Scottish Parliament, 22 May 2008

401 contributions from 84 members. The official report.

Official Report 22 May 2008

Skills Strategy

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a Labour Party debate on motion S3M-1951, in the name of Rhona Brankin, on the skills strategy.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

We all know that the world is a rapidly changing place. Although that brings us opportunities as a country, it also presents us with new challenges. Developments in science and technology are having an increasing impact on the way in which we live our lives and do business. More than ever, Scotland's economic position is dependent on how we react to increased global competition.

Labour wants Scotland's businesses and citizens to prosper and flourish. For that to happen, our workforce must be equipped with a world-class skills base, so that we can compete against our international competitors. Improving Scotland's skills should be at the heart of the Government's agenda. The Government should work to ensure that we are a powerhouse of prosperity and, alongside that, to deliver social justice.

In decisively rejecting the Scottish Government's skills strategy back in September, the Parliament sent a message to the Scottish National Party that the document was wholly inadequate and lacking in detail. However, in its 2007 manifesto—that document so seemingly sacrosanct that even Alex Neil parrots from it at every opportunity—the SNP stated:

"We will aim to ensure that people of all ages can access relevant, valued and quality assured training opportunities throughout their working lives to keep pace with the rapidly changing demands of the global economy."

It added:

"In the long term, we will seek to relax the age restrictions on modern apprenticeships so that older workers can benefit from the programme too."

I am a little puzzled that one of the SNP's early steps in this area was to cut the number of adult apprenticeships, slashing it by 79 per cent—down from 6,225 last year to 1,229 this year. Of course, on planet Hyslop that was not a cut but, as her Scottish Government press release put it, a refocusing of support. So now we know—when the SNP cuts apprenticeship places, teaching posts and police numbers, those are not really cuts but refocusing of support.

More bizarre still, the Government has withdrawn support from adult apprenticeships in key areas such as tourism, information technology and retail. The tourism industry alone is worth more than £4 billion a year to the Scottish economy and supports more than 200,000 people, many of them in rural areas where other employment opportunities are few and far between. Frankly, it is perverse to reduce training opportunities for adults and to weaken our skills base in such a key area.

The Scottish Government's announcement not only denied opportunities to people who are seeking to improve their skills, impacting on our skills base in key sectors, but has meant lay-offs at respected training providers. As recently as November last year, training providers were told by Scottish Enterprise that there would be no changes to the current contribution level. In early March, many were promised new contracts, only to have the rug pulled out from under their feet by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning later in the month, to the astonishment of long-established training providers. In a letter to a training provider, one of the cabinet secretary's officials described the timing of the announcement, in typically understated civil service fashion, as "unfortunate". It was certainly unfortunate for Glasgow-based Microcom Training Ltd, a firm with a track record stretching back nearly 25 years, which has had to lay off a third of its workforce as a result of the cuts that Ms Hyslop announced in March. The Scottish Training Federation estimates that, under her watch, around 400 employees will lose their jobs in member companies. Is the cabinet secretary proud of that statistic?

I am disappointed by the lack of substance in the SNP's amendment. The SNP has so little to say on the issue that it has opted to point the finger of blame for the SNP's increasingly shambolic skills strategy at the previous Executive. I am more than happy to talk about the Labour-led Executive's track record on skills and the Scottish economy. Under Labour, the number of apprenticeships in Scotland rose from 2,000 to 35,000. Under Labour, the national minimum wage was introduced to make work pay—no thanks to SNP members, including the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and the First Minister, who could not be bothered to stay awake to vote for it. Under Labour, Scotland's unemployment rate was halved.

In a self-congratulatory manner that is fast becoming a hallmark of the Government, the SNP amendment refers to

"widespread business and industry support for the Scottish Government's skills strategy".

If we cast our minds back to September, we will recall that there was broad support, including in the chamber, for a skills strategy, but that Opposition members and others made clear their view that more detail was needed. Now that we have seen a bit more of the detail, we know what the SNP's real agenda is. Let us make no mistake—modern apprenticeships are under attack from a party that, as is increasingly clear, acts for short-term political advantage instead of taking decisions that are good for the long-term future of our economy and our country.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Why does Rhona Brankin think that Scotland's productivity and economic growth rates have lagged behind those of the United Kingdom as a whole? If skills provision by the previous Government was so successful, why has there been no improvement in those rates? Does she have the grace at least to support the Government's proposals to increase the number of construction and engineering modern apprenticeships by 1,000?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

We do not object to increasing the number of modern apprenticeships in the areas that the cabinet secretary mentioned—the problem is that that has meant support being cut in other areas. It is not a real-terms increase, but an insult to other areas of the economy in Scotland that are hugely important, such as tourism.

The huge danger is that we will fall behind the rest of the UK. The UK Government recognises the need to invest in skills to build a more prosperous and successful country and is putting in record levels of funding to achieve that, unlike the SNP. The SNP Government's decision to introduce modern apprenticeships at level 2 is a backward step because, increasingly, the minimum skill level that is required to sustain employment is level 3. Labour believes that all 16 to 19-year-olds who meet the entry requirement should have an entitlement to a modern apprenticeship. That is why a Labour MSP, John Park—himself a former apprentice—has proposed a member's bill to do just that. Just last week, the UK Government announced that it intends to introduce a right for all employees to request time off for training. When summing up, will the cabinet secretary clarify whether the SNP's non-interventionist approach to skills will include such a measure?

Brought to us by the same ministerial team that brought us walking to school, provided by specialist physical education teachers—allegedly—the SNP's skills strategy is an increasingly empty and drifting vessel. I hope that today the Parliament will insist that the Government produces a revised strategy that sets out in detail the mechanism for delivering 50,000 training places and the level at which they will be set, and which comes clean on the Government's targets for apprenticeships. We must have the detail of how the Government intends to measure the success or failure of its skills strategy. To prevent Scots and our economy from losing out because of the Government's failure to make skills and apprenticeships a priority, I urge members to support the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that the Scottish Government's skills strategy was rejected by the Parliament on 12 September 2007; recognises the importance of skills development and utilisation in growing Scotland's economy; voices concern at the decision of the Scottish Government to move away from supporting adult apprenticeships in vital areas such as the tourism, IT and retail sectors without consultation with work-based training providers; calls on the Scottish Government to provide the Parliament, with immediate effect, the evidence to support these moves, and further calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward a revised skills strategy immediately after the summer recess containing detailed information about the level at which its 50,000 training places are being set, its targets for apprenticeships and the performance indicators used to measure success.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

We are a Government with a strong and real sense of purpose—to increase sustainable economic growth. We are a Government with energy, ideas and vision, and total confidence in Scotland's ability to succeed. That is why we will achieve our goals. Scotland's people have confidence in us, and that is why we are delivering.

It is inconceivable that we would seek to impose English solutions to Scottish challenges. I am delighted to have the opportunity in this debate to outline what we achieved in our first year in Government and to reinforce our ambitious and challenging vision for a more vibrant and responsive learning system. We have laid strong foundations and have in place strong policies that will deliver benefits to all individuals in Scotland. We are not alone in thinking that—we have been inundated with support from a cross-section of the business community and stakeholders in the learning system. We are a Government that listens and responds and will not shy away from taking difficult decisions.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Has the Government been inundated with support from training providers in Scotland after the bombshell that it dropped on 31 March?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I remember modern apprenticeships being slashed and training providers going into liquidation across the country because of a crisis in Scottish Enterprise under the Labour Party's watch.

We will not play the numbers game, because our young people are far too important for that. Simply providing more apprenticeships, thereby forcing and corralling employers and individuals into the wrong skills programme, will not only dash people's confidence, but bring MAs into disrepute. Lots of interventions are available and it would be wrong to force young people, many of whom could already be disengaged with education, into an MA. We are not in that game.

Scotland has a long and proud history of excellence and achievement in education and skills. However, for far too long we have lagged behind the rest of the UK and Europe in economic growth. Now is the time to turn that around and allow Scotland to achieve its full potential. However, that potential will not be realised by importing English solutions or by adopting a target-driven, supply-led skills system.

We recognise that we have a key role to play in driving forward our vision to achieve a smarter Scotland. We cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach to the skills intervention menu that Scotland needs. If we are to achieve our vision, we must truly adopt a range of different approaches that reflect our aspiration to have a responsive and relevant learning system.

We need to work with all our key partners, delivery agents and employer representatives. To that end, the cabinet secretary and I have met representatives of all the sector skills councils, principals of further education colleges, learners and employers, who all tell us that we are heading in the right direction.

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

When the minister met the skills council in the creative industries sector, where the number of modern apprenticeships is being reduced, in what context was the Government's direction welcomed?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The flexibility that we are providing for learners was welcomed.

We are clear about everyone's roles and responsibilities and how we can contribute to upskilling all individuals in Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the minister give way?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I must continue.

Government's job is to set the strategic context for the work and that is exactly what we have done. We will not adopt a centralist, target-setting approach, forcing supply-led solutions in order to meet some dreamt-up headline figure. We believe that it is not enough to focus only on increasing the skills of individuals; we recognise that Scotland already has higher levels of well-qualified individuals—indeed we are ahead of the rest of the UK in that area. As well as maintaining high levels of skills acquisition, we need to improve how we utilise individuals' skills.

Making that happen has necessitated change. Standing still was not, and is not, an option. When we launched the skills for Scotland strategy, I described it as a call to action. In the seven months since then, we have made significant progress despite the challenge of a tighter financial settlement from Westminster, which has led us to make tough choices. We have announced changes to the modern apprenticeship programme: we increased the number of individuals undertaking engineering and construction-related MAs by 1,000 and introduced a new life science MA and the opportunity to develop level 2 MAs, which was welcomed by the food and drink industry, among others.

