trade and supply lines throughout the country. Yes, crofting is a way of life, income comes from many sources, and the environment plays a large part in the management of crofting land, but crofting, certainly in my community, is about production. It is about growing crops, filling the freezer and bringing quality livestock to market.

The minister said that crofting is in a perilous state. I have two suggestions for him, the first of which concerns the Scotland rural development programme. It is the fault of no minister, current or previous, but events of the past 12 months mean that the programme is now out of date. Paragraph 1.6.2 of the report recommends changes in the programme. I would advocate that the Government should go further, because there is no more important test for any Government than that it can react to global changes affecting local people.

Food security and food production have to be the cornerstone of crofting and agricultural policy. I ask the Government to make changing the SRDP an immediate priority. I will be happy to support and work with ministers if they commit to that course of action.

I come now to my second suggestion. Crofters have been calling for the reintroduction of the suckler cow premium and even the sheep annual premium. France has retained such support for cattle. Shucksmith argues for measures where there is market failure, but I would go further. The review of the common agricultural policy is under way, so now is the time to assist go-ahead crofters to invest in their cattle. Do we want to stop the remorseless loss of cattle and sheep from crofting areas? If the answer to that is yes—as it is for me—the Government needs to find ways of achieving that.

As we digest the full details of the report over the coming months—as Sarah Boyack and John Scott have rightly said that we should—we will have many questions. The report is stark in pointing to differing views on regulation; a simple way of putting it might be that the west wants more, but the north does not. As I am sure the minister would accept, no one-size-fits-all approach will work. That can be consistent with the recommendations for regulatory change, but we need to be clear that local decision making needs to avoid a system that pits one crofting neighbour against another. I certainly would not favour any regulatory approach that led to that.

I am unsure whether the recommendation to give HIE development functions is consistent with the devolution of decision making for crofting regulation. In paragraph 3.11.11, the report says:

"It is essential that this is additional to HIE's own resources, and not used to mask cuts in the resources allocated to HIE's normal business."

Indeed. The report speaks loudly on that point.

The recommendation to leave budgets with Government does not appear to be consistent with devolving responsibility. I note the committee's support for the rural stewardship scheme, and its even greater support for the environmentally sensitive areas scheme—a better scheme in my view—but SRDP budgets are the direct responsibility not of local decision makers but of ministers. Ministers will have to decide what their policy is. If they advocate devolved budgets and decision making, I will absolutely support them. However, there is a deal of work to be done in joining up all the dots.

The minister may wish to dwell on this final point. What can he do now? Ministerial powers to direct are clear—they have been in place for a considerable time—and recommendations on budgets can be taken forward in that way. As the minister considers the report and as he considers what he wants to bring back to Parliament, he must be clear on what can be done and on what really needs legislation. Parliament will want to scrutinise that. Sarah Boyack put those considerations in the context of the work of the committee.

My party and I will work with a Government that is determined to take crofting forward. Mr Russell should be in no doubt about that. However, my test is on the immediate issues that ministers can confront with all-party support and agreement—issues that can make a practical difference.

I will conclude with the wise words of a good friend of mine, Norman Leask, who is the former chairman of the Scottish Crofting Foundation. Norman's work has always been about the people, because without people in the community there would be nothing. As he says, crofters need

"affordable housing, decent jobs and fair treatment from governments in Edinburgh, London and Brussels. The report is a firm foundation for building all these requirements."

I agree.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We now move to the open debate.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

At the outset, I should make a brief declaration of interests. In my former life as an advocate, I acted in a number of crofting cases. If I have time, I will mention one of them.

One or two people have already said that crofting is more than just a unique form of land tenure: its very distinctiveness makes it a vital part of Scotland's cultural heritage. For that reason alone, no one would want it to disappear into history; for that reason alone, it is worth cherishing. It is ironic, given the scale of some of the problems that we now face—Tavish Scott mentioned some of them—that a very old form of tenure may turn out to be well adapted to the modern era.

I have quickly read through the Shucksmith report, and I thank the committee of inquiry on crofting for delivering a report that will help to mark out a new future for crofting in Scotland. The recommendations on a new form of governance are interesting, and almost mirror what has been happening in some parts of Scotland as a result of crofters collectively exercising their right to buy under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. It may be accidental, but it looks as if successful community buy-outs have helped to define a path that we can now follow. I wonder whether the minister will comment on that observation when he closes the debate.

Winding up the Crofters Commission may be controversial in some quarters, but the intention is to return control to more locally based groups. My one caveat is that I am not sure how that sits with the plan to vastly reduce the number of quangos. I am not sure whether each of the new crofting boards will be a quango, but the local democracy issue that is embedded in the proposals is interesting. Other parts of rural Scotland may begin to look with envy on that local democracy.

The governance section of the report mentions setting up a crofting and community development body, ideally within Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have no argument with that in theory, but it rather begs another question about the future: could crofting tenure be made available in a much bigger area of Scotland? The minister has initiated a consultation on proposals to extend crofting areas beyond the currently designated crofting counties, but it seems tied to the Highlands and Islands. Would there be some merit in making crofting tenure available even further afield? Why should not other parts of rural Scotland benefit from crofting tenure? Indeed, why should Perthshire be excluded? Tying the new development body too tightly to HIE would seem to preclude such an extension from the outset.

Crofting has a huge impact on two big areas of concern—housing and food production. I am pleased that the report acknowledges that absentee crofters have the same impact on the availability of local housing as any other second home owners. I am pleased that the report acknowledges that. Last week, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, of which I am convener, visited Kinloch Rannoch, Blair Atholl, Ballinluig and other places in northern Perthshire in furtherance of its inquiry into affordable rural housing. The issue of extending crofting tenancy areas was raised then, so my earlier comments may find some support in wider areas than people might immediately imagine. We met the managers of Atholl Estates, which by most standards is a well-run estate and does a great deal to help to create affordable local housing, but not all estates are as enlightened. It would be helpful to find ways of encouraging those other estates to become so. Extending crofting tenancy areas would greatly encourage that.

I am particularly interested in the impact of the right to buy on the availability of croft housing. The problem is that, too often, the right to buy is exercised by those who are not interested in working the croft. When it is swiftly followed by an application to decroft, it means that yet another house is lost, as is the use of the land.

I have to make a confession. There is a widely discussed judgment in crofting circles called the Kinlochewe judgment, in which a loophole was spotted in the crofting legislation and lawyers proceeded to push that door wide open. I was the advocate who argued in favour of the judgment, so I am partly responsible for the exploitation of the loophole. There is some irony now in my arguing for that loophole to be closed.

I echo Sarah Boyack's note of caution about legislating with time and care, because if we legislate and leave loopholes, lawyers will spot them and exploit them. However, I am heartened that the problem is recognised in the report, with the recommendation that the local crofting board should have the power to suspend a tenant's right to buy in certain circumstances. That is controversial, but it is important that we discuss it.

Crofting is germane to all debates that we have on food policy and food security, so it would be helpful to have some way of designating croft-produced food so that those of us who would seek it out and choose it have the opportunity to do so. On that point, I am particularly struck by how much crofting fits in with the cittaslow ideals, of which I am a great proponent, as is the minister. Cittaslow could have been designed to include crofting townships. I hope that in future it will.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Like other members, I pay tribute to all who worked on the Shucksmith report. It is well evidenced and argued, and it is easy to read and understand. The issues that the Shucksmith committee flags up are not surprising—the problems have been well rehearsed for some time—but finding solutions has always been challenging. While it is heartening that the report has been widely welcomed, many of the proposed solutions are complex, and more time to study them prior to the debate would have been appreciated. The minister needs to be clear that when he has considered the full implications of the report he will come back to Parliament to give his thoughts in another subject debate, and allow members to do the same.

Crofting is important. It has ensured the survival of many communities, and the future of many more is dependent on the action that we take. Some of the report's recommendations need legislation; others do not. Some elements of the report can be acted on quickly and are within the minister's gift.

I will concentrate my comments on the parts of the report that deal with housing, starting with what can be easily implemented. The croft house grant scheme can easily be replaced by the scheme outlined in the report. That would not need legislation. The report is clear that the current scheme is pitched too low. Those who use the scheme have difficulty in securing top-up finance to make it workable, which means that house sites are decrofted to provide security for mortgages from commercial lenders. Those who can afford to get finance for a house are able to proceed, while those who cannot do not get a house because the grant is insufficient.

The report states that the enhanced scheme would assist crofters to meet their housing needs without decrofting. The committee suggests a means-tested grant scheme, topped up by a loan. Those who did not meet the requirement for the means-tested grant would still be able to access the loan element. That loan would be sufficient to meet the costs of building or renovating a property. The report suggest that under the scheme, 200 more houses could be built and renovated, which would have a huge impact on the housing shortages in the Highlands and Islands. No legislation is required to implement the recommendation—that could be done now.

The report acknowledges the problems of croft houses becoming second and holiday homes, and makes an interesting suggestion that all croft houses should have occupancy burdens attached to them. It proposes two types of burden: first, an "enhanced burden", in which the house and the croft still form part of the same unit, which would ensure that the owner had to occupy the house and work the land; and a second burden, when the house is decrofted, termed a "real burden" of occupancy.

I am keen to hear the minister's comments on those burdens. Do they fit with the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Act 2000 or would the act have to be amended? How would a real burden and an enhanced burden be transferred between properties where there is a second house on the croft? In section 3.8.3, the report touches on the circumstances in which a second house could be built. The approach is pragmatic, and would allow the croft to be passed down through generations. Allowing a second home to be built enables a crofter to pass on the croft to family or an assignee without having to leave their family home. However, more thought needs to go into the recommendation, taking into account the burdens placed on both homes. Would the burden to work the land pass to the new house? When would it transfer? What would happen to the original home when the occupant died or wished to move to suitable accommodation? Consideration should be given to situations in which a crofter wishes to retire and assign the croft but remain in their own home.

The report recommends backdating those burdens to stop a rush to decroft. The minister has indicated that if he accepts the report and the burdens, he will also accept the recommendation to backdate. Will the minister put in place arrangements to protect people who cannot proceed with house sales because he has indicated that there may be backdated burdens? Backdating burdens would mean people being unable to give clear title. Until he legislates, they will be unable to pass on the true implications of the burdens. Some people will face losses. Will he underwrite those losses? Will there be a cut-off date that affects those who have not started the process in any form? It is often late in the process of selling a croft house before it is discovered that the land has not been decrofted, because a lot of people confuse buying a feu with decrofting. What action will the minister take to assist those who are caught up in the change? People will be selling crofts and croft houses, and may be in the process of decrofting them now. What can be done to protect them? The change could lead to financial hardship or ruin, for instance for people who have bought another property or have already moved but who are prohibited from selling because of the burdens. That situation is affecting people as we speak, and the minister needs to take steps to deal with it now.

I welcome the minister's indication that he will accept a register of crofts. That is a step in the right direction and will help people to get finance to grow their business and renovate or build houses. I also welcome his extending the crofting counties.

I have raised genuine questions that are intended to be helpful, but we need to find solutions. I look forward to the opportunity to debate them in more detail, possibly when there is more clarity on some of the issues.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Today's debate marks an important moment for a sector whose success is crucial to the economic and social wellbeing of large parts of my region, the Highlands and Islands. Crofting knits together the socioeconomic fabric of many communities, links town with country, and unites purpose.

Like others, I put on record my thanks to Professor Shucksmith and his eminent team for their comprehensive report, which contains many positive ideas. I was pleased to take part in one of the stakeholder discussion sessions in Argyll last summer. I found it useful, and I am encouraged by the numbers of people who took the opportunity to have a say in the future of crofting.

The previous Executive announced the committee of inquiry in 2006, but it remains my strong view that we should have had the inquiry and its report before we dealt with the Crofting Reform etc Act 2007. Had that been the case, we might have had better legislation. It is notable and, sadly, not surprising that despite all the parliamentary time that was spent on the 2007 act, the report concludes that

"new legislation is needed to replace, simplify and clarify the accumulated laws which set the framework for crofting today."

That said, we need to move on, and perhaps implement many of the report's suggestions, which have been formed from the practical experience of crofters and are crucial to the future viability of crofting.

I agree with the report that access to affordable housing is essential for population retention in crofting communities. The crofters building grants and loans scheme was a genuine success story, and ministers need to answer the question in section 3.7.2 of the report:

"if the CBGLS was so effective in population retention why was it replaced with a much less generous scheme?"

We look to ministers to deliver, without delay, the new enhanced scheme that is recommended. That is one of the most important issues for crofting people.

Ministers will be aware that I have repeatedly stated the importance of the bull hire scheme. Its importance is highlighted in the report. Can ministers assure me that they will continue with an effective version of the scheme, possibly using extended national reserve provisions, as is suggested? I have already instigated one members' business debate on the issue, which was comprehensive. Surely we do not need to have another one on the same subject. The bull hire scheme promotes quality cattle, which, in turn, promote better prices for crofters.

Scottish Conservatives share whole-heartedly the report's strong focus on the importance of getting young people into crofting. The report is right to argue that measures to assist new entrants should be emphasised in allocating future funding. I am interested to hear what the minister thinks about the suggestion that, in future, new crofters might be able to access single farm payments through the national reserve provisions—which, incidentally, Scotland's deer farmers are also campaigning for. Regrettably, I do not think that there is much in the kitty. Can the minister confirm how much is in the national reserve? I think that it is a pretty paltry figure.

On the subject of agricultural support payments, I was impressed to see that the report suggests that future options for crofters within the Scottish rural development programme should be

"easy to access (not web based nor restricted to electronic applications)".

That is clearly embarrassing to ministers, who currently are forcing crofters and farmers to apply online for support under the SRDP, which is angering many of my constituents, especially, I am told, because the rural priorities scheme is intensely complicated. Many farmers I know are just beginning to use mobile phones—many have yet to try, let alone own, a computer. Ministers should reconsider the matter in light of the common sense contained in the report. Why should a farmer or crofter who is not skilled in information technology, but very skilled in what he does, not be allowed to make a paper application? Does the Google and Yahoo! mentality rule everything nowadays?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Given the complexity of some of the schemes, it would be impossible to use paper applications. The member is overstating the representations that have been received and the level of complication that is involved. We are helping people. He should calm down a little bit.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In that case, I suggest that the minister make the applications less complex.

I am worried by rumours of a black market in crofting reassignments, which can lead to developers, rather than good crofters, taking over crofts. Crofting land is special land. If it is made just like any other land, crofting will disappear, and the considerable benefits of a tried system will be lost.

I am encouraged by a great deal of what the Shucksmith report contains. The Scottish Conservatives want Government to act as an enabler to allow crofting to flourish and to help sustain some of the most marginal communities in Europe. Crofters are facing short-term problems—not least the horrific cost of fuel, which is hitting them particularly hard—long-term challenges and extremely low prices. As Norman Leask, the former chairman of the Scottish Crofting Foundation said:

"In 1886, people needed crofting. Today, crofting needs crofters."

With the correct implementation of the Shucksmith report, especially those recommendations relating to housing and jobs, I believe that crofting will be secured for generations to come. We look forward to the minister responding constructively to the report.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome this debate, bearing, as I do, many scars from debates on the subject in the Environment and Rural Development Committee, and because I am, as I state in my entry in the register of members' interests, a member of the Scottish Crofting Foundation.

The Shucksmith report has offered crofting the keys for a sustainable system of small landholding in the 21st century. It is the best report that has been written about crofting that I have ever seen—and I have read them all. It is obvious that we have now found a good reason to say that crofting is an essential part of the future of the Highlands and Islands.

However, I take on board my colleague Roseanna Cunningham's remarks that many other parts of Scotland could benefit from the proposals.

Highlands and Islands Enterprise has examined figures from around Scotland to determine the balance between young people and older people, and has concluded that, if the economy in the Highlands and Islands were balanced, there would be 22,500 more young people between the ages of 16 and 29 in the region. The same can be said of many parts of Scotland, such as Galloway, Perthshire and Aberdeenshire. If crofting is one way in which people can be provided with a home and a means to sustain themselves, it might be a key to reversing that terrible trend. Of course young people want to go to the cities, but they also want to come back. However, they will not be able to come back unless they have a guaranteed home to come to.

In case anyone is confused by remarks that were printed in my name in Monday's Scotsman, I should say that I am delighted about the proposal to scrap the Crofters Commission. That is the first step towards the creation of a real local democracy that will involve people taking decisions at a local level in elected crofting boards.

In adult countries such as Norway, people constantly use local democratic structures to take decisions that affect their neighbours. I am delighted that we are at last moving in that direction. Indeed, if John Farquhar Munro were here, I would compliment him on his earlier proposal to set up an elected crofting commission, which I and the rest of the SNP supported. The proposal that we are discussing today goes even further in that direction, and puts in place elected power over planning in the crofting areas.

Part of that planning will be involved with ensuring the retention of inby land by stopping its erosion for house building. There are two important aspects to that work. First, it must dovetail in a way that ensures that planning in all of the crofting areas supports the retention of inby land. Too many local plans identify inby land for house building, which has got to stop. The elected crofting boards will have a strong voice in seeking to change planning law.

Secondly, the work must ensure the end of the reduction in the numbers of cattle and sheep in crofting areas. There was a 5 per cent drop in the number of breeding ewes last year and a 3 per cent drop in the number of breeding beef cattle. There is a world food shortage, but that breeding reduction is happening in places in which the job of providing food can be done best.

On the day that we are talking about the Shucksmith committee trying to find ways to increase agricultural production, it is worrying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in London is suggesting an end to the European Union common agricultural policy, in order to import much more cheap food from abroad. Trying to increase agricultural production while importing food cannot sit together. It is essential that we support home production, and crofting gives us the means to do that.

Creating township development committees to replace grazings committees would engage all residents in planning developments and would not impede innovation, as has happened so often in the grazings committees that I have dealt with for certain cases. Township development committees will have a liberating effect. However, as well as doing something about the grazings committees, we must ask what we will do about crofting landlords. The minister is one of the biggest ones. Not only that, he has a lot of land that should be in the hands of local people. We must find ways to encourage local people to take control of that land. If the Shucksmith process discusses the idea of elected local boards, I hope that some of that will rub off on the tenants of the public estates.

The role of the private landlord now comes into focus. My colleague Roseanna Cunningham mentioned the Kinlochewe judgment, which was correct in its day, because otherwise landlords would have had half the development interests on decrofted sites. The judgment provided a backstop for the Assynt crofters in those days, if they needed to file to take over their crofts. It was of its time and was a loophole in the law, but it can be changed now with the certainty that the new crofting law will enable people to stay on croft land in perpetuity while ensuring that they should be resident there to do so.

We must ensure that the agricultural support system for crofting provides flat-rate payments for particular areas—which the NFUS disagrees with—has a mountainous category and takes into account a remote island category as well. We should argue for pillars 1 and 2 to be modified so that they can adapt to such approaches.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No, not at the moment. I do not have time, because I am just finishing.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

If the member wishes, I can be helpful. Time is on his side.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Then please do.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I wonder whether the crofters on the islands that do not qualify for road equivalent tariff would get better payments than the ones who do qualify for RET.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I think the answer is that there will be the RET pilot and we will see what happens. However, the point is that transport, planning, European policy and many other matters affect how crofters live, and the Shucksmith report is important because of how it has reflected those aspects. The Government should welcome the report. I welcome it very much, and regard it as key to crofting in the future. I also regard crofting as key to retaining people in our Highlands and Islands.

I thank the Presiding Officer for the extra few seconds.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Like others, I not only welcome the debate but think that there is an awful lot more in this complex and well-written report that I must take time to digest. Crofting, as others have said, has served the Highlands and Islands extraordinarily well over the past 100 years and more. It has kept people in some of the most remote communities and is part of the social fabric of those communities. It has produced high-quality food in the way that Tavish Scott described, and it should continue to do so. It has maintained the environment in a way that is hugely valuable to modern society. I want to ensure that crofting is just as strong for future generations for the same reasons that it has been strong in the past.

The Shucksmith report has a great deal to commend it, and it is clear that the committee of inquiry listened to the crofting communities. The report has excellent analyses and many good ideas. Like previous commissions—Mike Russell referred to the Napier and Taylor commissions—the Shucksmith committee has provided an excellent statement about the condition of crofting and the challenges that it faces. Sarah Boyack can take pride in having commissioned the report and appointed the people who sat on the committee. The report demonstrates clearly that further change is sought by crofting communities and that such change is necessary. It will follow on from changes that have taken place down the generations. The history of the crofting system shows that it has constantly evolved.

The emphasis in the report is on support for the system of crofting. I stress that it is a system of crofting because Shucksmith is clear that it is, indeed, a system. The report concludes that the governance of the system requires significant change, stressing the themes of local empowerment, greater devolution of authority and an element of greater democratic accountability. The report sets those out as clear principles.

My colleagues have focused on various areas of the report, but I want to focus on governance. As the minister said—sadly, he has left his place for a few moments, but that is what comes with being a man of that age, and I am sure that he will be back shortly—the devil is in the detail of the report.

There are three core proposals for governance: a federation of local crofting boards; the local boards themselves; and an enhanced role for the grazings committees, which Rob Gibson emphasised and which I will start with.

The ideas on grazings committees are interesting indeed and have considerable merit. I have believed for some time that issues that have affected crofting communities in the recent past around the use of land in townships, to which Rob Gibson alluded, are critical for the future of the townships. There has not been enough engagement of communities in helping to define local plans for their townships, which affect councils' local plans and are therefore carried into the ambit of planning law. What Shucksmith proposes could considerably strengthen the hand of local communities and consequently help the local planning process and future decision making. I suspect that that could be achieved under existing powers and that it would not require new legislation.

If the Government accepts that concept and the role of grazings committees, it must respond by setting out its view of how the proposed arrangements would work. Given the important new role of the grazings committees, the election process would have to be robust and fair. The Government would have to set out how the interests outwith crofting that Shucksmith envisages being involved would actually be involved.

Turning to local boards and the federation of boards, Shucksmith makes clear his desire for having much more local decision making as part of the governance structure, and greater—but, interestingly, not complete—democratic accountability. That significant change could introduce a new dynamic into crofting. If the Government favours that approach, its response to the report must give considerable detail about its view of how that might proceed. That is vital to ensuring that crofters can fully consider the implications.

I will illustrate some of the issues. First, it would be unusual in our society to elect regulators; indeed, I think to do so would be unprecedented. That would not make it wrong, but we must think about the implications. As someone who has steered 15 acts through Parliament, I can see, as I am sure the minister can, that complex questions arise from the report about the exact relationship—I stress the word "exact"—between the boards, the federation and the Scottish Land Court. It is clear that Shucksmith's intention is that considerable autonomy should go to the local board level. The term "federation" implies a joining of broadly autonomous bodies and a sharing of certain services. However, the proposals refer to the federation as a "single organisation" of local boards. What will be the legal entity? Will it be the federation or the local boards, or, indeed, both? That material question must be addressed.

At one level, the Shucksmith report implies that the local board will be the legal entity because it refers to appeals to the Scottish Land Court arising from decisions of the local board. However, the report also talks of the federation being one body that is responsible for regulation that is devolved to boards, with guidance from the chief executive of the federation. It is important to clarify all that precisely. Would Scottish Land Court decisions that set legal precedent apply equally to all boards? I suspect that they would. However, if not, would we have seven to 10 crofting systems in Scotland after a few years, rather than the system of crofting that Shucksmith seeks? What would be the implications of that for all crofting policy? If the Scottish Land Court decisions applied to all boards, how much autonomy from regulation would the local boards have over time? Would autonomy be more illusory than real? In any event, what is the scope for significant local autonomy if there is a single system of crofting, a single body of law and a body of regulation?

I am not saying that the issues are insurmountable, but they clearly require clarity from the Government to allow crofters to think through the implications. I wonder whether, as alluded to by Roseanna Cunningham and the minister, the proposals meet the Government's own test of simplification under the public sector reform agenda. If it is right to have 12 more quangos, the minister should not worry about creating them. However, the Government's policy means that tests need to be applied.

The proposed boards would be powerful, with new powers to balance community interests against individual rights and interests. That would rub against the European convention on human rights. The ECHR, for all its sophistication, is far less sophisticated than crofting. It tends not to recognise the community interest in crofting and instead protects individual human rights. However, it is law in this country. If there was a single body of law but local decision making specifically to allow variation at local level, the ECHR would add real complexity. The Government will need to be clear that it can meet all Shucksmith's desired objectives—which many members share—and deal with Scottish Land Court decisions and the ECHR, all at the same time. That is a colossal task, and I think from the minister's earlier remarks that he understands that.

I will move quickly on to the question of empowerment. It is not clear to me why, if we are to empower communities, we do not pass down the development function to them. That would be real empowerment, beyond what regulation might mean. I hope that the minister will consider that.

The report presents ministers with both huge opportunities and huge challenges. I hope that they will consider what they can do quickly without the need for changes in law—they can do a great deal. We can then consider legislative proposals in detail. There is much to commend in the report, including a great emphasis on greater empowerment. We can move in that direction, but there is significant complexity to deal with on the way.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

I declare an interest, although not a financial one, in that I am an associate member of both Storas Uibhist and Harris Development Ltd.

Anyone who, like me, attended the launch on Monday in Stornoway of Professor Shucksmith's report into crofting cannot fail to have been impressed by both the breadth of the committee's research and its willingness to offer us radical solutions. More than anything else, they will have been impressed by the warmth of the welcome that the report received from crofting organisations and several individual crofters whom the minister and I visited after the event.

It is important to emphasise, as other members have, why crofting matters. In case anyone in Parliament is wondering, perhaps understandably, why crofting needs to be so regulated, it is no exaggeration to say that if crofting were not regulated, it would probably not now exist. Indeed, had the crofting acts from 1886 onwards not been passed, it is seriously questionable whether constituencies such as mine would now have any viable populations at all.