In order to provide Skills Development Scotland with the space that it needs to deliver the universally endorsed skills strategy, we are directing all new support for adult MAs to the engineering and construction-related sectors only. We did that to ensure that Skills Development Scotland was not tied into four-year contracts, which would reduce our ability to deliver real change now. Therefore, some MAs that we know did not deliver value for money will not be supported, and we have directed the sector skills councils and Skills Development Scotland to scope out over the next year a fuller and more relevant range of skills interventions that employers actually need. This is a real opportunity, and a first step towards a demand-led system.

Setting volume-based targets, enshrining entitlements in legislation and forcing employers and individuals into skills interventions such as modern apprenticeships is not the answer. We believe that we have struck the right balance between responding to the needs of employers and initiating substantial changes to our learning infrastructure to accommodate the dramatic change that has been universally welcomed.

I move amendment S3M-1951.3, to leave out from "the Scottish Government's skills strategy" to end and insert:

"under the previous administration, Scotland's growth rate and productivity levels lagged behind the United Kingdom and believes that this indicates that a new approach to skills and the economy is necessary; notes the widespread business and industry support for the Scottish Government's skills strategy and believes that government's role is to respond to demand from employers, to improve skills utilisation and support individuals' skills development."

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

When I saw in the Business Bulletin last week that the Labour Party had chosen for debate today the subject of skills, I thought that there had been a typing error. For the past three weeks, Labour has spoken of nothing but the need for a referendum on Scottish independence. I imagined that the Labour Party was waiting desperately for its first debating-time slot so that it could have an opportunity to set out in detail to Parliament its thinking on the important issue of our constitutional future.

Imagine my surprise when I saw that today's debates were not to be about the constitution but about skills and the Scottish Ambulance Service. Those are important subjects, but it is remarkable that the Labour Party wants to say nothing at all about the major subject of political debate of the past three weeks. Perhaps its reticence is because it was unable to come up with a motion, given that it has held so many different positions over the past three weeks that it does not even know what its position is on the subject.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

You have only four minutes in which to mention skills, Mr Fraser.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There is a certain irony in a party choosing for debate the subject of skills when its front bench is so lacking in skills.

I am pleased to see so many Labour members here this morning; I thought that they would all be down in Crewe and Nantwich campaigning for a Labour victory in that important by-election. However, it is clear that they have already given it up as a lost cause.

This is an important debate and I welcome the Labour motion, which highlights some important points. In September last year, we debated the Government's skills strategy, which did not gain parliamentary support. I do not believe that the situation has improved much since then.

The new skills agency, Skills Development Scotland, has been established, but there is still a great deal of uncertainty about who is to be on its board and how it is to work. A chair is now in place, but the organisation still has only an interim chief executive and interim board members, and there is no detail on how the organisation is to work.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I inform Parliament that I have approved board appointments, which will be announced shortly. The advert has been placed for the chief executive, who will be in place in the next few months.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am pleased to hear that progress is being made because I constantly meet skills providers and people in industry who are frustrated by the lack of progress on Skills Development Scotland. The sooner that we get that body in place and know what it does, the better.

The Labour motion refers to the Government's decision to move away from adult modern apprenticeships in vital sectors such as tourism, information technology and retail. I do not know whether the Government has made the right decision because, frankly, there has been no information to support that decision, and no consultation with people in those sectors.

The Scottish Training Federation wrote to me and others on 14 May, expressing its concern about the sudden change in emphasis—without any consultation—in the adult modern apprenticeship programme, thus denying training providers any scope to forward plan. The result has been redundancies and restructuring. That is not the mark of competent government and I therefore support Labour's call for the Government to come forward with the evidence to support that move.

There is concern in other sectors, such as the food and drink industry—which is supposedly a priority industry for the Government—that there will be no further funding of apprenticeships for those over 20. Given that the vast majority of people working in that sector are over 20, that will have a serious effect on the ability of the industry to train staff.

Our amendment refers to the important issue of vocational education. We in the Conservative party have always supported the idea that school pupils aged 14 and upwards should have the right to choose education by a vocational route. Vocational education should be seen not as second best to academic learning, but as an alternative for those who wish to take it up. Vocational education should be high quality and available to all. The skills strategy should set out in detail the SNP Government's plans for expanding access to vocational education, and that is why we need a revised skills strategy to be brought to Parliament for debate and approval.

The SNP Government's approach to skills is seriously lacking. The minister's coat might well be on a shoogly peg following her blunders last week on PE provision in schools, but that is no excuse for the Government's inability to address such serious issues properly.

I move amendment S3M-1951.1, to insert at end:

"and details of how access will be provided to high quality vocational education for all school pupils aged 14 or above."

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

On 12 September, the Parliament voted 72 to 47 against the Government's skills strategy, with no abstentions. There was a good reason for that: the strategy simply did not live up to the Government's hype. It was not a robust document against which progress could be judged and it did not clearly express the structures that would be put in place to make the improvements that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and ministers have said are badly needed. It contained no baseline data or any measurable areas or objective criteria against which to judge progress.

In response, the Government said that it was never meant to be that type of document. Instead, it was simply mood music—whalesong from the education directorates to soothe and reassure the sector. However, on 12 September, the Minister for Schools and Skills said that the document was a call to action. At the meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee on 26 September, I asked representatives of colleges and universities to tell the committee what action they had been called on to carry out. Howard McKenzie said:

"I do not think that we are being asked to do anything differently",

and David Caldwell of Universities Scotland said:

"the universities are not really being asked to do anything much."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 26 September 2007; c 143.]

On the very day that the strategy was comprehensively defeated in the chamber, Maureen Watt said:

"Iain Gray said that he could not find fault with it, Murdo Fraser gave it a pass and Jeremy Purvis recognised the importance of working with colleges to deliver locally."—[Official Report, 12 September 2007; c 1631.]

According to the Government, the strategy was agreed with acclamation, and a defeat of 72 to 47 votes was actually a ringing endorsement.

Maureen Watt said that the Government has vision. In fact, it has a kind of reverse myopia: it sees things in front of it as a blur, while things in the far-off distance are quite clear. Unfortunately, we have become accustomed to that rationale. Indeed, it was used by Fiona Hyslop when she denied that the SNP had promised to write off student debt—or, at least, she tried to deny it until she was referred to her own website. The same rationale lies behind Alex Salmond's claim that a consultation document that did not even exist had been published and Maureen Watt's statement that walking to school counted as PE.

On 12 September, Maureen Watt said:

"As a result, this strategy acknowledges that a greater national effort is required—it is a call for action."—[Official Report, 12 September 2007; c 1634.]

The next day, Adam Ingram said:

"I know that Parliamentary colleagues will be interested—indeed, impatient—to hear more detail on implementation."—[Official Report, 13 September 2007; c 1684.]

We were impatient—and we still are. Eight months later, we still have uncertainty and delay.

The new organisation, Skills Development Scotland, has a budget of £16 million for set-up costs alone—an amount that is just shy of the Government's entire budget for skills learning, and we still do not know what its running costs will be.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

On the latter point, I refer the member to my letter to two committees with interests in this area.

Does the member recall the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment to bring together Careers Scotland and learndirect Scotland, which, according to PA Consulting Group, would have cost £22 million? Setting up any new agency will incur costs, but I can tell you—by which I mean, of course, the Presiding Officer—that the efficiencies and improvements that we will get from Skills Development Scotland will lead to improvements in skills in front-line services.

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

The cabinet secretary is talking complete rubbish. We decided in the end that we would keep those matters within the enterprise functions, because we knew that the proposal would cost £22 million and felt that it would be better to invest that money in our young people and in developing skills and training instead of hiving it off for some national quango with set-up costs alone of £16 million.

The new agency is meant to be a supply-side body for skills that will deliver national courses. In my area, the Government has abolished Scottish Enterprise Borders, whose budget last year for providing a range of skills and training courses was £1.2 million. This year, I have no idea what the skills budget for the area might be, because no one is in a position to say. Last year, there was an estimated £18 million out-turn on that investment; we estimate that this year the equivalent will be £5 million. Skills functions have been transferred to Skills Development Scotland, but eight months after its inception we still do not know anything about its regional structure. The structure of Scottish Enterprise south might be mirrored, which would break up the relationship that has developed among training providers and education institutions in the Borders, the Lothians and Edinburgh, or the structure might cover the Lothian and Borders area, which would not reflect the area covered by Scottish Enterprise south.

I hope that the minister will clarify when the regional structures will be developed. After all, I have been told that, because of that uncertainty and because no one at Skills Development Scotland is able to give a clear indication about skills development in the area, Scottish Borders Council's single outcome agreement will have to contain guesses about training provision in the Borders. That is not exactly a call to action.

As someone who has provided work placement opportunities for local young people, I received a few weeks ago a letter notifying me that the service, which has always been developed in the Borders, was being provided from an agency in Pollok. Two weeks later, I received a four-page form regarding new work placement arrangements, which was sent to all businesses in the Borders and had to be filled in within four days because the arrangements were going live at the beginning of June. That is a hapless state of affairs—[Interruption.] The cabinet secretary from a sedentary position blames Scottish Borders Council. That is typical of the Government's approach: when it finds that its national strategy is not being delivered, it simply blames the local partners.

I move amendment S3M-1951.2, to insert at end:

"and regrets the priority given by the Scottish Government in budgeting £16 million for set-up costs alone for Skills Development Scotland, while removing specific funding for skills for work courses delivered in schools and colleges."