Is crofting still necessary? Does it demand our attention and our parliamentary time? The answer to both those questions is definitely yes. As Mark Shucksmith emphasises, although crofting is in a fairly fragile—let us be honest, precarious—position at present, its continued existence in some form is essential. It is essential if we are to maintain any population working on the land in the Highlands and Islands, if we are to maintain Gaelic-speaking communities and if we are to promote the social and economic development of rural Scotland.

There are undoubted environmental benefits to crofting as well. To take one example, the unique landscape of the Uists and the varied bird life that it sustains would not exist if it was not grazed and unless hay was made there in something like the traditional way. The minister will be waiting for me to make my customary plea for the greylag goose population in Uist to be controlled to achieve those ends. I hope that I have not disappointed him.

Many have used the word "radical" to describe the report—and justifiably so. In recommending the abolition of the Crofters Commission the report recognises that crofters want and need a much greater sense of ownership over the structures that regulate their way of life. I hope that we will take the opportunity to introduce a much-needed element of democracy into the process. As others have said, the separation of regulation from the development functions will be useful in that respect. The strengthening of common grazings committees will also be welcomed in the crofting community.

Perhaps the most immediate impact would come from the implementation of the recommendation that the rights given to individuals in the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886 should extend only to those living reasonably locally and using the land beneficially. That recommendation has the potential to go a long way towards tackling multiple problems. If we do it right and implement the recommendation sympathetically, we could cut back on the number of derelict or unworked crofts, making things easier for new entrants, and we could end the speculation in croft land for house building.

Shucksmith's proposals to enhance the croft house grant scheme and to permit house building by crofters without the need to decroft are extremely useful. Those proposals will be appreciated, not least in areas where there is on-going friction between the need to provide houses—affordable ones, I hope—and the temptation to build on the most viable crofting land. I hope that communities will seek imaginative ways out of that tension by promoting building, where possible, on common grazings rather than croft land.

Above all else, Professor Shucksmith is to be congratulated on seeking to bring some simplicity to a massively complicated area of Scots law. It is an area so complicated that only a handful of lawyers in private practice now specialise enough to know their way through it entirely. The old adage that a croft is a small piece of land surrounded by legislation is quoted to death, but it is nonetheless true. A century and more of laws have been allowed to build up like the layers of paint on the Forth rail bridge. Add to that the byzantine complexities of European Union agricultural regulation and throw in a few bits of ancient Norse law, and we have a massive disincentive for any potential new crofter.

I hope that we will be bold enough, however we legislate, to simplify rather than complicate as we respond as a Parliament to the report. Elements of important detail will certainly give rise to debates.

For instance, the future of the Government's bull hire scheme, which others have mentioned, continues to concern many in my constituency, and there are genuine questions about the viability and availability of commercial alternatives in many areas.

It is also important that we avoid further cluttering our—at first sight—uncluttered Highland landscape. That will mean entering into genuine discussions to ensure that any new structures do not duplicate the functions of community landlords, many of which rightly see development as a key part of their role. There is also the issue of community land buyouts. In the past, buyouts involving private landlords perhaps proved simpler than buyouts involving the man who was recently described as the biggest landlord in Scotland—the minister. I do not think I am testing parliamentary privilege to the utmost if I mention that one landlord who was rightly bought out in a community land buyout is now languishing in an Australian jail for a serious crime. It would appear that greater complications are involved in buying out Mike Russell—I hope that the representatives from the west side of Harris who are here today and who will meet the minister will be able to make progress on that.

The crofting community is clearly enthused by what it has heard from Professor Shucksmith. The Parliament has passed far-sighted legislation on crofting and land reform in the past and, as one or two members have mentioned, it has also wisely avoided bad legislation. Crofters are clearly looking to us as a Parliament to respond, as legislation is undoubtedly now required. I hope that the ideas in the Shucksmith report, which was commissioned by the previous Executive but presented to the new Government, can command cross-party support. Crofters certainly deserve that.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

A lot of people are very happy with the proposals, which are a breath of fresh air compared with the abandoned proposals of 2006, but I think that we need to go back 18 months, to the establishment of the Shucksmith committee of inquiry in September 2006, to understand where we are now.

The inquiry came about because of the rejection of proposals for a free-for-all in the sale of croft land. As members will know, the main advantage of crofting tenure is that it provides security of tenure. There was a time when landlords could easily get rid of tenants, who could be summarily evicted, but that all changed with the 1886 act. The act allowed landlords to remain landlords and collect rent, but it gave crofters security of tenure and meant that crofters could pass their crofts on to their children in perpetuity. That approach had the advantage of allowing crofters to develop land safe in the knowledge that they and their descendants would reap the benefits. Such an approach is all the more important nowadays, when we need to encourage people to stay on and work the land. The free-for-all that was proposed in the Crofting Reform etc Bill would have changed all that and killed crofting stone dead in a generation.

To explain further the situation that led to the formation of the Shucksmith committee, I can do no better than quote the West Highland Free Press, which is not a Scottish National Party broadsheet and not a paper that contains opinions with which I usually agree, although I have done so more often recently—I think that it is mellowing. On 29 September 2006, the paper's editorial stated:

"The formal surrender by the Scottish Executive over the Crofting reform Bill was both welcome and inevitable. Indeed, it is to the credit of more senior Ministers than those responsible for the Bill that the terms of the retreat were so comprehensive.

It is our understanding that the Ministers who had created the mess by persisting with the legislation's core aspects in the face of all reasonable advice—Ross Finnie and Rhona Brankin—continued until the last ditch to argue for their preservation. This merely strengthens the argument for them having nothing further to do with the issues at stake since they are simply not to be trusted."

It is not surprising that neither Ross Finnie nor Rhona Brankin is here today.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Perhaps the process that the member has outlined shows the strength of the Parliament and its committees, when members can take decisions that are against the wishes of their own Government. We look forward to SNP members doing more of that in the years to come.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Surely the member can let me have a little bit of fun with the West Highland Free Press and the Labour Party.

It has taken just 18 months for the Shucksmith committee to report, and it has come up with radical proposals, which I welcome. Chief among those are the proposals to abolish the Crofters Commission, which would be replaced by locally elected bodies, and to simplify the legislation.

I want to highlight an issue that Shucksmith identified as a major concern for crofting communities and a root cause of their current difficulties: the availability, or lack of it, of affordable housing in crofting areas. Several members have already mentioned that issue, and it looks like we might get cross-party support in dealing with it. The housing problem is highlighted by the estimate that has been made that property prices in crofting communities increased by up to 85 per cent between 2001 and 2005—a period of just four years. That increase is much higher than increases in the rest of the country. Some 88 per cent of people who were surveyed for the report regarded housing in their area as unaffordable.

The report seeks to address that fundamental problem, primarily by enhancing the croft house grant scheme to create a new croft house grant and loan scheme. That approach appears eminently sensible, as the minister acknowledged. The proposed croft house grant and loan scheme would be made up of a combination of a means-tested grant of up to £30,000—up from the current maximum of £22,000—and the reintroduction of non-means-tested loans at commercial rates that would be guaranteed by the Scottish Government or in some other way. Crucially, such a move is designed to permit house building without decrofting, as the enhanced croft house grant and loan scheme should not be available to those who decroft. The aim is to allow houses to be built or renovated without land being removed from crofting.

The report highlights the lack of logic in the current croft house grant scheme, which is pitched at too low a level to assist crofters, unless they decroft. That defeats the purpose of assisting crofters to build houses, as they have to cease being crofters to be eligible. As Jamie McGrigor said, the previous crofters building grants and loans scheme was regarded as one of the cornerstones of crofting support; indeed, an evaluation by DTZ Pieda Consulting in 1994 concluded that without the scheme, there would have been a substantial fall in crofting numbers. One must therefore wonder why it was subsequently replaced by an inferior scheme that has had a much poorer take-up. Let us hope that that was done for financial reasons. If so, it succeeded, because the croft house grant scheme now costs £800,000 net annually, compared with the initial budget of £3.6 million, which has recently been reduced to £2.6 million because of a lack of take-up.

However, that is history. We must get behind the Shucksmith report and help to create a greener, fairer, smarter, safer, stronger, healthier and wealthier future for our crofting communities.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We now come to the winding-up speeches.

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

In the short time since the Shucksmith report was published, it is clear that it has been positively received in the crofting counties. There is much to be greatly welcomed in it; it bears all the hallmarks of being a workmanlike attempt to understand the complexities of crofting. I should, as I think every member has done, give credit to Professor Shucksmith and his team for the report. I think that it will go down in history as an important report on which we can build the future of crofting.

I want to comment briefly on some of the speeches that have been made—doing so is in the nature of winding-up speeches—and to consider my constituency in relation to the report.

The Minister for Environment, Mike Russell, set the scene. Sarah Boyack asked what can be done now with current ministerial powers, without having to wait over the summer, and John Scott talked about housing, which is important. There has been much mention of the fact that good inby land should not be built on unless absolutely necessary.

Rob Gibson made an interesting point about planning. I ask the minister at least to consider over the summer whether township development committees might be statutory planning consultees in the way that community councils are. That might bolt them on to the planning process in a way that has never been done before. Perhaps they could replace some other statutory consultee. I do not know whether that could happen, but the minister could consider the matter.

Peter Peacock made the hugely important point that defining exactly the relationships and how things will work under the Scottish Land Court is incredibly important. Things must be got completely right, otherwise we will end up with the kind of loopholes that Roseanna Cunningham mentioned—or worse.

My colleague Tavish Scott rightly talked about food price inflation. Paragraph 1.5.9 of the report deals with food security. Tavish Scott and Peter Peacock made the point that it would be best if the development function could be devolved as far down as possible, although money would have to be attached to that process. When the development function is devolved down to the lowest level, that results in people having genuine local control, but it also means that people who operate the system can bolt on more money from other sources. We can see how communities can do that. That is an important point.

I welcome the report and admire its breadth and fluency, but must necessarily, as a constituency representative, consider it in the light of issues in my constituency. I would like to touch briefly on some of those issues in the time that is available to me. During the weeks and months ahead, I will weigh the report against constituency issues and discuss concerns with crofters.

In the north-eastern part of Sutherland there is a vibrant crofting township in Strath Halladale, which is associated with Dounreay. As Dounreay, which fundamentally underpins the crofting way of life in the area, runs down, replacement employment is a huge issue. That is an example of where crofting crosses the border into the territory of another ministerial portfolio. There is connectivity.

I am sure that every member who represents a crofting county will have come across the inevitable squabbles in grazings committees over where money has gone or whether an approach was right or wrong. If something replaces grazings committees, transparency and accountability—financial accountability in particular—will be of great importance, because it is best that all people in crofting townships have absolute confidence in what is happening. We know that there have been question marks in the past, but it would not be right to go into detail about them now.

I turn to the comments of John Farquhar Munro, who is not here today. I have a copy of his proposed speech, which I will circulate to members later. He would have said a great deal about the fact that he does not agree with the idea of scrapping the Crofters Commission. He is entitled to his opinion. Over the summer, we must have a discussion about whether the commission or its proposed replacement is the best way forward. The Shucksmith report has been honest enough to come up with a concrete proposal, but the jury is out on that one.

John Farquhar Munro, others members and I had trouble with the Crofting Reform etc Bill over the prevalence of raw market forces in the sale of crofts. I said at the time that that was a dagger pointed straight at the heart of crofting. The report goes some way towards addressing the housing issue. However, I have read it several times and it is not absolutely clear to me how those raw market forces will be curbed by what Professor Shucksmith proposes. If we do not curb them, local young people will not be able to afford to get into housing or into crofting, although it is hugely important that they do. That is one issue against which we must weigh the recommendations of the report.

The crofters in Rogart in Sutherland have received a letter from the land agent telling them that they must vacate some 91 acres, the let for which they were given by the Duke of Sutherland in 1886. That is not crofting land, but the duke, out of his goodness, gave it to them. At the stroke of a pen, the crofters have been told that they must get out and get their cattle off the land. That will undermine their crofting. As we consider the Shucksmith report, we must also consider the relevance of bits of land that are not under crofting tenure but which are still vital to crofters' operations. I will give the papers that I have on the matter to the minister later. It is scandalous that that is happening in this day and age. I did not think that I would see it in the 21st century.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We have had a useful debate, following the publication on Monday of the Shucksmith report on crofting, which was commissioned by the previous Executive in September 2006 after brutal criticism of the bill that was introduced by Ross Finnie in that year. The report was eagerly awaited and is very welcome. However, given the complexities of the issues that it addresses, I would have liked rather more than three days to absorb its contents before debating it in the chamber. Several members have made that point. Thankfully, no decisions on the report's recommendations will be made today, and before the Government decides where it wants to go with crofting we should have ample time to give detailed consideration to a comprehensive report that appears to have the backing of the majority of people who live in the crofting communities.

The Crofting Reform etc Bill, which was passed by the Parliament in January last year, was very different from what was introduced by the Scottish Executive in March 2006, but it was less than radical and it did not deal adequately with the deep-seated problems surrounding crofting, the most notable of which was probably the sale of crofting land. As most members have said, Professor Shucksmith and his colleagues are to be commended for taking on board the concerns of all the stakeholders in the crofting communities in producing the radical proposals that are contained in the report. It is up to the Government to decide whether it, too, will listen to the crofting communities and follow through with the report's recommendations. It is unfortunate that the previous Executive did not engage effectively with those communities and other interests before proceeding to legislation. However, we now—at last—have a vision for crofting, which had not been developed when the flawed bill was introduced.

Various aspects of the report have been commented on by members across the chamber. I will not mention them in detail, but I think that they have given weight to what the minister said when he was presented with the report on Monday and what he emphasised again today. He said—I think that I am quoting him more or less accurately—that rural communities must be supported and developed as a priority; that crofting makes a unique and significant contribution to remote and rural areas; that it delivers environmental benefits and has a pivotal role in the cultural landscape of the Highlands and Islands, which is famous worldwide; that it does not exist in global isolation; and that it must be capable of offering a viable and fulfilling way of life for future generations. We agree with those comments by the minister and, by and large, we agree with the report's recommendations, although we must give careful consideration to the detail of them.

We think that it is right that no change should be made to the rights that were given to individual crofters in the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886—security of tenure, fair rents and the value of their improvements, as the minister said earlier. We also agree that those rights should be enjoyed only by those who have a commitment to crofting and who live on or near their croft, using the land beneficially as the report suggests. We agree with the proposal that croft houses should be tied to residency and we will, therefore, give serious consideration to the suggestion that the 1,700-plus absentee crofters who are scattered throughout the world should be made to forfeit the rights that were handed down to them by the original act. To prevent a rush to avoid the provisions of any forthcoming legislation, we support the suggestion that the introduction of a real burden to all assignations and purchases be backdated to the date of the report's publication—12 May this year.

Simplification of the accumulated legislation governing crofting is long overdue, and Shucksmith's proposals provide the opportunity to bring that about. It seems sensible to split the regulatory and enforcement role of the Crofters Commission from the development side of crofting, so we accept that careful consideration should be given to the possible replacement of the commission with the proposed federation of crofting boards, whose component local crofting boards would have the power to suspend the right to buy if that appeared to be in the wider interests of the community. That would help to overcome the undoubted abuse of the legitimate right to buy in crofting areas, which was the main reason why the Scottish Conservatives opposed the extension of crofting outwith the original crofting counties unless the right to buy was suspended in those areas. The proposal to give responsibility for the development side of crofting to a new crofting and community development body within Highlands and Islands Enterprise is interesting and could be a sensible way forward. It is certainly worth considering.

We welcome measures that will encourage new entrants to crofting and discourage decrofting. In the interests of some of the most beautiful and best-loved parts of Scotland's landscape, it is vital to support local communities and encourage them to develop but also to continue with the activities that, over many years, have sustained a way of life that has preserved some of our environmental treasures, which would otherwise be at serious risk.

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

The member mentioned the proposed role of Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Does she share my concern that, while HIE has a reduced budget, we should think carefully about that proposal?

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We need to consider the matter carefully before any decisions are made.

I speak more from what I have read than from the personal experience and detailed knowledge of members from the Highlands and Islands; nevertheless, I know that crofting is extremely important for significant parts of remote and rural Scotland. It must be put on a sustainable footing, and I think that the Shucksmith report points the way forward to securing its future. I look forward to the Government's detailed response to the report, in due course, and I hope that ministers will bite the bullet on behalf of the crofting communities and follow through with the report's recommendations, producing appropriate legislation to secure the sustainability of crofting in Scotland for many years to come.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

The debate has been interesting. There is a general consensus that the report is to be welcomed but that more time needs to be given to consideration of the full impact of its recommendations. If the process for the Crofting Reform etc Bill taught us anything, it taught us about the complexity of the issue and how one area of policy can have a huge impact on others that are interlinked. We need to think through each of the proposed policies and their unintended consequences. Labour's main objective when the process is finally concluded is to secure crofting as a thriving industry that contributes strongly to the economies of the traditional crofting communities and to those of the new areas that the minister outlined today.

I will focus on the land and environmental issues that are identified in the report. In that area, more than in others, there is scope for quick action by the Government if the will for that exists. The report identifies the impact that various agricultural and environmental support and funding schemes have had on crofting. The relationship with the land lies at the very heart of crofting, and the crofting community has shown that effective stewardship of the land involves far more than simply agricultural activity. The report concludes that, on average, crofters generate only about 20 per cent of their net income from agriculture; however, working the land is at the heart of what it means to be a crofter.

Without doubt, agricultural practices and land use in crofting areas have changed and will continue to change. In that regard, the report makes for stark reading, as the significant trends show a shift away from cropped land. The report states:

"on holdings of less than 30 hectares in the crofting counties, the cropped area of land fell by 49%. The area of oats fell by 83%; potatoes by 79% ...

In the HIE area, the number of ewes dropped by 18% ... between 2001 and 2006, representing 86% of the decline in overall Scottish ewe numbers and indicating a significant regional factor."

That drop in ewe numbers accelerated by a further 6 per cent in 2006-07. The report expresses concern that, with the increasing number of crofters working full time off croft, changes to sheep management might lead to overgrazing in some parts and undergrazing in other parts, which could have obvious detrimental environmental impacts.

It is imperative, therefore, that we consider how agricultural and environmental support might be used to better effect. Labour members believe that the common agricultural policy health check offers an opportunity to do just that by revisiting how public funding to agriculture is distributed at Scottish level. We have sympathy for a move to greater modulation to allow progressively more expenditure under pillar 2. We support the recommendations on the bull hire scheme and—this point was also made by Tavish Scott—the report's recommendation to the Government that

"use should be made of any possible increases in flexibility under section 69 ... to address disadvantages for farmers in certain regions specialising in the dairy, beef and sheep ... sectors".

We must find ways in which we can retain more livestock in our fragile areas, given the evidence on the need for such a change. We hope that the Government will act quickly on those issues.

We are struck by the case that has been made to use the review of the LFASS as an opportunity for crofting. However, that issue perhaps best demonstrates the complexities of any change. We appreciate that the review will have consequences for other areas of Scotland and will need to be thought through thoroughly so that any unintended consequences are identified and resolved.

Perhaps the starkest theme in the report is the clear emphasis on the need to encourage new people into crofting. Simply allowing people to buy crofts that they will not then work is not a way of encouraging new entrants, which will always be a challenge. In that regard, Rhoda Grant and Dave Thompson made a strong case for increasing the level of grants that are available under the croft house grant scheme and for reintroducing the loan element of the scheme without the need to decroft.

Given the clear cross-party support for such measures, which can be introduced without further legislation, we hope that that recommendation will be implemented swiftly by the Government. We will do whatever we can to ensure that that happens.

The report's recommendations will encourage new crofters by providing not just the housing support that I have outlined but further agricultural support. We agree with the recommendation that the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme should be retained and that there should be a 10 per cent uplift in support for new entrants. Again, such a measure can be implemented without legislation if the will exists to do so.

Outwith agricultural land use, given the increasing number of crofters working off croft, another issue is the need to generate greater economic support for such crofters to ensure the long-term viability of our rural communities. Perhaps the minister can provide more information after the summer on how microbusiness, community businesses and social enterprises can be supported and developed in the crofting communities. We need to ensure that people are able not just to work the land, but to train and develop new skills to support their income in other ways.

Where do we go from here? The minister will surely be mulling over that question very fully in his mind. He has learned the lesson from the previous parliamentary session that to rush or to move quickly is perhaps folly—a folly that we would correct—so I welcome his commitment to return at the end of the summer with a detailed response to the report. That is the right approach. Members have agreed that the overarching principles and general thrust of the report appear to go in the right direction, but the devil will doubtless be in the detail. That was perhaps best exemplified in the speech of my colleague Peter Peacock, who detailed the complexities that are involved in some of the recommendations and the challenges that the minister will face as he considers how the report can be taken forward in terms of the Government's response and in subsequent legislation. A detailed response from the Government is essential. The crofting communities deserve no less, so that they can see for themselves what the consequences of legislation will be and whether it is worth taking that forward.

The minister has many options open to him, both legislative and non-legislative, as he looks forward. I hope that he will act quickly on the non-legislative elements, which could be progressed through discussions with his Cabinet colleagues. With regard to legislation, he might need to consider introducing two bills: a consolidation bill to simplify the existing legislation, which would be relatively non-controversial, and another bill to introduce any new measures that the Government needs to introduce.

If the process has taught us anything, it is that there is a real paradox—everyone wants simplification of the law, but the process of achieving such simplification is not straightforward. There will always be contradictions and complications. Labour members will work with the Government and all stakeholders to achieve that aim. In doing so, we will work to secure the future of our crofting communities for years to come and for many future generations.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

For the most part, the debate has been overwhelmingly positive and fruitful. I guarantee at the outset that today's debate will be reflected upon and will help to inform thinking as we prepare the Government's response to the committee of inquiry's recommendations.

I am grateful, as ever, for Karen Gillon's support. The fact that she commends me for proceeding slowly is welcome, but I assure her that we will have a sense of urgency. When we come back to the Parliament, I hope that we will do so with clear recommendations. Several members made the crucial point about the difference between legislative and administrative action. There are issues in the report that can respond to administrative action. We will do our best to identify those issues and to take them forward.

One issue that has been identified is the need for changes to the croft house grant scheme. I accept that it is illogical to have a system in which people can get a grant for a croft house only if it is no longer a croft house. I have indicated that I am supportive of a change to the Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act 1857, which would make a difference to that. However, the question whether the scheme should provide loans as well as grants is more complex. The previous Administration—I am sure that Sarah Boyack will not mind my saying so—discontinued the loan element that was available under the former crofters building grants and loans scheme, so before reintroducing that element we should carefully consider the reasons for its discontinuation.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

In the current parliamentary session, I think that we have the opportunity to go back and look at previous actions of Government. If we feel that they have not delivered the intended outcome, we can state that. In a sense, the former Environment and Rural Development Committee concluded that, if we are to move forward on crofting, we need to ensure that our proposals are right. That is why we are happy to work with the Government in a constructive manner.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Absolutely. I will make no analogy about more pleasure being taken in the sinner who repents. We will take the issue forward together.

I pay further tribute to the people who were involved in the report, including the members of the committee of inquiry. As well as Mark Shucksmith, who is in the public gallery—he will have enjoyed hearing the debate—I want to name the other committee members: Jane Brown, from Shetland; Fred Edwards, who is also in the public gallery; Professor Jim Hunter, who resigned from the committee during the process but was present in Stornoway to welcome the publication of the report and to make some important comments on it; Susan Lamont; Norman MacDonald; Professor Donald MacRae; Agnes Rennie; and Becky Shaw. I also thank the committee's secretariat, especially Fiona Spencer and Jim Wildgoose, who helped with the launch of the report.

However, the report is not about in with the new and out with the old. The present and previous members of the Crofters Commission have done sterling work for crofting, as have their staff. I can clarify for Sarah Boyack that, at the same time as the report was launched on Monday, the commission's staff were involved in a meeting with Scottish Government officials to discuss the issues. The guarantee of no redundancy holds and I would indeed be happy to take forward the discussion and to have further discussions with the staff. Later this month, I will meet the whole commission to discuss how we might move forward with the report. I pay tribute to the present commission members: Drew Ratter, its convener; Sarah Allen, who is in the public gallery; Davie MacLeod; Murdo MacLennan; Robin Currie; Robin Callander, who has, alas, recently resigned from the commission; Ronnie Eunson; Angus McHattie; and, of course, Nick Reiter, who is the chief executive. As I said in my opening speech, the report is not about the end of the Crofters Commission but about the future of crofting and it should be understood in that way.

Of course, crofting also has a much wider constituency. The iconic Norman Leask has already been referred to by two front-bench spokespeople, so I will mention him, too. People such as Neil MacLeod—the new chair of the Scottish Crofting Foundation—and a range of others have been passionately involved in debating the future of crofting. It has been good to hear informed debate in the chamber, too.

I will refer briefly to some of the points that have been raised and provide some answers. On access to the SRDP, things are going well. Applications are coming in and the pre-application process is under way. Every help is being given to people to apply using the computer system. Alas, the allocation system has to be complex, because of European regulation, rather than our regulation. However, last year we decided to provide an additional £100,000 per year to enable the Crofters Commission to help crofting communities access the SRDP. [Interruption.] There appears to be a marching band in the chamber, but I will try to carry on. I have never referred to Christine Grahame as a marching band before and I suspect that I will not be allowed to do so again.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I will help the minister by moving the debate from Christine Grahame back to crofting. Does the minister accept that one of the aspects of the SRDP that is of concern to crofters, and to anyone who wants the programme to work, is that the world has simply moved on? John Scott made that point in this debate and in a debate that we had the other week. We would work with the Government if it were prepared to consider what could be done to the SRDP to make it fit for purpose now, compared with how it was last year.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It would be utterly wrong to say that the SRDP of £1.6 billion is not fit for purpose. That would be a case of, to quote Robert Frost's poem, "New Hampshire", "looking down on mountains." We can change the SRDP according to the circumstance; Tavish Scott knows that it is possible to do that on an annual basis. We want to do that, so we will bring forward changes on that basis as necessary.