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We come to the open debate. We can be a bit flexible with time, but I ask that members keep their speeches to around four minutes.

I call Stuart McMillan, to be followed by Marilyn Livingstone.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I apologise; this is a Labour Party debate. I call Marilyn Livingstone, to be followed by Stuart McMillan.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I welcome the motion, which gives us an opportunity to debate the importance of skills development to growing Scotland's economy. Last September, the chamber quite rightly rejected the Government's skills strategy, and today's debate allows us to seek a revised strategy that provides detail, clarity of purpose and a clear vision of how we can move forward and tackle some of the real challenges that we are facing now and will face in the years to come.

I want to focus on two areas that will be vital in building our workforce's skills base and therefore our economic success. First, given that they enrol more than 400,000 students each year and deliver learning to 25 per cent of students in Scottish higher education, Scottish colleges will be crucial to the effective and efficient development of economic success across the industry clusters. Although I certainly welcome the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council's current review of funding methodology, I believe that, if it is to have any credibility, it must address the unfair funding differentials in the sector. Moreover, as the sector is recognised by key stakeholders and the Parliament as a bridge to a skilled, safe and competent workforce, the Government must engage with it at a policy level. I would like to hear the minister's plans in that respect.

On the same theme, what progress is being made by the future thinking task force? Despite the fact that it is looking at higher education, it has no representation from the colleges, even though they deliver learning to 25 per cent of HE students in Scotland. Will the task force consider parity of funding in the sector? What are the timescales for its reporting back, and what consultation will be carried out with Parliament and key stakeholders? The vital work of building the skills base of our workforce includes developing new skills as well as ensuring better utilisation of existing ones and I believe that Scotland's colleges are best placed to deliver that agenda.

Secondly, it will come as no surprise to the cabinet secretary to learn that I, as convener of the cross-party group on construction and chair of its skills and training sub-group, want to raise certain concerns that have been expressed by the construction industry. It believes that consideration must be given to future training needs and the availability of funding for the sector and is worried about skills shortages and lack of training provision in certain areas of Scotland. For example, in the trade of stone masonry, the combination of increased demand, retirement among the current skilled workforce and too few training places has resulted in a skills shortage. Given the current emphasis on restoring our built environment, that is becoming a huge issue.

The industry is also concerned about the capping of construction places in our higher and further education colleges and variations in the funding for modern apprenticeships between Scotland and England and Wales. Such funding is very important in increasing employer participation. In Scotland, 16 to 19-year-old engineering construction apprentices are awarded £9,000, while those over 19 receive £4,500.

However, in England, 16 to 18-year-old apprentices receive £15,856, while those who are over 19 receive £8,567.

Scotland faces some major challenges in the next few years, not only from the global marketplace but in relation to the skilled labour that is required to deliver major projects such as the new Forth crossing, proposed new hospital buildings and—I hope—a school building programme. Scotland's construction industry will play a vital role in the delivery of that agenda. I ask the minister to consider the industry's concerns very seriously.

Skills Development Scotland announced that, during the first half of 2008, it would undertake a business product review of current service delivery arrangements. How long will that take? Who will be consulted? How will the review dovetail with the future thinking task force review and the Scottish funding council's funding mechanisms review? I ask those questions because there has been a lot of bureaucratic change, and we are desperate to hear an announcement on how the Government intends to draw together all those different strands to ensure a cohesive approach to raising Scotland's level of skills.

The Government's previous strategy was rejected by the Parliament for being light on detail, and we call on the Scottish National Party Government to produce a revised skills strategy that gives clarity, vision and direction. When will the cabinet secretary be in a position to deliver such a strategy—a strategy that is fit for its purpose of delivering a fully skilled and qualified workforce that is ready to meet the challenges ahead, and a strategy that tackles regional equity issues and delivers for all Scotland's communities?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I now call Stuart McMillan.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Déjà vu, Presiding Officer.

As we are all aware, the issue of skills covers a wide range of areas, from early learning to adult learning and everything in between. The combination of the SNP Government's skills strategy and the work of Skills Development Scotland is a positive force that will move forward Scotland's ambition in the area of skills. Scotland has a proud tradition of skill-based workers, and investment in such areas is the highest in the UK, which results in a well-qualified population. However, being qualified is often not enough.

The Labour approach is heavily influenced by the Leitch review of skills, with an emphasis on increasing the number of qualifications that are available, rather than considering demand from the labour market. Research by Futureskills Scotland shows that, while Scotland has successfully developed a highly skilled workforce, demand for such workers has not always kept pace with the increased supply. The Scottish Government's strategy balances the current disparity between employers and skilled workers. By considering the needs of employers as well as placing individuals at the centre of skills development, a coherent skills base will be developed.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The SNP does not believe in a volume-based approach. Can the member please explain why it has set a target of 50,000 training places?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I will come on to that later.

That cohesive structure serves partly to close the gap between academic and vocational learning. Vocational learning is a valuable alternative to the academic route that most people consider when aiming to enhance their skills, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government recognises the importance of vocational learning in its approach to skills. I am sure that all members acknowledge the dearth of plumbers, electricians and other skilled tradespeople in our communities.

John Park's proposed member's bill focuses on apprenticeships and gives us a rather interesting insight into the state of Labour's affairs. Does he really think that doing the best for Scotland means duplicating UK Government policies? Clearly not, because one could be forgiven for thinking that he was ever so slightly envious of the SNP strategy when he spoke to The Scotsman last September.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I missed the member's second point there, but I point out that the proposed apprenticeship rights (Scotland) bill is not a duplication of UK policy. Does he agree that it is quite unusual for a member to criticise a bill before its consultation period is finished? That has probably never happened in the Parliament in the past nine years.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am not actually criticising the member's bill per se. When the bill is introduced and there has been a full consultation process, I am sure that it will be given the due consideration that it requires.

John Park is quite right that the first step that has been taken has been welcomed by, among others, Iain McMillan of the Confederation of British Industry Scotland and Liz Cameron from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce.

When he spoke to The Scotsman about the matter last year, John Park said:

"Skills is a policy area where there is much agreement, and even political opponents can see merit in the Cabinet secretary for education and lifelong learning's document as a first step."

Many of us take skills for granted, but the SNP's strategy for developing skills is a positive transformation of a sector that is so vital for moving Scotland forward, and it should be welcomed if we are to do the best by Scotland's workforce.

Scotland has the chance of a generation to lay positive foundations for the future. The Commonwealth games are coming, and Scotland will be developing other major infrastructure projects. A positive skills strategy is vital to meet those and other business needs and to plug the gap that has led to a shortage in skilled tradespeople. I therefore back the amendment in the name of the cabinet secretary and reject the Labour motion.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

We have heard warm words on skills from the Scottish Government, but we need the right initiatives for a successful skills strategy. The strategy that the Government produced, which it still defends today, created a new agency and precious little else. That is why Parliament deemed it insufficient, and I cannot believe that events since then could have led members to revise their opinion. However, clearly, that is what some members have done.

Being a member for North East Scotland, I am well aware of the demand for more skilled workers. Not having the right skills programme means an opportunity cost for local businesses that cannot expand as they might hope to and a cost to those people who otherwise could have taken advantage of new skills in a strong jobs market.

The oil and gas industry is not waiting for the Scottish Government on the skills issue—it is setting up its own oil and gas skills academy. The Scottish Government should at least be providing additional opportunities for such training. Training for work and training in life skills as provided by organisations such as the Aberlour Child Care Trust are among the life-changing opportunities that are available.

It is a core part of Labour's political philosophy that everybody should have the opportunity to receive the education and training that they need to fulfil their potential. We are proud of the record of the coalition Executive, which increased the number of modern apprenticeships to 34,000 in the previous session. We are not resting on our laurels: John Park's proposed bill seeks to create an entitlement to modern apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-olds.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The member praises the figure of 34,000 modern apprenticeships. Is not the reality that less than 50 per cent of those who participated actually completed their apprenticeships?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Members will find that our track record on skills was impeccable. We increased opportunity and success.

Mr Neil would have been the first to shout his outrage at the withdrawal of adult apprenticeships, which is an opportunity cost for the people involved. His sudden reversal and his discretion on such issues is puzzling. However, I wish him well in the reshuffle for which he earnestly hopes.

The impact of the withdrawal of many adult modern apprenticeships has been made clear to me by a constituent in Dundee. Steve Moyes is a director of Coralshore, which provides training in child care. Eight young women who started their course will not now be able to complete it. Months of effort by those women have been wasted, and they are now faced with the choice of funding their own training or losing their jobs. One 20-year-old woman, who had been on the point of completing her level 2 Scottish vocational qualification, will now not be able to obtain the necessary funding to move on to level 3. She has worked in a nursery for about two years, but she will now lose her job unless she can afford to pay for her own training. For that woman and many others in her situation, that is an unrealistic option. The fact that the move on apprenticeships happened with immediate effect means that the Scottish Government has left people such as her in the lurch.

It is those very people, particularly young women, for whom we worked so hard to offer more employment opportunities who are being especially penalised by the Government's move. The priorities are perverse. Mr Moyes has asked whether withdrawing the apprenticeships on the basis of age is in line with UK law on age discrimination. I would be interested to know whether the minister can confirm that.

We should be talking about more training opportunities for all. That we are not doing so shows that the already feeble skills strategy that the Government has set out is failing. The Government is short on detail on the kind of training provision that it will seek to provide, and its proposals certainly do not match the ambition that was outlined at Westminster earlier this month, or indeed the ambition of my party and others that are represented in the chamber. That is why the Government should finally acknowledge the will of the Parliament and return to the chamber with a strategy that takes the kind of initiatives that we and others have suggested to ensure that we have the highly skilled, successful Scotland that we all want.

Christopher Harvie (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In the late 1990s, the Scott Lithgow shipyard at Port Glasgow was demolished and four call centres were built on its site. That was part of some new deal. To some, we were entering the knowledge economy, but that was the yard whose skilled shipwrights, engineers and boiler workers had, a decade earlier, built the Ocean Alliance drill ship—a contract that ruined the yard but produced perhaps the most sophisticated vessel of its type, which was crucial in detecting oil in the deepest of waters.

Something akin to the North Sea oil revolution is ahead of us—the renewables revolution—but we must get back to that period in terms of skills and training. That is difficult when, over the past decade, the manufacturing proportion of gross domestic product has gone down by a quarter. What will it take to get renewables up and running? Last week, we were told that renewables would create 50,000 jobs, which sounds great, until we realise that our current output of apprentices in engineering and electrotechnics is less than 2,000 a year. Baden-Württemberg, my previous employer, produces 10 times as many, even allowing for the population difference. A well-known Prime Minister said:

"We must manufacture or die"

in his book "Where There's Greed: Margaret Thatcher and the Betrayal of Britain's Future" in 1999. It was Gordon Brown. Right on, Gordon, but what happened?

How do we proceed? We require a cultural revolution and we must step up recruitment by making the pitch for the importance of mechanical engineering and the link with new technology, which is crucial to high value and innovation.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Does Christopher Harvie agree that, if the SNP had approved the Lewis wind farm application, there would have been a massive increase in manufacturing jobs at Arnish? I see Mr Allan shaking his head—no wonder.

Christopher Harvie (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I would put the emphasis much less on wind energy and much more on wave energy. We must tackle the might of the mighty Atlantic. That is how we must orientate ourselves.

We must get back to the age of the master engineer and Thomas Telford's idea of making any major public works project a great working academy, which means a greater degree of practical involvement and an orientation towards professions that are much more valuable than those of the estate agent—which will fairly rapidly be extinct—or lawyer. From some of my public experiences, I regretfully think that engineers make more money from turning up at public inquiries to oppose schemes than they do from advancing technology by experiment and innovation.

Another source of expertise is Europe. Unquestionably, we cannot do without western Europe for high technology, but eastern Europe is much underestimated. Our incoming workers are often well overqualified for the sort of jobs that we set them to do. Members should remember that the Lenin shipyard at Gdansk had 20,000 workers in 1980 and now has 2,000. That is only one example. Perhaps we could arrange for eastern Europe's technical know-how to be given in exchange for our knowledge of the English language, although we must remember that, these days, the shop talk of technology is in German, not English.

We must review our school system to emphasise two points: first, that craft skills are equal, if not superior, to passing academic tests; and secondly, that the menu of such skills should extend across gender competencies. The old Clydeside mentality was not very good at that, so macho Mac must move over. We need a pause for reflection after secondary school—a social year along German lines—and we would also be well advised to follow the Icelandic example of building social work and industrial involvement into the latter years at secondary school. We must do that soon, because our old carbon economy will not last a decade. We do not have time for a resit.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I speak in support of the motion in the name of my colleague Rhona Brankin.

It is worth saying at the start that the reason for the debate is that the Parliament rejected the SNP's skills strategy and, to be frank, the ministers of the minority Administration should have come back to the Parliament with something better long before now. Labour members tried to get commitments to more modern apprenticeship places during the budget debate, but that was voted down by the SNP and its new best friends, the Tories—I say to Mr Fraser that that is why we are having the debate today. Then, in April, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning announced changes to the modern apprenticeship system. Did the SNP increase the numbers, as we had asked it to do? No. It scrapped adult places, except for those in construction, engineering and life sciences.

Increasing numbers in those areas is welcome, but what about elsewhere in the economy?

The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee has been conducting an inquiry into tourism and considering whether Scotland's tourism industry can grow by 50 per cent by 2015. The target is ambitious and the industry believes it to be challenging, but there is one serious problem—a shortage of skilled staff. Witness after witness has spoken of the difficulties. Indeed, the committee has been told that if it were not for the influx of migrant workers into hotels, restaurants and other businesses throughout Scotland, many of those businesses would be unable to function. Even the SNP's favourite hotelier, Donald Macdonald, is not immune to that: Aviemore, where we have all had party conferences, is full of migrant workers—and a good job they are doing, too.

Like other areas of the economy, tourism is becoming more and more reliant on new technology—for bookings, to provide information to customers and to run efficient businesses—but what did the SNP do in April? Alongside the concentration on construction, engineering and life sciences that it announced, it was clear that the SNP was abandoning modern apprenticeships in tourism, retail and information technology. We could not make it up. In Aviemore, at least, there is an attempt to set up a hotel school for the Highlands, and six chefs are in training. I urge the cabinet secretary to speak to Mr Macdonald about that rather than planning inquiries.

Our service industries are a key area of the economy. For example, the growth of Glasgow is down to tourism, financial services and IT. As an aside, if Christopher Harvie is so interested in ship building, he will be interested to hear that a major UK Government contract to build two new aircraft carriers has just been signed and that the apprentices that the shipyards in Glasgow have taken on—the largest number that they have ever taken on—have jobs for the next decade, which is to be welcomed.

Tourism is a growth sector and we need more skilled workers for it, but a major training route has been cut off. No wonder that Labour members want the minister to think again. Increasing the number of modern apprenticeships in tourism will not bring the scheme into disrepute. The minister wants a demand-led system. In tourism, there is a demand.

Yesterday, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee heard evidence from Donald Henderson, the interim chief executive of Skills Development Scotland—the new training quango that the SNP established. He talked about the organisation's operating plan for next year. I was astonished earlier to hear the minister say that she does not want something to be imported from England. Perhaps that explains why, under the heading "Individual Development", the plan calls for

"a distinctively Scottish approach to skills acquisition".

Perhaps, in her closing speech, the minister will explain exactly what that means.

Under the heading "Economic Pull", the plan refers to

"understanding current and projected demands for skills to help meet future skills needs".

The members of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee—and I include the SNP members—understand only too well the projected needs of Scotland's tourism industry: it needs many more indigenous skilled workers who are able to take their place in an exciting and vibrant industry. The SNP's decision to axe modern apprenticeships in the tourism sector and in IT is perverse and a major mistake. I hope that the cabinet secretary will, as people say, think again.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We should not take a narrow view of skills but look at the Government's total skills strategy. For example, the work that it is doing to expand the number of pre-school nursery places by 50 per cent is part of a skills strategy because, as we know, the more children who start earlier with pre-school education, the greater the number who are likely to end up in higher and further education.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will Alex Neil give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I will give way in a minute. I ask Rhona Brankin to give me a minute to get into my speech.

We should not think of skills only in terms of modern apprenticeships, important though they are. For example, the proposals in the consultation document on the reforms to secondary education—particularly those for a baccalaureate—could have a huge impact on how we manage not only secondary education but the transition from secondary to tertiary education. Professor Hamnett, the principal of the University of Strathclyde, is on record as saying that one way to increase flexibility and participation rates in higher education—the universities—is to introduce a baccalaureate-type system in secondary education.

The creation of Skills Development Scotland, which was foreshadowed in the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report four years ago, is of major significance. It is more than a bureaucratic restructuring.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

Will the member give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

In a moment.

The careers service, which has been moved from pillar to post in the past 15 to 20 years, has now got a secure bolthole and is tied in with the rest of the skills strategy and with learndirect Scotland. That is another reform that was foreshadowed four years ago, in the report of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, of which I was the convener and Marilyn Livingstone—to whom I now give way—was the excellent deputy convener.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

I agree with Alex Neil that the issue of skills goes much wider than modern apprenticeships, as the speakers in my party have shown. However, my points about further and higher education were serious. The futures group that the minister chairs, and which is discussing higher education, has no representatives from the further and higher education sector. That must be addressed. Skills Development Scotland, although welcome, will not deliver, given the 0.8 per cent growth in that sector, without a strategic approach being taken and funding being allocated.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

A number of parallel reviews and discussions are going on, such as the review of Scottish colleges and various other activities that are being undertaken by the funding council and directly by the Government. At the end of the day, they will all form part of the national education and skills strategy.

We must address three or four major challenges and, where possible, we must reach agreement in this chamber about how we can best address them.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

My time is restricted, and I have given way a lot.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member give way to me?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

God, they queue up. I said that I would give way to Rhona Brankin, and I always keep my promises.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I have waited patiently. Does the member agree that, given that the Government has said that it is committed to an early years strategy, it is perverse that it is cutting modern apprenticeship support for people who work in the early years sector?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I do not agree with that, so I will turn to the key challenges that face us.

The first challenge involves the need to ensure that we have the education and skills base to facilitate the highest possible level of economic growth and development. Given that we have scarce resources, tough choices must be made about where we prioritise our skills resource.

One of the criticisms that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee made in its report three or four years ago was that the skills policy was totally divorced from the smart, successful Scotland policy. I believe that the cabinet secretary is right to try to tailor our skills strategy to the objectives of the economic growth and development strategy. That is why it is important to put more resources into key sectors that will drive the future growth of the economy.