Presiding Officer, I am sure that you would expect me to make specific points on the bull and ram hire schemes, which have been referred to several times in the debate. I want to be sure that there is no misrepresentation of what Mark Shucksmith said. I asked him to include the subject in his report during the process. Paragraph 3.2.19 of the report states:

"The bull scheme appears expensive, relative to private hire where this is available ... Only 2% of townships now participate in this scheme ... Our view is that support for bull hire should only be made available in those areas where ownership of a bull is impractical and commercial opportunities for bull hire are lacking—ie. where market failure exists."

The paragraph goes on to propose that there should not be a centralised facility.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I must make progress.

I am not making an announcement, or accepting or rejecting that recommendation, but pointing out the facts of it. A capital appraisal is going on, which is led by the Crofters Commission.

Roseanna Cunningham raised the issue of support for the crofting brand. The Crofters Commission is, as ever, in advance of the market, because it is looking at how to launch the crofters mark—it hopes to do so in October and I hope to be part of that. Roseanna Cunningham also suggested that crofting was very much aligned to the cittaslow movement. I am grateful to Dr Alasdair Allan, who is my guru on all things Gaelic, for pointing out that the cittaslow movement must be described in Gaelic as baile slaodach—the slow town movement. I am sure that Norman Leask will provide a Shetlandic version of that. The point is that that movement fits perfectly with the view of what local food is about. It is undoubtedly positive.

I turn finally to governance. Peter Peacock made an important contribution to the debate. He is utterly right that the problem will lie in focusing the report's radical and important recommendations in legislation. The points that he made are the points that I am already considering. There are inconsistencies in taking forward the case law basis of crofting law and seeing how it works with a localised movement. The intention is all. If we can think imaginatively about how to do that, I am sure that the work can be put in to deliver the intention of the report.

There are many influential books and writings about crofting, but I have always been particularly moved by two of them. One is of course Jim Hunter's, "The Making of the Crofting Community", which is a great work that tells us what lay in the past. About 25 years ago, the poet Alasdair Maclean wrote a book called, "Night Falls on Ardnamurchan: The Twilight of a Crofting Family", in which he looked back at his family's experience in a longing and moving way. I read the book again some months ago and it struck me as a nostalgic but out-of-date—although very poetic—attempt to talk about the west of Scotland and the crofting communities.

Crofting has a vibrant future. It can deliver enormous economic, environmental and cultural benefits. It has to be part of the mechanism for delivering the Scotland that we wish to see: the wealthier, fairer, safer, stronger, greener Scotland. Scotland will be like that if we respond positively to the report. I look forward to working with the whole Parliament in taking forward the report and ensuring that crofting has a safe and sustained future, thanks to the work of Mark Shucksmith and his colleagues.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

To ask the Scottish Executive what consideration is given to the funding of the Scottish Ambulance Service in areas of population growth. (S3O-3283)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The Scottish Government invests significantly in the Scottish Ambulance Service. The allocation for 2008-09 of £183.4 million represents a 78 per cent increase on the £103 million that the service received in 2001-02.

It is for the Scottish Ambulance Service to decide how to allocate that money to its six operating divisions across Scotland in a way that will deliver the best services for patients and the best value for money.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

I am sure that the cabinet secretary is well aware that my constituency has one of the fastest-growing populations in Scotland. Is she aware of a recent audit that highlighted that St John's hospital has the highest number of hospital-to-hospital transfers in Scotland? Is she aware of the impact on the availability of ambulances in my constituency of ambulances taking patients who used to be treated at St John's hospital to Edinburgh royal infirmary?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank Angela Constance for her question. I am aware that her constituency is the fastest-growing constituency in the country. I am sure that that has plenty to do with her excellent representation, as a result of which people want to live there.

I acknowledge the point that Angela Constance made: she is right to point to the high number of hospital-to-hospital transfers involving St John's hospital. She might wish to know that a mechanism exists for resource transfers between NHS boards and the Scottish Ambulance Service—which is set out in a 2004 Health Department letter—when a board introduces major service developments that impact on demand for ambulance services.

It is, of course, for SAS dispatch centres to ensure appropriate deployment of emergency vehicles across the areas for which they are responsible. No specific concerns have been raised with me by the Scottish Ambulance Service about these matters, but I am more than happy to meet Angela Constance to discuss her concerns in more detail.

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

The cabinet secretary will be aware of recent publicity regarding the single manning of ambulances in north-west Sutherland. In one case a doctor had to travel from the north coast down to Raigmore hospital to accompany a patient. Now, we hear of revelations that single manning might be upon us in Lairg, too. Does the cabinet secretary agree that enough is enough, and will she undertake to have her officials look into what appears to be a growing problem in my constituency?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank Jamie Stone for raising the issue. I want to make it absolutely clear that the policy of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Ambulance Service is that accident and emergency ambulances should be double crewed, with at least one crew member being a paramedic, apart from in exceptional circumstances such as short notice, sick absence or leave for which cover cannot be secured. I understand members' concerns, which Jamie Stone has raised previously. The matter was also raised with me when I visited John Farquhar Munro's constituency on Monday. That is why I am asking the Scottish Ambulance Service to provide me with regular updates on the incidence of single manning and the action that is being taken to reduce it. I am more than happy to keep members who have an interest in the issue fully updated.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive why there have been no approvals to the scheme designed to produce proper competition in the legal services market in Scotland, incorporated under sections 25 to 29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. (S3O-3272)

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

There has been only one application for rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience made under section 25 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. That application is still in the process of being considered.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I hope that the cabinet secretary realises that I offer the suggestion that I am about to make in the best possible faith. I have reason to believe that there is not a particularly good working relationship between the Association of Commercial Attorneys and the Lord President's office—I stress that it is the Lord President's office, rather than the Lord President himself. It might help to cut this Gordian knot and provide the sort of consumer protection that Scots clients should have, and which is now enjoyed in England, if the cabinet secretary were to agree to meet the Association of Commercial Attorneys. Will he do so?

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

Those matters are moving apace. For example, arrangements are being made for Scottish Government officials to meet the ACA.

The fact is that the subordinate legislation that introduced the procedures under the 1990 act was passed only on 1 March 2007. Under that legislation, the Lord President is required to consider any such scheme in its entirety and Scottish ministers are required not only to consider such schemes in consultation with the director general of fair trading, because of their various consequences, but to consult the Lord President.

I do not have any knowledge of the nature of the relationship between the Lord President's Office and ACA representatives. However, I believe that we have a timescale that will allow us to bring the matter to a conclusion relatively quickly one way or the other. As I said, my officials have dates—later this month, I understand—for meeting the ACA. I do not preclude meeting representatives of that organisation if no conclusion is reached, but we should initially allow the procedure that is set out in the legislation to take its course.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I have already raised this matter with the cabinet secretary because the representative of the Association of Commercial Attorneys is a constituent of mine. The ACA, which wrote fairly recently to the minister to ask for the meeting that Margo MacDonald has just mentioned, submitted its application last July. That seems an inordinately long time for processing an application. Despite his keenness, the cabinet secretary's request for a meeting with a well-known drinks manufacturer was turned down, so will he use that spot in his diary to meet the ACA and expedite this matter?

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

I have no idea about any meeting with a drinks manufacturer that might or might not have taken place. Mr Whitton obviously has better knowledge of my diary than I have, which is something that I will have to consider. I am gobsmacked by his claim.

The procedure in question was introduced through subordinate legislation that was passed on 1 March 2007. Mr Whitton might have been too busy concentrating on my diary to notice that the previous Scottish Executive was in power at that time. It set down clear criteria: the Lord President has to consider the schemes and Scottish ministers have to consult a variety of individuals, including the director general of fair trading. As I said in response to Margo MacDonald, I do not preclude meeting the ACA. However, we should initially follow the procedure that Mr Whitton's predecessors brought in and ensure that there is due process. If we are going to use the method, we need to get it right and include all parties.

I also remind Mr Whitton of a date in my diary that he does not seem to know about: the meeting later this month between my officials and the ACA. Instead of concentrating on meetings that have not taken place, the member should perhaps concentrate on those that will happen.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

To ask the Scottish Executive what the shortest average waiting time has been for central heating installations since the introduction of the central heating programme in 2001. (S3O-3347)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Since the programme was introduced, the shortest annual average waiting time has been five months. The average waiting time has ranged between five and eight months, the latter occurring in 2002-03 and 2003-04. Over the past year, the average waiting time has been just over six months.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I thank the minister for his response, but I am bitterly disappointed that he continues to claim that at no point since the programme's inception in 2001 has the average waiting time been less than five months. In April 2007, the average waiting time was 113 days, which is actually less than four months.

Does the minister intend to continue to claim that, in 2007-08, a record total of 14,377 central heating systems were installed and that the comparable figure in 2006-07 was 10,238? In fact, the total number of installations—not just those that have been carried out in private homes—was 16,788 in 2003-04, 15,207 in 2004-05 and 16,002 in 2005-06. Will the minister finally admit that he is attempting to mislead us with his claims and that the total number of installations was higher and waiting times lower under Labour?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

No—because it is very clear that Michael McMahon himself is trying to mislead the public on this issue. The total number of installations in the private sector in 2007-08—the first year of the Scottish National Party Government—was a record 14,377. The member was right in saying that in the previous year there were 10,238 installations in the private sector. However, with regard to the other years, the fact that he has amalgamated the figure for public sector installations—such as, for example, those that were carried out by the Glasgow Housing Association—with private sector installations, and has tried to compare that with the figure for private sector installations says more about his attempts to mislead the public than about our efforts to solve the problems in the central heating programme.

Under the Administration of which Mr McMahon was a member, the number of people waiting more than nine months was at a record level. We have faced up to that problem and, as a result of the extra £7 million that we allocated for the winter waiting time initiative, the number of people waiting more than nine months has fallen by 41 per cent over the latest period. We are proud of and stand by that record.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

So that we can get this absolutely right, will the minister tell Parliament the maximum number of central heating units that were installed in the last year of the previous Executive and the number that were installed in the first year of the SNP Government, which actually cares about people in Scotland?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I think that you have already answered that question, minister.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Well, Presiding Officer, I think the figures are worth repeating. In the final year of the Labour-Liberal Administration, 10,238 units were installed; in the first year of an SNP Administration, 14,377 installations were made. That is a huge improvement.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Some senior citizens have been advised to have completely new central heating systems when they actually require only a new boiler. Is not that a waste of money all round?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Boiler-only installations are available under the programme, but the guidance to the managing agent sets out very strict criteria to ensure that the installed systems comply fully with modern technology. Some people have rightly wanted only a boiler, but we have to take into account the possible risks to the overall system because of old pipework and radiators. People need fully working but sustainable systems.

That said, Jamie McGrigor has made an important and serious point about boiler-only installations. I have asked officials to examine the matter as part of the review of the programme. I am certainly concerned to maximise the number of boiler-only installations that are available under the programme to ensure that people get the right system—and that they get a particular system when it is necessary, and not when it is unnecessary.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it is making on its needs assessment of services for people who suffer from myalgic encephalomyelitis. (S3O-3267)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The Scottish public health network is carrying out the assessment of needs of people living with chronic fatigue syndrome and ME. Although the network undertakes its work programme independently of the Scottish Government, I understand that good progress is being made on this important piece of work.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I welcome the recent publication of the comprehensive scoping exercise that was undertaken on behalf of the Government by Action for ME, a key recommendation of which was that future service development and improvement be backed up by a national implementation strategy with commitment at the highest level to ensuring that health boards improve their services for people with ME. Will the minister confirm that the Government shares the view that such a national implementation strategy is necessary?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

First of all, I think that we should wait for the Scottish public health network's report, which should be completed by July. We also need to listen to what people with ME and chronic fatigue syndrome say about their own priorities and what they want to be done. To that end, on 23 June, prior to the report's finalisation, there will be an event to which stakeholders and members of the public will be invited and at which they will be able to give their views. If what John Scott has proposed emerges as a priority, the Government will certainly consider it.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what support it will give to police forces and agencies that wish to start up problem-oriented partnerships in their locality. (S3O-3319)

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

The Scottish Government has for many years encouraged and supported community safety partnerships to develop an evidence-based problem-solving approach. We continue to support local partnerships in several ways, which include funding two posts at the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan to train police and local authority staff in analysis and problem solving. The Government's national community safety co-ordinator also provides on request consultancy support to partnerships on issues such as problem solving.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

The minister may be aware that Rosyth police are working with local organisations and individuals to try to establish for south Rosyth a POP, which I am sure he joins me in supporting. Would the police services and their partner agencies benefit from a solely Scottish version of the Tilley awards, which would recognise best practice and reward the most intelligent, courageous and effective approaches to dealing with the problems that Scottish police forces encounter on the streets?

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

I am happy to consider that suggestion. We in Scotland recognise that we need to do what is appropriate for our communities, which is often not what is done in other jurisdictions. Equally, we recognise that what is done in Scotland must vary according to area—the needs of Gairloch are vastly different from those of the city of Glasgow, for example.