The second major challenge, which has hardly been mentioned by the Labour speakers this morning, is the question of access, particularly to higher education.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should be finishing now, Mr Neil.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The statistics show—as was confirmed in a recent report by the funding council—that, in the past 40 years, we have not increased the chances of people from the lowest income groups going to university. We must meet that challenge, as well as the challenges of fairness and of people who are not in employment or education. Unfortunately, I do not have time to expand on those challenges, but I am willing to give a lesson on the issues at coffee time later on.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

My colleague Jeremy Purvis and others have highlighted some of the shortcomings in the Government's approach to skills, so I will not dwell on them. However, as we all know, the Government's approach to skills training, as outlined in its strategy document last September, was rejected by this Parliament, and it is outrageous that, yet again, the SNP Government is ignoring what the Parliament has said. That is completely unacceptable. The SNP's skills strategy was about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. We should by now be used to this SNP Administration winging it at every opportunity, but it is lamentable that it is taking that approach with the education and training of our labour force.

Rather than simply point out the all-too-apparent inadequacies of the Government's approach, I will examine some of the issues that have not been addressed in detail, especially with regard to further education colleges, which are a particular interest of mine.

Scotland's FE colleges provide training for around 360,000 people every year, 24 per cent of whom come from deprived backgrounds. Interestingly, because of the number of adult modern apprenticeships, the average age of students is 32. The colleges are the base for reskilling and retraining, which is reflected in their presence across the country. Unfortunately, thanks to funding council decisions, the provision for City and Guilds qualifications and modern apprenticeships to be delivered through our colleges has not grown for eight years. Even so, FE colleges offer the widest range of modern apprenticeship opportunities in the country.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Again, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report from four years ago specifically recommended that modern apprenticeships should not be restricted to SVQs but should include City and Guilds qualifications and other qualifications. That recommendation was specifically rejected by the then Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Jim Wallace.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I bow to Mr Neil's knowledge—I was not aware that that was the case.

At the moment, according to the information that I have been given by colleges, it seems that the small amounts of money that are being assigned to big issues such as knowledge transfer, employer engagement, and skills and employability will not make the required difference.

Scotland's FE colleges are key players, and must be recognised as such. As previous speakers have said, they have not been included in the discussions to the extent that they should have been. However, the Government could take a number of steps to enhance the role of colleges. It could extend the current bursary scheme, incentivise training in modern apprenticeships by creating all-age business bursaries, and match resources for the modernisation of the non-advanced vocational curriculum with those committed to the curriculum for excellence. The Government could use colleges to promote and enhance the role of associate professionals in areas such as life sciences and develop colleges' role in the two-way exchange of new knowledge. Further, transferring the adult careers advice function to colleges could produce a better focus, given the level of the people with whom that service engages.

In short, we must ask the Government to come back with some indication of how the issues that have been raised during this debate will be tackled more effectively. I hope that we get more than the motherhood-and-apple-pie approach that we have had so far from this SNP Government.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As Murdo Fraser said in his opening remarks—at least, in the second part of his opening remarks—the Scottish Conservatives have been concerned about the need to develop a more consistent and coherent skills and training strategy. I will conclude our contribution to this debate by picking out what we see as the main priorities.

It is abundantly clear that there is an overriding objective to provide a workforce that is fit for the challenges of the 21st century and which allows Scotland to develop its full economic potential and ability to compete successfully in the international community. However, we cannot ignore the concerns of around a third of employers in Scotland that many workers are still poorly prepared for work.

The Government has recently set out its intention to focus more on basic skills in school testing, which is warmly welcome. However, in no way can that be expected to solve all the problems, and it is essential that we identify the other reforms that must accompany that move, including, as Richard Baker, Jeremy Purvis and Murdo Fraser said, the production of a much more robust skills strategy than the one that was presented to us previously.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I do not frequent the Conservatives' website, but a submission to the United Kingdom shadow cabinet that has been placed on it states:

"The current supply-led structure (overly influenced by the providers of training) would be transformed into a demand-led framework."

I am genuinely interested in the Conservatives' position. Do they believe in a volume-based, supply-side approach to skills development or in a demand-led approach, led by individuals and employers?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Like any good Conservative, I am interested in the market economy and how supply and demand come together. There are two sides to the issue, so, as John Park identified, it is vital that we do not listen only to what the needs are.

One of the great problems in the skills debate has been that, for too long and too often, it has been focused on one sector of the education system. One of the major difficulties is ensuring that people who are talented when it comes to vocational skills have the ability to use those talents and are not prevented from doing so because of society's attitude to university education and so on. I hope that when the cabinet secretary considers her examination reforms, she also considers a much more flexible system in schools, so that different situations have parity of esteem and youngsters are able to leave school after the age of 14 and get apprenticeships. That is an important issue, and it is excellent that John Park is bringing forward a bill that will enable us to debate it.

I pay tribute to the Scottish colleges, which have a vital role to play. They are to be complimented on their efforts to provide our young people with a much more career-focused programme, which gives them a head start.

We need a robust strategy, and we need direction. There is a complaint that the new skills agency does not yet have permanent staffing and that its objectives have not been laid out. It is essential that those concerns are addressed. As many members have said, it is incumbent on the Government to come forward with its proposals. The sooner that that happens, the better.

Although the Conservatives welcome many aspects of the debate and will support the Labour motion, we believe that we must get the message firmly across to the Government and to the wider public that we expect some leadership on skills issues.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The debate has centred on the fundamental premise of whether Government should adopt a supply-led, centrally controlled approach that is heavily influenced by training providers, or a skills agenda that is responsive to employers and is demand-led, and in which the individual learner and their needs drive policy.

The SNP recognises the need for skills and training to be aligned with the Government's economic strategy, as Alex Neil said. We have set out our vision for a smarter Scotland, and the first ever lifelong skills strategy. The previous Government had eight years and produced no skills strategy. As Elizabeth Smith referred to, our skills strategy is cradle to grave, and should be seen in that light. I have been delighted by the feedback and support from stakeholders, employers, learning providers and awarding bodies in relation to not only the skills strategy but our increase of 1,000 additional construction and engineering modern apprenticeships and our introduction of a life sciences MA.

Liz Cameron, the executive director of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce said:

"It is one of the best documents we have seen and reflected what we have been asking for."

Skills expert Professor Ewart Keep was reported as saying:

"In my native England a clapped-out old model, born out of a Cold War mentality, is still considered roadworthy ... The misalignment highlights the limitations of a 'supply side only' approach to skills ... Scotland has joined a small club of nations that are thinking in 21st-century terms about the skills issue."

Dr Peter Hughes, the chief executive of Scottish Engineering, said:

"Scottish Engineering welcomes the Government's approach in emphasising the importance of Modern Apprenticeships in the Construction and Engineering Sectors."

We believe that it is not appropriate to import Gordon Brown's volume-driven approach wholesale into Scotland. We face different challenges in Scotland, and we must ensure that our skills interventions are tailored and appropriate for Scotland.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister confirm to the Parliament whether bodies such as the Scottish Food and Drink Federation are pleased with her approach?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Improve, the food and drink sector skills council, is pleased that we are introducing level 2 modern apprenticeships because it recognises the importance of access into the industry. We are adopting a flexible approach to modern apprenticeships, which it welcomes.

Alan Wilson, the outgoing chief executive of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, said:

"Often there is too much emphasis in this country on bits of paper and arbitrary numerical targets for modern apprentices, and not enough on the skills that a qualification actually gives the person, or how it serves the needs of employers."

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

If the Labour Party's approach to skills was so successful, why does Scotland's economic growth rate lag behind the rest of the UK and why, despite higher levels of skills in the workplace, does our productivity lag behind the rest of the UK?

Other parties in the chamber may want more of the same, but they will find that in the world outside, many people recognise the need to break out of the cosy world of stockpiling skills qualifications at any cost, with no regard to their use or sector. We want modern apprenticeships in construction; other parties want modern apprenticeships in dog grooming. We want modern apprenticeships in engineering; they want modern apprenticeships for nail technicians. Important though nail technicians are, they will not drive the economy forward.

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

Is the cabinet secretary aware that in the Borders, training provision for construction is being operated under a temporary crisis contract because of the confusion after Scottish Enterprise Borders moved away from that training? SEB did not realise that it had people providing training, who had to be laid off. When will there be a permanent contract for that provision in the Borders?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Skills Development Scotland, which has the same training departments as Scottish Enterprise had, is taking forward the contracts.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

When?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Members have asked for evidence. I will put reports in the Scottish Parliament information centre that outline the issues.

In a survey of 2,400 employers, 70 per cent said that adult modern apprenticeships made no difference to the number of people being employed. Modern apprenticeships are extremely expensive. With failure to complete rates of 30 to 40 per cent, is that an effective use of public money?

As part of the review of the national programmes, I am asking Skills Development Scotland to discuss with the tourism, food and drink, and retail sectors what form and format qualifications should take. It is important to stress that carrying on regardless, and taking on expensive four-year contracts, would have prevented the Government from implementing the changes that are needed to provide training that is fit for purpose.

We are taking Scotland forward and we have a challenging skills agenda. However, complacency and the supply-driven approach to the skills sector taken not just by the previous Government in Scotland but by Gordon Brown will not produce the changes that we need. We need Scottish solutions for a Scottish skills system. We are providing leadership that is welcomed outside the chamber. I hope that in the months and years ahead it will start to be welcomed inside it.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It has been an interesting debate. The SNP has told us that its skills strategy is universally acclaimed. In reality, it was rushed out over the summer months to meet a 100-day target—which, incidentally, it did not meet. There was little or no consultation with key stakeholders. Of course, no one in their right mind would oppose the principle of a skills strategy, particularly one that does not say anything or compel them to do anything.

I say as gently as I can to those members who pointed out that I welcomed the skills strategy in a John Swinneyesque manner that perhaps they should do their research. If they did, they would see that I welcomed the fact that there was a skills strategy but that, like the majority of members, I welcomed virtually nothing that was in it.