We are well served by our police, by our other emergency services and by others who are involved in making Scotland safer and stronger. It is important that we as a Government and as a community say thank you for that. If we need to go beyond what we have done to pay tribute to them, I am more than happy to consider that.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 6 was not lodged.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions have taken place with the City of Edinburgh Council since 1 May 2007 regarding housing stock transfer. (S3O-3265)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Most recently, I met city of Edinburgh councillors and officials on 20 March to discuss a range of housing issues, which included the council's plans to meet the Scottish housing quality standard by 2015, following the vote by tenants against stock transfer in the December 2005 ballot. I met Edinburgh city councillors on 1 August 2007 to discuss their standard delivery plan and my officials regularly meet council officials to discuss housing matters.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I note from the minister's answer that no specific discussions have taken place on stock transfer in the city of Edinburgh. Is he aware that 451 homes in north Sighthill in my constituency are being demolished and that no funds or plans are in place to replace them with new affordable housing in that area? Is he aware that the City of Edinburgh Council's debt on its housing account is £278 million, which represents some 40 per cent of the rents that tenants pay and which service that continuing debt? In the circumstances, does he agree that all options should be pursued with the council, including partial stock transfer and partial debt write-off, to lever in much-needed investment in affordable homes in that community?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I have said several times in parliamentary housing debates in recent weeks and before then that we are open to all options on housing. That is why we held a wide-ranging consultation earlier this year. I have said that if councils wish to consider housing stock transfer, that is a matter for them. We have not put in place barriers to that, although it is not our preferred option. We will not supply additional millions of pounds to transfer ownership of stock instead of investing in housing. We do not put in place barriers to stock transfer, but it is a matter for councils.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

When will the City of Edinburgh Council be told its housing budget allocation for this year? Is there any precedent in the past 50 years for local authorities in Scotland not being told their housing allocation by the seventh week of the financial year?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The council will be told its allocation soon. As I am not aged 50, I cannot tell Malcolm Chisholm what has happened in the past 50 years.

First Minister's Question Time

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am sure that the Parliament wishes to join me in welcoming Dr Gabriele Matzner-Holzer, the Austrian ambassador to the United Kingdom, who is in the gallery. The ambassador is most welcome. [ Applause. ]

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I, too, welcome the Austrian ambassador.

I start by paying my respects to Tommy Burns. He epitomised all that is good in Scottish football and he will be greatly missed by everyone in Scotland. I know that I speak for the Parliament when I say that our thoughts are with Rosemary and his family at this time. [Applause.]

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-763)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I welcome Wendy Alexander's tribute to Tommy Burns. He was an outstanding servant of Celtic and Scotland. He was always there at the call of his club and country. He will certainly be hugely missed, by his family, to whom we send our condolences, and right across the world of football and well beyond. It is entirely appropriate that the Parliament says that today.

Later today, I will take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

In that vein, I congratulate Walter Smith and the Rangers team on reaching the UEFA cup final. It was a remarkable football achievement for the whole of Scotland.

However, in the light of last night's events—equipment breakdown and sporadic violence—does the First Minister agree that there is a need for an inquiry involving Greater Manchester Police, Manchester City Council, Glasgow City Council, Strathclyde Police and Rangers security?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Manchester City Council announced an inquiry this morning. I understand that its scope will initially be limited to looking at the circumstances of the equipment breakdown in Piccadilly Gardens. The scope of the inquiry should be wider, because there are a number of other aspects to inquire into. We will certainly co-operate fully with the inquiry on all the matters under our responsibility.

We should reflect on the fact that more than 100,000 supporters went to Manchester. The overwhelming majority of them, in an overwhelming number of locations, enjoyed the carnival atmosphere of a festival of football. The assistant chief constable of Manchester made that point this morning and I witnessed it myself.

There were clearly severe organisational problems in one particular location. However, it should be said that, regardless of organisational problems and any other questions that the inquiry can legitimately pursue, it seems that the behaviour of a small minority of fans was completely unacceptable. The Parliament should reflect on that fact because it is infuriating for Scottish football and Rangers Football Club. The reputation that has been built up during a quarter of a century by Scotland fans and Scottish club fans, including Rangers fans who went through 18 matches in the magnificent journey to that cup final, has been based on the fans' ability, regardless of circumstances, to behave impeccably. The Parliament must always send that message to every club and all Scottish football fans.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I associate myself with the First Minister's remarks, but I want to probe some of the themes that he has just put on record.

As he acknowledged, it was one of the biggest ever travelling supports for a single football match, and the vast majority of fans were a credit to the club and their country. As we know, there was widespread debate in advance of the event about how welcome ticketless fans would be made in the city. In light of those concerns, will the First Minister tell us about any representations that the Scottish Government made to the Manchester authorities in advance? Does the First Minister believe that Manchester City Council and the police were fully prepared for the sheer numbers of fans that arrived in the city?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Police in Scotland and Rangers security and facilities were fully involved in discussions with Manchester City Council and the Manchester police. I was involved in discussions last Friday about preparations, and I made it clear that every possible facility of the Scottish Government would be used to liaise.

It is fair to say that a change of approach and direction was made quite late in the day to how Manchester looked to cope with an inevitably huge influx of fans on an extraordinary scale. The fact that there was a carnival atmosphere in so many locations—I witnessed it myself—and that things were conducted entirely properly indicates that it is possible to police such a situation. However, I am sure that the inquiry that Manchester City Council is to conduct, which I hope will be extended to cover some other areas, will identify key failings—the equipment failure is an obvious one—and will learn lessons that can be applied in the future. Let me say again on behalf of the Scottish Government that we will co-operate fully in giving information to the inquiry. I know that that will be the attitude of Rangers Football Club. Everyone in Scotland will be anxious that we co-operate to ensure that any lessons that can be learned are learned and that such scenes are not witnessed again.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I return to the theme of learning lessons. It is clear that late changes in direction do not help. It would be valuable if the First Minister were to use his offices to press for the inquiry to be quick, to be early and to be one from which all the findings are made public, so that we can learn lessons for the future for other major events, such as hogmanay parties, T in the Park and the Commonwealth games. Can the First Minister assure us that, regardless of how broad the inquiry is, he will look for its findings to be made public and for it to be completed as soon as possible?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am certain that Manchester City Council will want to make the findings of its inquiry public; I cannot conceive that it would want to adopt any other approach.

As regards the examples of events in Scotland that Wendy Alexander gave, such as the Commonwealth games, I believe that the exceptional record that we have on policing such events is evidence that our procedures are in good condition. Clearly, any lessons that can be learned will be learned.

I stress that, given the numbers involved, we are talking about a highly exceptional circumstance. I am sure that, as we would have done, Manchester would have loved it if the situation had been coped with absolutely perfectly. As I said, the scenes that we saw last night involving the behaviour of a very small minority of fans were unacceptable. There have been 42 arrests, 30 of which were of Rangers fans. Their behaviour was unacceptable. All punishments that can be allocated must be allocated. I am anxious, for example, that we continue our work with the Home Office to close the loophole that allows football banning orders that are imposed in England not to be applied in Scotland. The number of people involved compared with the total number of fans makes it clear that there is a small minority that must be dealt with.

In relation to the examples that Wendy Alexander gave, we should take some comfort from the fact that, on the vast majority of occasions, the arrangements that we have in Scotland are such that we have no reason whatever to suppose that the Scottish police and the Scottish authorities are not capable of policing large-scale events. We do so impeccably day and daily.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I associate myself with the First Minister's remarks, but it would be wrong to leave the subject without acknowledging that alcohol was a contributory factor in last night's events. Only yesterday in the Parliament, I offered Labour's support for working jointly with all parties to make headway in addressing the problem. I make that offer again today. Will the First Minister now set a timetable for working with other parties on alcohol?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The proposals will be introduced in June, as I think Wendy Alexander knows, and I hope that they will carry the Parliament's support. We accept that the underlying issues are a severe social challenge for Scotland.

I hope that in accepting that challenge and taking the measures that are necessary to address the problem and face up to the issues that it gives us as a nation, the Parliament will never put itself in the position of regarding alcohol as any sort of excuse for violent or disorderly behaviour. That is part of the task of facing up to that challenge as a people and as a country.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I, too, associate myself with the remarks of the First Minister and Wendy Alexander in relation to the late Tommy Burns.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-764)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

If he can find the secretary of state, perhaps the First Minister can ask him for his view on the referendum—if the First Minister has time to spare.

This has been a week of policy U-turns and acrobatics. There has been a major clash of policy between a party leader at Westminster and his colleague at Holyrood—who is apparently responsible for tactics and policy—of whom the First Minister said:

"I think her position is untenable, you can't reconcile what she's been saying over the last few days ... Either she has to go or he has to go, he's not going to go, therefore I suspect that her position has become untenable."

On issues of such national importance, does the First Minister hold to that principled position?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I detect a leading question and an attempt to invite me into an untenable position, so I will confine myself to saying about Des Browne:

They seek him here, They seek him there, Those journalists seek him everywhere.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The First Minister has never been a man to be shy of verbosity, and he cannot hide from his words. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander—in this case the goose is the First Minister and the gander is the Minister for Schools and Skills, Maureen Watt, and her U-turns and acrobatics on physical education in schools.

Four weeks ago the First Minister denied scrapping his policy and said that we should not believe everything that we read in the papers. On Tuesday evening on Radio Scotland, Maureen Watt said that the election guarantee of two hours of quality PE each week delivered by specialist PE teachers could include walking to school. That was subsequently contradicted by the Government and slapped down by the First Minister in the Parliament yesterday.

Such confusion on as important an issue as the future health of our nation is utterly unacceptable. Will the First Minister implement his own advice? Is he going, or is his Minister for Schools and Skills going?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We do not do slapping down in this Administration; we move together in a totally coherent fashion to implement our manifesto.

As Annabel Goldie well knows, our commitment is on planned physical education in schools. The interview, a transcript of which I read, strayed into areas of physical activity as well as planned physical education. Annabel Goldie knows from the curriculum for excellence website this week—and it will be explained in the document "Building the curriculum 3: A framework for learning and teaching", which is due to be published soon—that what we are doing is clear and well understood. Annabel and I could benefit from both physical activity and physical education.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-765)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I and my colleagues share the great sadness at the untimely death of Tommy Burns. We also associate ourselves with the call for an immediate and full inquiry into last night's events in Manchester, which have undermined Scotland's recent unblemished record.

In March, a Government spin doctor said that the guarantee of two hours of physical education had been dropped, but the First Minister issued a clarification and said that that was not true. This week, the Minister for Schools and Skills said that the two-hours target included walking to school, but yesterday the First Minister issued a clarification and said that that was not true. The Scottish National Party manifesto said:

"we will ensure that every pupil has 2 hours of quality PE each week delivered by specialist PE teachers."

Was any of that true?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I said that we do not do slapping down in this Government, but I think that Nicol Stephen has been beaten to the punch by Annabel Goldie. It is probably best to have a question in reserve in such circumstances.

I refer Nicol Stephen to the commitment on planned physical education in the draft experiences and outcomes for health and wellbeing, which were published on the curriculum for excellence website on Tuesday, in which we say:

"The Scottish Government expects schools to continue to work towards the provision of two hours of good quality PE for every child every week."

I can exclusively reveal to Nicol Stephen that that commitment will also be contained in the document "Building the curriculum 3: a framework for learning and teaching", which is due to be published soon. Is that clear to Nicol Stephen?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The First Minister seems relaxed about all this. I wonder whether all the radios in Bute house have been confiscated. Has the First Minister not heard what has been going on? His promise was made in two parts: not only would two hours of PE be delivered for every child, but those hours would be delivered by specialist PE teachers. The Minister for Schools and Skills, Maureen Watt, was asked on the radio:

"Good quality. Does that mean specialist teaching?"

She replied:

"Well, it needn't mean specialist teaching."

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Fiona Hyslop, was asked on the radio:

"You promised that, didn't you? You said that you will ensure that every pupil has two hours."

She replied:

"I can't be in every single school detailing the timetabling."

That is two ministers over two days each walking away from half of the promise.

We are fed up with the evasions and contortions, so will the First Minister tell us simply when all children in Scotland will have two hours of PE every week with a qualified PE teacher? That was the SNP promise; when will it be delivered?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Nicol Stephen should remember that it was also the previous Administration's promise, which it did not deliver.

I read out what was published on the website this week, but I wonder about Nicol Stephen's reference to wanting to be in every school around the country. Is he saying that, if Scotland had the misfortune to have him as education minister, he would be intervening in every school around the country? In Scotland, we do not have a curriculum that is imposed from the centre; we focus on outcomes and follow that through with inspections by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education.

Scotland currently has 1,756 qualified physical education teachers. In addition, over the next three years we are maintaining support worth £1.8 million to the University of Glasgow and the University of Edinburgh for certificate courses for the development of physical education teaching for primary teachers. That is why we are able to say that we expect schools to continue to work towards the provision of two hours of good quality physical education for every child, every week.

In other words, we are working towards what the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party refused to do.