Maureen Watt spoke about skills utilisation. Effective skills utilisation is fundamental to ensuring that Scotland meets the economic challenges of the future. Yes, Scotland has a more highly skilled workforce than other parts of the UK, but that is no excuse for not having positive Government intervention. The fundamental challenge in Scotland is the same as that in the rest of the UK: people leaving work and people having to develop new skills in an increasingly competitive global market. In Scotland, 1 million people will leave the job market in the next 10 years. Those people will have to be replaced with 1 million people with even higher-level skills. More than 70 per cent of people currently in work will still be in work in 20 years' time.

It is not about choosing between increasing the number of higher-skilled people and utilising those with good skills in a more effective way; it is about doing both those things. I am not convinced, however, that the SNP Government will do either of them. The SNP is quite clear that it is prepared to let the markets dictate the skills profile of this country. That flawed strategy is doomed to fail. The free-market approach to skills is the fundamental reason why we have skills shortages in so many key areas, such as construction, as my colleague Marilyn Livingstone highlighted earlier.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I hear what the member says, but is it not also the case that, in a supply-driven strategy, we end up with, for example, far too many lawyers who cannot get a traineeship?

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That was a timely intervention, because I was going to say that it is not about supply versus demand, as Fiona Hyslop said; it is about stimulating demand. If the Government does not believe in targets, why has it set a target for 50,000 training places? I am confused by that. After this debate, we are even less clear about who the Government will be training, what the training will look like, who will benefit and who is in and who is out. Given Maureen Watt's declaration last week that walking to school will count towards physical education, I will be thinking twice about doing a bit of DIY at the weekend just in case it counts towards the SNP's 50,000 training places.

We have heard a lot about adult apprenticeships from my colleagues Richard Baker, David Whitton and Rhona Brankin, and from Jeremy Purvis. There is no doubt that the SNP Government has slashed the number of adult apprenticeships, however we look at it. That will lead to less, not more, training by employers overall. How that will improve productivity is anyone's guess. The lack of consultation on the changes to adult apprenticeships has left training providers high and dry.

Of course we need to expand key sectors such as construction and engineering, but we should not do so at the expense of IT, for example, where there are equally damaging skills shortages.

I have real concerns about the future of the apprenticeship system overall, but perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel. I think that what Christopher Harvie said indicates that he supports the stimulating-the-supply side of the argument. I was particularly pleased to hear that Alex Neil and Nicola Sturgeon—I am glad that she has just joined us—welcome Steven Purcell's plans for Glasgow City Council to offer apprenticeships to all school leavers this year as part of the Commonwealth games legacy. I look forward to Mr Neil and Ms Sturgeon supporting my modest proposals for a bill that will enable all suitably qualified 16 to 18-year-olds to gain a modern apprenticeship, which I will bring to the Parliament over the next few months. I hope that their enthusiasm will convert other SNP members to the cause.

The Parliament should be in no doubt that Scotland is lagging behind the UK in skills policy. The expansion of the train to gain programme in England, which gives workers the right to paid time off for training, means that there are more opportunities for workers in England to upskill. The expansion of the apprenticeship programme down south for adults and young people will mean that skills shortages will decrease and people will be able to retrain to sustain employment.

We just do not know where the SNP stands on skills. That is why our motion calls for further parliamentary scrutiny of the SNP skills strategy. I am pleased that members from other parties have said that they will support the motion. The unilateral decision by this minority Government to demolish adult apprenticeships also requires closer scrutiny. It is only right that ministers bring to the chamber the rationale for such an ill-thought-out plan. If they choose not to do so, I assure them that not only the Government but a generation of Scottish workers will suffer the consequences.

Scottish Ambulance Service

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1955, in the name of Margaret Curran, on the Scottish Ambulance Service.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am pleased to open this debate, because of the importance of the Scottish Ambulance Service to Scotland and the need to scrutinise recent changes, which could have—and are having—a significant impact on such an important public service.

I am sure that all members will join me in paying tribute to and thanking ambulance staff throughout Scotland for the vital work that they do. The Labour Party has brought this debate to the Parliament because ambulance staff have such high standing and because of the issues that they have drawn to our attention.

Labour believes that changes that alter crucially the nature of the service should be open to consultation and should be communicated properly to the people of Scotland. At the very least, people should understand the changes and know what to expect from this key public service.

In the short time available to me, I will flag up key questions that must be asked and key issues that must be addressed. The ambulance service is so important that it deserves treatment equal to that of any other service within the national health service. I am sure that many members have received representation about the issues that I will flag up. It is vital that the Parliament addresses those issues and takes them seriously.

I am not arguing against change. All services require to be modernised and changes must be introduced, but we must question how they are introduced. We should pay tribute to the Scottish Ambulance Service, which has embraced change many times effectively and efficiently. Indeed, it has a great track record in industrial relations.

Agreeing the Labour motion would establish fundamental issues. It would require the Scottish Ambulance Service to explain why and how changes have been introduced and what the consequences of those changes are. The service should explain that not just to the minister or the health directorate, but to the Parliament and, more important, to the people of Scotland.

Serious questions are being asked about what the changes to the service are, why they have been introduced and the impact that they are having. For example, has there been a study of the impact on patient safety of the replacement of double-crewed ambulances with single-crewed rapid response vehicles? Has there been any evaluation of the clinical risks involved in that and of when single-crewed vehicles are to be dispatched?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I welcome the member's comments so far. Is she aware that the model has not only been evaluated positively south of the border, but is subject to an on-going external evaluation in Lanarkshire?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am grateful for that information from the minister. I am sure that in her contribution she will take us through that. However, I am also sure that she will agree that if the evidence was so strong, it is deeply concerning that we are receiving so many representations, that the public does not know anything about the changes and that there are still so many fundamental questions being asked. I hope that she will reflect that perhaps the processes that have been introduced have not been adequate to meet that public challenge.

Perhaps she will tell us about the health and safety risks to single-crew responders. Has there been consultation with trade unions in Scotland? Has there been consultation with communities where double-crewed ambulances are being replaced by single-crewed rapid response vehicles? Those are points of substantial concern. I believe that the changes should be subject to external evaluation.

The Parliament must address a few other issues. Given the minister's knowledge of the subject, I hope that she can address the issues directly. I am told that vacant shifts are currently not being covered because of budgetary restrictions. I see the minister shaking her head, so I hope that she can clarify the situation. I am told that there are as many as 25 shifts per day short in Glasgow city alone. I am told that, because staff are under pressure, ambulances are not being cleaned properly, which could give rise to infection, and that we have the prospect of industrial unrest. Those are serious issues, which I hope can be addressed. That is why we have brought the debate.

That is just a snapshot of some of the concerns that have been raised throughout Scotland. I know that other members will talk about the situation in rural areas in particular, as well as the situation that I have described in Glasgow, about which I am concerned.

The SNP should be consistent in its approach to handling issues in the national health service. If public consultation on service changes within the NHS is important in one dimension, it should be important in others. The SNP should not be opportunistic about that.

Labour would be open-minded about the shape of the independent scrutiny of any changes to the ambulance service, but our key point is that there must be an independent element. We have brought the debate to the chamber because it seems that, until now, the Government has not properly overseen the changes that are raising such fundamental questions or properly responded to those questions. The SNP's amendment is disappointing and unacceptable. It is not for the Parliament to direct a committee inquiry and the Government should not tell committees what to do. Such an inquiry should not be a means by which the Government can duck its responsibility and once again pass the buck.

I will say a few words about the Liberal Democrat amendment. It certainly improves the Government's amendment, but there are some caveats and I seek clarification from the Liberal Democrats. The Parliament needs to act and be seen to act in a way that reflects the scale of the problem and the depth of the concern that is being articulated throughout Scotland. Motivated by those concerns, many people have asked for an independent objective analysis to be introduced to the process and I hope that that is part of the Liberal Democrats' argument today.

There is one more element of the Liberal Democrat amendment that concerns me. It needs to be appreciated that many members question the validity of some of the progress that has been made, particularly on response times. They argue that response-time targets have not been properly met. That is why we have brought the debate to the chamber. Members have been asked to question what has been done to the ambulance service and how the response-time figures have been produced, and that is why we need an independent assessment. The assumption that the progress that has been made is not to be questioned weakens the Liberal Democrat amendment.

If we were to support the Liberal Democrat amendment, which calls for a full statement, and the amendment were agreed to, could we get any guarantees on that? Could we have the statement before the summer recess? Could we have the statement with a debate? I ask that the work that is undertaken to prepare for that statement will not be just an internal discussion between the minister, the department and the Scottish Ambulance Service; but that it will be broad based, and will engage with the staff of the ambulance service and with other concerns throughout Scotland.

It is vital that we widen the discussion. The ambulance service and the public in Scotland expect a proper and thorough approach to these issues. Labour is deeply committed to this valuable service and we must continue to listen to the ambulance service staff and the public, who are deeply concerned. We will pursue these issues and I look forward to hearing members' contributions as we determine the proper resolution of this great challenge that we face.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the concerns expressed by the Scottish public about recent changes to the operation of the Scottish Ambulance Service; believes that, as the ambulance service is a widely respected and essential public service in Scotland, any changes should have been communicated to the Scottish public, and, in light of concerns expressed about the safety of patients, agrees that there should be immediate independent scrutiny of current practices and policies in the Scottish Ambulance Service.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I welcome the debate. I take very seriously any concerns that are expressed about the performance of any NHS board and I understand very well the importance of public confidence in the Scottish Ambulance Service. I indicated in the chamber as recently as last week my concern, for example, about the single manning of ambulances that should be double crewed. The Scottish Ambulance Service is now under an obligation to report to me regularly on the incidence of single manning and the actions that it is taking to reduce it. I will in turn keep Parliament updated.