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

The First Minister will be aware of the serious concerns about the proposal by NHS Borders to close wards in Borders general hospital over the summer as part of making £10 million of cuts over the next three years, including in stroke and palliative care provision. The Scottish Government's decision to remove the rural weighting that grants additional funds to NHS boards in rural areas to reflect the additional costs of health care in such areas will have a direct impact on health care provision in the Borders. Will the First Minister review the policy before the cuts bite and ensure that rural health provision continues to benefit under the Arbuthnott formula, which reflects the additional costs of providing health services in rural areas?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Under the formula, no health board in Scotland is losing money and, therefore, it is inadvisable to talk about cuts in that fashion. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing is delighted to talk to constituency members about local concerns—that is the purpose of having constituency members—but I hope that, when Jeremy Purvis goes into a meeting with her, he will do so with the facts of how the funding mechanism for each health board in Scotland has improved and, therefore, will be able to conduct that discussion in the way that his constituents would expect.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to support aid and relief efforts, following the natural disasters in Burma and China. (S3F-788)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The thoughts of everyone in the Parliament are with those in Burma and China at this extremely difficult time.

Ms Fabiani met key members of the Disasters Emergency Committee in Scotland last week to discuss the situation in Burma and the proposed activities for the DEC campaign in Scotland. Officials will continue to work closely with the DEC in Scotland. I am glad to say that, thus far, £600,000 has been raised by the DEC in Scotland for the Burma appeal, which is a magnificent response from the people of Scotland.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sure that all members echo his views and recognise the important contributions that aid agencies are making.

With the prospect of another cyclone hitting Burma and hopes of a diplomatic breakthrough dashed, does the First Minister agree that the regime there should co-operate fully with the international community in the ways that reports suggest that China has done to ensure that aid gets through quickly to those who need it most? What role can the Scottish Government play as part of that international community to encourage the regime to co-operate and what can the Scottish people proactively do to help the situation in Burma and China?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have written to the Chinese consul general in Scotland and indeed to the governor of Sichuan province to extend Scotland's condolences for the losses in the earthquake and to underline the Scottish Government's readiness to do what it can to help.

In answer to Aileen Campbell's specific question, I have also written to the Burmese ambassador, also making clear Scotland's readiness to help, but urging the Burmese Government to ensure that the assistance that the international community provides can be delivered to those who so badly need it. I urge the Scottish people to help with the situation in Burma by continuing to contribute, as they have done in such a magnificent fashion, to the DEC appeal. To make it easier for them to do so, we have provided a link to the appeal on the Scottish Government's website.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Last week, when Nicol Stephen raised the matter, I got the distinct impression from the First Minister's answer that the Government had not responded quickly to the problems in Burma. I am pleased to know that the minister has now met the Disasters Emergency Committee to discuss what more can be done.

One of the big issues seems to be the difficulty of getting aid workers on to the ground in Burma to deal with sanitation, water supplies and public health.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question, please.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

What more can the Government do to press the Burmese Government to allow aid workers on to the ground in Burma to deal with those important matters?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I know that the Scottish people's wish is for us to consider the matter in a united fashion. We all know what needs to be done. The matter does not need to be an aspect of political point scoring in any sense. I am certainly not going to do that.

We will approach the matter, as we are doing, by helping the excellent charities that we have in Scotland, through the Disasters Emergency Committee, to do the work that they are doing in such a magnificent fashion. Raising £600,000 in an appeal under these circumstances is a great effort from the Scottish people. I hope that every politician in the chamber is capable of living up to the efforts and benefits of the people of Scotland in responding to international emergencies such as the one in Burma.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The First Minister will be aware that the official death toll in Burma stands at 32,000 and is likely to rise. Given not only that further cyclones are expected, as Aileen Campbell said, but that the start of the monsoon rains is imminent, it is likely that further damage will be done and further difficulties will be encountered with the transportation and distribution of relief.

Given the existing difficulties with getting aid into Burma, does the First Minister agree that it is incumbent on him, the Government and all of us to add our voice to the Disasters Emergency Committee's call for people throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom to continue to contribute? Although the raising of £600,000 is indeed laudable, the amount that has been raised overall is only about a sixth of the money that was raised in similar circumstances following the tsunami.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Briefly, please.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Understandably, people are concerned about whether the money will go to the right causes, but, as I said, it is incumbent on all of us to encourage everyone we know to contribute. Does the First Minister agree?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I fully agree with Patricia Ferguson's remarks. It is incumbent on all of us to encourage the process. It is equally incumbent on all of us to do whatever we can to persuade the Burmese Government to allow the assistance to go to those who so vitally and badly need it. Patricia Ferguson's remarks are well made and I fully support them.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government supports the proposals of the Scottish Law Commission on the age of sexual consent for 13 to 16-year-olds. (S3F-789)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

This is a complex and sensitive area of law. It is vital that the law protects and promotes the welfare of our children and young people. We are considering the Scottish Law Commission's recommendations for reform of the law on sexual offences in the light of the responses that we received to our recent consultation. We will introduce a bill on rape and sexual offences later in the year.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Labour members raised our concerns on the matter during a recent debate on rape and sexual offences. Worried parents have been waiting for the Government to clarify its position on the matter, which is a sensitive one, as the First Minister said. Has the Cabinet discussed the matter? Does the First Minister agree that, although the law is not perfect, such a change, however it was framed, might be seen as a relaxation of the law, which would send mixed signals to our young people? The previous Scottish Executive set targets to reduce pregnancy rates among girls under the age of 16 by 20 per cent by 2010. Does this Government remain committed to reducing our high rates of teenage pregnancies, particularly among disadvantaged young people?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The answer to the second part of the question is yes.

As Pauline McNeill knows, the Labour Party manifesto contained a commitment to act on the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission. As a Government and as a Parliament, we will act on the recommendations. However, that does not necessarily mean that we have to accept every recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission.

The Cabinet has held long discussions on these matters. Despite the apparently varying contributions to the consultation, I am confident that this Parliament can find a way of acting in a responsible manner that will meet our objectives.

On 6 March, Pauline McNeill asked a question on this issue in the chamber and said that she wanted to discuss it further. We will be delighted to do so. This is a sensitive subject and we would do well as a Parliament to act together.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The First Minister clearly recognises the sensitivity of this subject; and it is a subject that we would normally expect to deal with during the parliamentary progress of the bill that the First Minister has said will be forthcoming. In view of serious public concerns, does the First Minister not agree that it would be helpful if the Scottish Government gave its definitive view? I hope that it would be a view that reassured the many parents who are seriously concerned about some of the terms in the Scottish Law Commission's report.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Our view will come out as we publish the bill. I also undertake to discuss the issues in a collegiate fashion with members on all sides of the chamber, to ensure that we, as a Parliament, handle this sensitive issue extremely well.

Bill Aitken will have read the consultation and the various submissions to it. He will have read opinions that range widely—even among organisations that one would normally expect to share the same opinion. Whether those opinions came from Scotland's commissioner for children and young people, Barnardo's, Childline or the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration, or—on the other side of the debate—from faith organisations such as the Church of Scotland, or from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland or a number of other organisations, one thing that we should accept, despite the variety of views, is that all those organisations were contributing and were trying to arrive at the best solution to the form of the law for Scotland as a community.

We will publish our view with the bill. However, if we all approach the matter as those organisations have approached it, recognising that—whatever the variety of views—we are working in the best interests of the children and young people of Scotland, we as a Parliament will raise ourselves in the public esteem, rather than the contrary.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The difference in maturity between a child of 13 and a 16-year-old is vast. I wonder whether the First Minister shares my concern that lowering the age of consent to within that age range will be normalising abuse.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The proposal is not to lower the age of consent; that is not even the proposal of the Scottish Law Commission. Some discussion in the papers has suggested that the proposal might impinge on sexual assault—cases where there has been no consent. It does not, of course. Sexual assault is a crime regardless of the age of the perpetrator.

People on both sides of the debate are contributing in the best interests of the people. When we publish the bill and the recommendations, we will make the information available so that we can discuss it in this chamber.

I am confident that we can find a method of achieving our objectives. People on both sides of the debate have misgivings, but I hope and believe that we can reassure them. We have discussed this matter at enormous length in Cabinet and elsewhere and I believe that this Parliament can find a way forward that will carry opinion in Scotland with us and which is in the best interests of Scotland's young people.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what assistance the Scottish Government plans to give to local authorities in their efforts to curb both the purchasing of age-restricted goods, such as alcohol, by underage persons and the proxy purchasing of such goods by adults for underage persons. (S3F-773)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As is evident from our decision to roll out alcohol test-purchasing arrangements across Scotland, cracking down on illegal sales of age-restricted goods such as alcohol is a key priority for the Scottish Government.

The Scottish Government has increased the level of funding made available to local authorities by 13.1 per cent over the comprehensive spending review period, and we have increased the police grant by 9 per cent for the same period, to enable them to enforce the law effectively.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am sure that the First Minister will join me in congratulating those shopkeepers, large and small, who have already put in efforts to ensure that the law is properly administered. Is the First Minister aware of the retail crime survey recently conducted by the Scottish Grocers Federation, which draws attention to the continued intimidation and abuse of sales assistants in relation to the enforcement of age restrictions? The survey, of 553 stores, found 165 incidents of physical violence against staff and 1,269 incidents of verbal abuse. How does the First Minister intend to support retailers in enforcing the law regarding age-restricted products in that environment?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am aware of the survey. I should have said that, in addition to the funding levels that I mentioned, there is record investment over the next three years of £120 million for tackling alcohol misuse. We are continuing to work with local authorities and the police to ensure that everything possible is done to tackle illegal sales.

We will shortly be making an announcement about providing specific resources to local authorities to enable them to step up the enforcement of the tobacco sales law. I therefore hope that Alex Johnstone will accept that a great deal is being done in Government to tackle what is a serious concern, and that we will do it effectively and properly.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is a matter of regret that I have to raise with you that this morning the Minister for Communities and Sport, Stewart Maxwell, misled the chamber in his statement on equality. The minister's statement claimed, in relation to the abolition of the graduate endowment fee, that it will benefit

"particularly those on lower incomes, such as disabled people and lone parents".

However, the policy memorandum for the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill, which I presume the minister has read, says:

"Not all Scottish and non-UK EU students are liable to pay the GE. There are a number of exemptions, including lone parents and those who are in receipt of the Disabled Students' Allowance".

I seek your guidance on what action you can take and, through you, ask the First Minister to deal with that evident breach of the ministerial code and to instruct his minister to come to the chamber as soon as possible to explain why he misled Parliament and to clarify his statement.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I thank the member for giving me prior notice of the point of order—I very much appreciate that. While I understand the point that she is trying to make, as I have stated many times previously, it is not the role of the Presiding Officer to establish the veracity of statements made by ministers. I refer the member to the announcement that I made about that in the Business Bulletin of 22 November last year, in which she will find advice that issues of this nature are a matter for the ministerial code. If you wish to pursue the matter, you should take it up—as I think that you have already hinted that you will do—with the First Minister, under the ministerial code.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Finance and Public Services and Communities

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Under existing arrangements, the City of Edinburgh Council may provide rates relief to local businesses in circumstances in which those businesses would otherwise suffer severe hardship. When relief is approved by the council, the Scottish Government will meet 75 per cent of the cost.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his reply and for his letter in April, when he explained that and other issues to do with rates relief after I wrote to him on the subject. Has he received approaches from the City of Edinburgh Council in that regard? If the council approaches him, will the Government automatically make the 75 per cent contribution? I hope that that will be the case. I am sure that the cabinet secretary is aware of the severe hardship that many traders are suffering because of the effect on their businesses of the tramline construction work. If relief is not granted, some traders might well go out of business.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am acutely aware of the difficulties that are faced by businesses affected by the tramline construction work. That was one of my concerns when I opposed the tramline development and I am sure that the previous Administration must have considered the issue when it decided to press ahead with the scheme without putting in place the type of financial support that this Administration has put in place.

In addition to the arrangements that I have spoken of, the Government has put in place the small business bonus scheme. As an example, in Constitution Street in Mr Chisholm's constituency, 10 of the 18 retail properties will be eligible for 80 per cent small business support scheme relief. That is the type of practical support that the Government has provided. I am sorry that Mr Chisholm and his colleagues did not find it within themselves to support that provision when the budget went through Parliament.

The member asked about the Government's 75 per cent contribution. If the City of Edinburgh Council comes to the Government with such a proposition, the Government is duty bound to provide the 75 per cent assistance. The test for hardship relief, which the assessor and the council must consider, is very clear and the Government will act in accordance with the statutory position.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The cabinet secretary is aware that Transport Initiatives Edinburgh has a £96 million contingency fund, which is earmarked for infrastructure overruns during the tramline 1a construction project. Does he agree that TIE should look, as a matter of urgency, to extend what the contingency fund can be used for so that it can be used to support local businesses? That would go some way to making amends for the inadequate compensation package that was put in place by TIE and the previous Labour council administration and supported by all other political parties in the chamber, and by Malcolm Chisholm.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am sure that TIE will pay particular attention to the point that Shirley-Anne Somerville makes. The Government cannot become involved in those matters. We have made it clear that the Government will provide the financial support to allow the project to take its course, but the operational management of the project and its determination is a matter for the City of Edinburgh Council, which I am sure will be able to raise the issue with TIE.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I thank the cabinet secretary for both his replies—it is helpful to get on the record who has responsibility at different levels. I have had a number of such cases, not only in relation to the trams. It is useful to get the cabinet secretary's comments on the record, particularly when council works have led to disruption.

I urge the cabinet secretary to look favourably on any request that comes from the council. Members throughout the chamber have lobbied TIE to get as big a contingency fund as possible and to spend it wisely, so that it benefits not only the businesses that front the route but those on the streets behind, because they will be equally impacted on by quite lengthy closures.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I reiterate my sympathy for the businesses that are affected. As I stressed, that was one of the considerations that I had in my mind when I made the case to Parliament for us not to proceed with the tram development. It was blindingly obvious to anyone who considered the proposition that there would be formidable disruption to the city of Edinburgh. As members know, the Government did not consider that that was an appropriate course to take.

As I said, there are hardship schemes that can be applied in such circumstances. As part of the project, TIE has put in place a scheme that is funded to the tune of about 92 per cent, if my memory serves me correctly, from Transport Scotland, whose budget comes directly from the Government. The Government has put in place very significant practical support for small businesses, to reduce their business rates. I only wish that Labour members had supported that proposal.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will review the local government funding arrangements to reflect the needs of local authorities which have ageing and declining populations. (S3O-3348)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I have already announced that I intend to review the local government finance funding formula jointly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in time for the next three-year settlement in 2011-12.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

In his discussions with local authorities on the funding mechanisms for elderly care, will the cabinet secretary ensure that proper consideration is given to the disproportionate impact of the demand for elderly care services on authorities with declining populations? Currently, 17 per cent of the population of the Inverclyde Council area is 65 and over, but the figure is set to grow to around 25 per cent. As I am sure the cabinet secretary is aware, the problem must not be addressed in a blanket form across Scotland, as there are significant pockets in which it is even greater than it is generally.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I understand the issues that Mr McNeil raises and with which local authorities must wrestle. The pattern of population movement has a significant effect on local authority finance. The overwhelming majority of drivers of the existing local government funding formula are population indicators. The issues that the member raises will be considered in the discussions that I will have with COSLA on the funding formula. As part of that process, I will be prepared to listen to any further, more detailed representations that Mr McNeil may want to make to me about such issues.

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

The Assynt centre is a small centre for respite and elderly care in Lochinver in west Sutherland. Some time ago, the centre went from operating a seven-day week to operating a five-day week, providing coverage on only six weekends in the year. We seem to be unable to get it back up to providing local care for people seven days a week—the beds could be filled tomorrow. I will not ask the cabinet secretary for money, but will he ask his officials to look at the detailed issue that I have raised, which is causing unhappiness in a remote and beautiful part of Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am not familiar with the details of the case that Mr Stone describes, but I will be happy to look into those issues. The provision of care in remote and rural parts of Scotland is often a challenge, because in such locations it is difficult to ensure the availability of staff. A number of factors must be considered in that discussion. I will write to Mr Stone about the case after I have looked into it.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

Following this morning's statement on equality and diversity, does the cabinet secretary agree that it is essential that equality impact assessments are made to ensure that such concerns are addressed? Does he agree that it is a mistake to treat equality as an add-on, rather than as the starting point for policy analysis?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The treatment of equality issues is very much part of the Government's policy-making process. I assure Marlyn Glen that those considerations are at the heart of the decisions that we take on funding arrangements for local authorities, to ensure that citizens of our country are able to make use of its public services and to appreciate the changes that take place there in pursuit of the Government's objectives.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had on the future of the Ravenscraig development. (S3O-3295)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism met representatives of North Lanarkshire Council to discuss the Ravenscraig project on 13 March 2008. He has arranged to visit the site on 19 May 2008 and host a meeting involving relevant stakeholders, including the development partners, to discuss a range of issues that relate to the project. I visited the site with the leader of North Lanarkshire Council, Councillor Jim McCabe, last summer.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Ravenscraig programme is essential for the regeneration of a large part of central Scotland, in that it offers the opportunity to bring a new vitality to the area, just as this Government is doing throughout Scotland? Can he guarantee that delivery of the project will remain one of the Government's top-level commitments?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Dialogue and discussions on the project take place primarily through Scottish Enterprise. Scottish Enterprise will continue to hold a dialogue with the Ravenscraig project, to which support has been provided over the past two years. Support has been pledged to it for the present financial year and for 2009-10, and discussions are being held about future commitments.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Will the cabinet secretary advise the Parliament whether the regeneration of the Ravenscraig site is considered to be of national, regional or local significance and therefore whether Scottish Enterprise or North Lanarkshire Council will be responsible for providing the public sector share of the funding?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Ravenscraig site is classified as a site of regional significance, so the matter will be dealt with by Scottish Enterprise. It is a significant project that can revitalise part of Scotland's previously active industrial areas. It will be for Scottish Enterprise, in partnership with North Lanarkshire Council, to hold discussions on the funding of the project. The purpose of the Government's reforms in that regard is to ensure that our local authorities and the enterprise agencies work with cohesion and continuity to ensure that we have an infrastructure that is appropriate for the 21 st century.

Bashir Ahmad (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to increase the amount of foreign inward investment to Scotland. (S3O-3279)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Through its network of more than 20 overseas offices, Scottish Development International takes knowledge, skills and ideas from Scotland out to the rest of the world by strengthening trade links, promoting Scottish exports and encouraging investment overseas. SDI brings capital, knowledge, skills and ideas into Scotland from Europe, the middle east, the Americas and the Asia-Pacific region by attracting high-value inward investment projects. During parliamentary recess, ministers join SDI professionals in supporting events such as Scotland week to help promote the Scotland brand and attract inward investment.

SDI has two performance measures, one of which is the number of high-value jobs that are attracted through inward investment. Targets are reviewed annually to reflect global economic conditions. SDI met its targets for 2007-08 and, despite the tough economic climate, plans to set similar targets for 2008-09.

Bashir Ahmad (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

In an era in which world markets are tumbling, economies in the middle east are still going strong. One reason for that, which is often overlooked, is the Islamic finance model, which supports many middle eastern economies.

Islamic finance brings more than £1 billion to the London economy alone, along with hundreds of jobs. Why has Scotland not had a share of that? Will the minister assure me that he recognises the great benefits that Islamic finance could bring in Scotland? Will he continue to work with those people who are pushing for Islamic finance measures to be adopted in Scotland?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

That question raises some sensible opportunities for Scotland. It is worth clarifying for the Parliament that the principle behind Islamic finance and banking products is that all forms of interest are forbidden. The Islamic financial model works on the basis of the customer and the bank sharing the risk of any investment on agreed terms. That is very interesting, and it is very much in line with the Scottish co-investment fund, which is already compliant with the Islamic finance model.

Cognisant of the upside that Bashir Ahmad has identified, the First Minister has met the Islamic Finance Council, and officials are now working with the council to consider ways in which Sharia-compliant products can be developed in Scotland. It is a particularly good fit for us, given Scotland's reputation for ethics and integrity, and the system's thinking of bringing people together to get a shared objective has great commonality with the values that we hold.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it is putting in place to measure the effectiveness of the small business bonus scheme and how this will be reported. (S3O-3341)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

We will be evaluating the small business bonus scheme after it has been fully implemented in 2009-10. An evaluation report will be published.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the minister confirm that there are no conditions attached to the scheme, other than someone having a small business; that there are no incentives for good practice, for example training local staff, recycling or anything else; and that there are no expectations of this significant Government funding, other than that people will apply for it?

Has an equality impact assessment been conducted on the policy measure? What did it find? Will the minister confirm that, given his Executive's alleged commitment to equalities, it is not sufficient simply to evaluate something on the basis of crossing our fingers and hoping for the best? Will he confirm that we need hard measures, and that we need to know what the scheme is intended to deliver and whether it has delivered what ministers claim for it?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

It is curious that, during one question session, one member of the Labour Party asks the Government to support the business community and another Labour member condemns the Government for supporting the business community. That rather suggests that the Labour Party needs to think about its priorities and how it is advancing them.

I confirm to Johann Lamont—as I have done many times before on this question—that the Government believes that it is important to support people who are operating businesses in an extremely challenging financial climate, of which we heard further details yesterday from the governor of the Bank of England. The United Kingdom Government is taking steps to tackle the inflationary pressures that people are wrestling with. We should support the business community in taking decisions to invest in its future. Those who operate businesses have the best opportunity to judge the most appropriate way in which to invest the resources that the Government has made available through the small business bonus scheme. We should consider those factors and the scheme's impact on businesses as part of the Government's focus on delivering better outcomes for the people of Scotland, which comes under our national performance framework.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

If the evaluation shows that the small business bonus scheme has been a success, a hope that I assume we all share, even the Opposition—despite the appearances that it gives to the contrary—will that provide a strong argument for control over other types of business taxation, such as corporation tax, to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

That would be an excellent idea. The application of the Government's approach to the small business bonus scheme, which is to create a more competitive climate in which our businesses will have the opportunity to flourish and generate greater wealth in the small business community, illustrates our commitment to creating a vibrant economy and how we could go further if we had a broader range of financial powers. I am sure that that is the direction in which the Parliament is travelling, now that all the other parties are participating in the Calman commission, with its focus on strengthening the powers of the Parliament, and given the Government's commitment to ensure that the Parliament has the full range of powers at its disposal.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what additional investment plans it has for the Western Isles economy following its rejection of the proposed Lewis wind farm planning application. (S3O-3355)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I announced in Stornoway on 17 March a study into how renewable energy projects, as well as other potential economic development projects, can deliver economic and community benefit to the Western Isles. That work is being pursued urgently. We are also working closely with the Harris tweed and tourism sectors.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Lewis wind farm represented the biggest economic development prospect for the islands for many decades. It would have created jobs in manufacturing and a local income stream into the future, which would, in turn, have stimulated more investment locally and created more prosperity. The Government's decision to refuse consent—which is its right—removes that economic opportunity.

As the minister knows, the Western Isles economy is fragile and the islands need support to help to fill the gap that has been created. Will he guarantee that the Highlands and Islands Enterprise budget for the islands will not be subject to the cuts that are going on in HIE but will be added to in recognition of the difficulties in the Western Isles? Will he also support further capital investment in important infrastructure work through the local authority? Given that the reason for the rejection was environmental, will he set up a task group specifically to consider how the Government can contribute resources with, for example, the RSPB and other conservation organisations to better interpret and improve the natural habitat to encourage more tourism in the islands?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The study group is essentially doing what Peter Peacock asks. Far from removing economic opportunity, we are focusing capability to maximise it. In addition, we must recognise that the benefit of the small business bonus scheme is being disproportionately felt in the Western Isles and that the islands are poised to benefit from the road equivalent tariff pilot in October.

Any other thoughts that Peter Peacock has should be channelled into the study and into the debate that we will have in August when Michael Russell and I go back up to Lewis to ponder on the study and work with the community. We will also take time out to meet Harris tweed interests in the island and get that industry on to a firmer footing.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its transport priorities are for the Fife area. (S3O-3322)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Our priorities and our commitment to investing in transport links to Fife are clear through the construction of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway; the removal of tolls on the Forth and Tay road bridges; the construction of the upper Forth crossing at Kincardine; and our decision to build the Forth replacement crossing, which is the biggest transport construction project in Scotland in modern times. We also await information about the Thornton to Levenmouth rail link.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister will be aware that a Leven to Thornton rail link and improvements to the Redhouse interchange are high transport priorities for Fife Council. I hope that he will do all that he can to support the realisation of those projects. He may also be aware that a petition was submitted to the Parliament this week calling for improvements to the A92, particularly around Glenrothes. I am aware that there are competing priorities within Fife and a finite pot of money, but is he willing to consider the proposal for the A92 seriously and to meet me to discuss constituents' concerns about the road?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Claire Baker raises a number of issues. We had a useful debate on the Thornton to Levenmouth railway, in relation to which there are particular opportunities. We will consider the A92 in the context of the strategic transport projects review.

On the subject of railways, Claire Baker will be aware that the renegotiation of the ScotRail franchise has provided an additional hourly service that will run through Fife and additional trains from Markinch, and generally strengthened Fife services. We are providing substantial support to transport in Fife.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

Will the minister confirm that the first act of the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive in 1999 was to cancel the dualling of the A92 from Glenrothes? Does he agree that the refusal of the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive and Labour Fife Council to invest in the transport infrastructure in Fife has left unrealised many projects that the various communities regard as priorities? Will he meet me to discuss how the Leven to Thornton junction railway can be progressed as a priority?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I apologise to Claire Baker, because I should have said to her that I will, of course, meet her to discuss any concerns that she has—as I will also, of course, meet the member for Central Fife.

I was not here in 1999, to my regret, but I am sure that Tricia Marwick is extremely well informed about the activities of the then Labour Executive. The role of this Government is to ensure that many of the areas of neglect in transport throughout Scotland are addressed.