If Margaret Curran has any evidence of the other serious issues that she has raised today, I assure her that I will treat that equally seriously. However, it is important to be clear that many of the developments that Margaret Curran mentioned are about improving response times and the overall patient experience of the ambulance service.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

rose—

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I am spoiled for choice—I will take Duncan McNeil's intervention.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

In the Inverclyde area, we are well served by the ambulance service, and we congratulate it on the job that it does. We currently have an 80 per cent response rate to category A calls. Does the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing recognise that there are real concerns about the target of 75 per cent for those calls for 2009 and does she understand that we cannot allow that to have a detrimental impact? The ambulance service in my area already does better than the target for 2009 and we want to maintain the high standard in relation to response times. Will she accept that the changes might impact on the good service that we have by stretching it geographically, which would have a detrimental impact in taking us back to a 75 per cent response rate?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I appreciate the member's point but, on the contrary, some of the changes are actually responsible for that improvement in performance. I take the opportunity to pay tribute, as Margaret Curran did, to the work of ambulance staff in helping to bring about the improvements that have been achieved in recent months. In March 2007, the ambulance service was reaching only 56 per cent of category A calls within the target time of eight minutes and that was a serious concern. In April this year, that performance had improved to 73 per cent across the country. Those figures are subject to rigorous monitoring and I ask Margaret Curran again, if she has evidence to suggest that they are not accurate, to submit it to me in writing.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The point that the cabinet secretary made about the response rate rising from 55 per cent to 73 per cent is the crux of the problem. How many of the responses in that 73 per cent were made by single-manned or rapid response vehicles, as opposed to the previous figure of 55 per cent, of which the overwhelming majority were double-manned and therefore able to treat the patient immediately, on the spot?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I am coming to that, so the member's intervention is timeous. There is no doubt that the improvement is linked to the decision that was taken last November to expand—I stress the word expand and I will come back to it later—the existing front-loaded model, that would result in additional rapid response units attending incidents, requesting assistance when required, and increasing see-and-treat rates over time. That approach is intended to improve response times, which are of the utmost importance to patients in reducing unnecessary patient journeys and improving overall experience. It will also lead to a net increase in the number of emergency vehicles in the ambulance service fleet. The front-loaded model, which, as I said earlier, has already been subject to positive evaluation in England, is currently being externally and independently evaluated in Lanarkshire.

I was more than a bit surprised to hear Labour call for independent scrutiny—a process that I have made clear will apply to cases of major service change. The reason for that surprise is that the model that we are talking about is not new to the ambulance service in Scotland. The use of rapid response vehicles as a critical element of the front-line ambulance fleet was first—

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

rose—

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I must make some progress. It was first introduced in Scotland in 2002, by the then Labour Administration. That Administration also recognised that not all patients who are seen and treated by paramedics need to be taken to hospital. The principle of see and treat was adopted at that stage.

At the annual review of the Scottish Ambulance Service last year, I discussed with the board how it had achieved a nearly 9 per cent see-and-treat rate in the last year of the previous Administration, and how and to what level it planned to increase that. All of that was discussed in public and recorded in my follow-up letter to the board chair in October last year. I do not accept that the expanded use of an operational model that was first introduced into the ambulance service in 2002 can be construed as a major change that would justify independent scrutiny. However, I accept—and I hope that we can reach some consensus—that as the Scottish Ambulance Service continues to develop its operational practices, it must properly engage with its staff and with the public that it serves.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

rose—

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I am in my last minute. The NHS has a staff governance standard to be proud of and partnership working is at the heart of my view of the NHS as a mutual organisation. I therefore expect the board to engage fully and properly with its staff and I will treat very seriously any suggestion that it is not doing so. Likewise, the public must be properly informed of any operational changes that will impact on them.

As I indicated earlier, those issues were discussed fully at last year's annual review of the Scottish Ambulance Service. They were also discussed in greater detail and approved by the board at its meeting in November last year, again in public session. At a local level, ambulance service managers have been engaging with local communities to explain the proposed developments and what they will mean for patient care.

However, if there is concern about these developments, the service must increase its efforts in that regard and I will ensure that it does so. I recently spent a Friday night with a rapid response paramedic in Glasgow to see for myself how that model works and I know that the ambulance service would be happy to afford that opportunity to any MSP who wishes to take it up.

Public confidence in the ambulance service is high, but there is no room for complacency. That is why my amendment, although it acknowledges completely the autonomy of the Health and Sport Committee, makes it clear that I would welcome the committee examining those matters.

I can also confirm that, if it is the will of the Parliament, I am more than happy to make a statement at the earliest opportunity that sets out in more detail the work that the Scottish Ambulance Service is doing to improve the service that it provides to patients, although Margaret Curran will appreciate that the timing of such a statement is not in my gift. I am proud of the work that the Scottish Ambulance Service undertakes on behalf of the Scottish public but, as the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, I am determined to ensure that that work continues to improve in the interests of patients.

I move amendment S3M-1955.1, to leave out from "recognises" to end and insert:

"welcomes the improved performance demonstrated by the Scottish Ambulance Service in recent months, particularly in relation to responding more quickly to life threatening calls; congratulates the staff of the Scottish Ambulance Service for their efforts in achieving this improvement for patients; acknowledges the need to ensure that the Scottish Ambulance Service continues to improve across a range of indicators and that it effectively consults staff and communicates with the public about the service it provides for them, and, while recognising its autonomy, would welcome the Health and Sport Committee undertaking a review of these matters."

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Notwithstanding the excellence of much that the Scottish Ambulance Service does, a person would have to be very deaf not to know that there are serious public misgivings about certain aspects of the service that it provides. Margaret Curran said that members have received letters on the matter. We have received e-mails and representations from Scottish Ambulance Service workers and trade union representatives that express concerns about aspects of service delivery and staff morale. The Labour Party was right to lodge a motion to highlight such concerns.

I agree with Margaret Curran's opening sentiment and the first part of the cabinet secretary's amendment in particular. I, too, praise Scottish Ambulance Service staff for their dedication and professionalism, but we have concerns about the management of the service and more particularly about the Government, which is ultimately responsible for the service. It is understandable that the cabinet secretary should want to defend the Scottish Ambulance Service's overall record, but her speech was slightly defensive with respect to the concerns that many members will articulate in the debate. I welcome the offer that she made in her closing remarks: she said that she would be prepared to give a full description in the chamber of what the Scottish Ambulance Service is doing. I hope that she will also address the points that members, including me, will make in the debate.

It is important that the Parliament establishes the principle of parliamentary scrutiny. The Parliament should hold ministers to account. I am therefore a little disappointed that the Labour Party should try to shuffle scrutiny to some other body in the first instance.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I make it clear that it is not an either/or issue. An independent process is not a substitute for parliamentary scrutiny—in that sense, I welcome Ross Finnie's amendment. However, it is vital that there is not simply a traditional ministerial statement that gives a lengthier version of what we have already heard. There should be evaluation and objective analysis of what is happening in the Scottish Ambulance Service, not simply a defence of the existing process.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

In calling for a statement after a debate, we are calling for the Parliament to hold the cabinet secretary to account. It would be enormously disappointing if the cabinet secretary did not reflect on every single issue that is raised in this debate, although I am sure that she will do so. It is an important principle that the Parliament should scrutinise. Let us cut to the chase and agree a motion that calls on the minister to make a statement.

Serious concerns exist. The cabinet secretary has said that single-person crews have been evaluated. If they have been so well evaluated, why has the British Medical Association passed a resolution that first-line ambulances should be double crewed in all but extreme circumstances? Why has the chief executive of the Scottish Patients Association, Dr Jean Turner, said:

"If a two-strong team is needed during the day it should be exactly the same at night"?

If we are going to have rapid responses, she is right. There have been such responses for some time, but the prime test is not the time that is taken to respond—it is what happens to the patient. If 25 per cent of shifts in Glasgow are not being dealt with, there is a problem.

Having response-time targets is fine, but Duncan McNeil made a valid point. If we are setting standards that lower the bar or keep it at the same height instead of raising it, that is not fine.

Finally, the cabinet secretary must address at some stage Dr Walker's report on the hospital service at Ayr. He seriously questioned the evidence that supports longer ambulance response times. The Parliament deserves an answer to what he said.

I have pleasure in moving amendment S3M-1955.1.1, to leave out from "while recognising" to end and insert:

"calls on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to make a full statement to the Parliament, at the earliest opportunity, on the operation of the Scottish Ambulance Service, specifically the use of single person crews, the deployment of rapid response vehicles, ambulance response times, rates of assaults on ambulance crews and the impact of journey length on patient safety."

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank and commend the Labour Party for choosing to debate the Scottish Ambulance Service and fully support Margaret Curran's call for a full debate. I also join members in praising the excellent work that the Scottish Ambulance Service does.

The key starting point for the debate is the 12 per cent increase in demand for the ambulance service year on year, which Audit Scotland has confirmed. That increase is the result of NHS 24 referrals and more people using the service out of hours to access health care. One would expect an increase in supply to match such increased demand, but it appears that the opposite is the case; it appears that demand has increased and supply has decreased.

The cabinet secretary will know that in the Highlands—particularly in Sutherland—there is regular single manning of vehicles in response to category A calls. A local member of staff in the ambulance service in the Highlands recently offered to do some overtime work, but he was told that such work could be done only at red stations. That was the first time that he and his colleagues had heard about the new coding of red, amber and green stations for manning. So much for ambulance management communications. Staff did not even know about that.

Problems with the ambulance service are not confined to the Highlands. My colleague John Scott has made me aware of serious concerns in the NHS Ayrshire and Arran area. I have been led to believe that between 40 and 70 ambulances in Scotland are being taken off the road to be replaced by what is known as a front-loading model—I think that that means that a single paramedic will respond to an incident, and will see and treat at the scene, which should mean that there will be fewer admissions to hospitals. I commend the work that paramedics do, but it is surely unfair to expect them to have the diagnostic and treatment skills of a general practitioner who has taken nine years to train for their profession.

Last week, NHS Highland briefed MSPs on treatments for the two types of stroke. We were told that there is an optimum time within which thrombolysis must be given and also that the diagnosis and treatment of strokes can be made only on the basis of a clinician's judgment—I understand that strokes are not easy to diagnose. That example illustrates the fact that single manning, seeing and treating at the scene and aiming for fewer admissions to hospitals are not appropriate in all emergency call-outs.

In the recent Scottish Ambulance Service annual review, the cabinet secretary stated:

"For those cases which required thrombolysis, the average ... time was 43 minutes",

which is well below the 90 minutes optimum time. How many patients who would have benefited from that intervention did not reach the hospital in time, did not meet a stroke physician for diagnosis or were deemed not unwell enough to be taken to hospital? The Scottish health council's annual report concluded that "little or no progress" had been made by the service in evaluating patient focus and public involvement activity.

I have much to say, but little time in which to say it; I will therefore move on to the final points that I want to make.

Audit Scotland reported that the Scottish Ambulance Service had missed its performance targets. I listened carefully to the cabinet secretary, but did not hear much about the service's improved performance in recent months.

We like the Labour Party's motion and again thank it for this debate. However, we are unsure about immediate independent scrutiny and whether that was proposed on the basis that there should be a major service change.

On the Government's amendment, ministers should not tell the Health and Sport Committee what to do. However, we like the bit in the middle.

We support and fully agree with the Liberals' amendment.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and pay tribute to those who work in the Scottish Ambulance Service.

The issue of single-crewed ambulances was first raised with me by a constituent who was concerned about an incident in which a back-up crew took a considerable time to arrive. The cabinet secretary knows the geography of Ayrshire, so she will know that bringing an ambulance up from Stranraer to Girvan is not the easiest thing to do. My constituent was concerned not about the service that was received from the paramedics who arrived on the scene; rather, he thought that there could have been a problem if the incident had been more serious.

I am not opposed to change that will benefit patients, so I approached discussions about that incident and associated issues with the Ambulance Service with an open mind. However, I then discovered that concerns had been raised by many other constituents, including those that were raised at a recent public meeting in Maybole about the proposal to introduce a rapid response vehicle to replace a double-crewed ambulance. Some of the issues that were raised concerned the pressures of the eight-minute target time in rural areas and whether, instead of aiding patient care, the insistence on meeting that target time means that the wrong type of vehicle turns up to deal with people.

Concern was also raised at the meeting in Maybole about the lack of local knowledge among those who had made the decisions about where back-up ambulances would come from. Indeed, it was suggested that, if a local back-up ambulance was not available in Girvan, one could come from Cumnock. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the distance from Cumnock to Maybole over the A70, which most of us will know has a number of serious accident black spots.

Unfortunately, the airing of some of those concerns coincided with the publication of an article in The Herald on 8 May that stated that patients who require angioplasty will go straight to Hairmyres hospital in East Kilbride, bypassing both Ayr and Crosshouse hospitals. Members will understand that people were concerned about the implications of a potential 65-mile journey from Ballantrae, in the south of my constituency, to East Kilbride. I hope that the minister will clarify the position today. Will all heart attack patients now go to East Kilbride, or will they go to Ayr or Crosshouse and then be transferred? Who will make the decision if some of them are to go straight to East Kilbride? I hope that the minister will recognise that it is not scaremongering—as one of her colleagues has suggested locally—for me to raise those questions. I do that on behalf of my constituents, who want to know the answers.

I make no criticism of the ambulance staff who came to the meeting at Maybole. They gave a good account of themselves and treated the public with the respect that they deserve. Nevertheless, I am concerned by a number of other issues that have been raised by the trade unions, such as ambulance staff not having enough time to clean ambulances. I do not know whether that is true—perhaps the minister can deal with that in her summing up. It has also been suggested to me that the definition of the eight-minute arrival time has been changed and that it no longer refers to arrival at the scene but refers to arrival within 200yd, as decided by the global positioning system.

Another issue that has been raised with me, which is serious and must be taken into account, is that there now appears to be a culture of bullying and harassment in the Ambulance Service. People have approached me in confidence and have raised their concerns about that through the trade union. They feel that the whole service will be put at risk if the matter is not addressed.

I hope that the cabinet secretary will take my comments in the spirit in which they are intended. It is a matter of patient care. People in rural areas need to know that they will get the service that is required, not one that is secondary to the one that is delivered in other parts of the country. I hope that she will be able to respond to my remarks.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I preface my remarks with the observation that we are very proud of those who work in the Scottish Ambulance Service and very grateful for their services. Nothing that follows is intended to be any criticism of them.

I will pick up on an issue that has not yet been highlighted, relating to the situation in which there is a long and winding road from the hospital to a patient's place of residence. I am referring to the Dee valley, which runs from the south of Aberdeen westwards into the Grampians. On the way, the road passes through Banchory, Aboyne, Ballater and, eventually, Braemar. The distance from each place to the next is roughly 15 miles, so the total distance between Aberdeen and Braemar is roughly 60 miles.

Once upon a time, there was an ambulance in Braemar. There is still a fire station there. Recently, the ambulance was moved to Aboyne, which is 30 miles nearer to Aberdeen, and it is now a 24-hour single-manned rapid response vehicle. I am pretty sure that the Ambulance Service managers who decided to move the ambulance to Aboyne applied their model correctly. I am not accusing anybody of incompetence, carelessness or indifference to the needs of the patients. I suspect that they applied the model perfectly correctly and came up with what they thought was the right answer. However, Braemar is now not just 60 miles from the hospital but 30 miles from the ambulance. That means that an arrival time of seven minutes is simply inconceivable; in fact, if the ambulance has to come from Aboyne to Braemar to take a patient to Aberdeen, the golden hour will already have passed before the ambulance goes back past the ambulance station.

My concern is not that those who have designed the service have got their thinking and calculations wrong but that they are working with the wrong model in that particular circumstance. In Braemar, there is a fire station and, in or very close to Braemar, there are folk who know how to drive big vehicles with blue flashing lights. There is also a doctor in Braemar and there are other folk who know how to attend medical emergencies—there is a mountain rescue team in the area. Therefore, I suggest that the cabinet secretary ask the Ambulance Service and her officials to consider an alternative model, which would allow the stationing of a vehicle in Braemar that could be crewed by a fireman and sent to wherever the patient was. It could meet somebody else who had the appropriate medical qualifications and who could be otherwise mobilised.

Such a model could hugely improve the response time at the Braemar end of the valley. It would not involve a huge cost, although I acknowledge that it might involve having one vehicle more. I am conscious that the fire and rescue service is not within the cabinet secretary's portfolio but, nevertheless, my plea to her is that she get the two services to talk to each other and consider whether alternative models could be used in places where the road runs out at the head of the valley or at the sea. I ask her to consider whether alternative models could be used to improve the ambulance service in such areas.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

It is clear from the debate that the Scottish public have genuine concerns about recent changes to the operation of the Scottish Ambulance Service. I believe that those changes deserve immediate independent examination. The replacement of two-person crews with one-person emergency rapid response units deserves serious scrutiny. The public tell us that that is not safe and that it is causing them concern. The people on the ground who are delivering the service directly to the public—the ambulance crews—tell us that it is not working and that it is not allowing them to do the job to the standard to which they wish to do it.

However, the non-emergency service that is provided by the Ambulance Service is also critical to patients throughout Scotland. Every year, hundreds of thousands of patient journeys are made, as people are transported between hospitals, clinics, day centres and their homes. The experience of one my constituents highlights serious questions about the Ambulance Service's practice and policy for non-emergency transport as well.

Catherine Young, who is a constituent of mine from Abronhill in Cumbernauld, is a young woman whose dystonia condition means that she requires the use of a wheelchair and needs a range of different appointments at clinics in several hospitals and NHS facilities. Catherine has battled with her condition for some years. She is a positive and inspirational young woman who is determined to remain as independent as possible. Such is her determination that she supports students at Cumbernauld College who have physical disabilities.

For several months, Catherine has had severe difficulty in arranging transport to appointments with her neurosurgeon and her physiotherapist, for wheelchair assessments and so on. The problem appears to boil down to the fact that different hospitals hold different agreements for non-emergency patient transport. For some appointments, Catherine is defined as a patient who, because of her disability, requires assistance from a two-person crew and who must be transported by ambulance; for other appointments, her disability merits only a one-person crew. That is unacceptable to Catherine, as she knows that one person is unable to manage her transfer safely and that that puts additional pressure on the people who arrange to take her to her appointments. Worst of all, sometimes no transport is available at all. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will appreciate that my constituent is understandably distressed about the situation, which does not help her in her constant battle to remain independent.

Catherine is not alone in having difficulty with the administration of this vital service. The confusion about the policy means that ambulances turn up at the wrong time, hospital appointments are missed, and consultants' and patients' time is wasted. Although I appreciate that the Ambulance Service must deploy scarce resources effectively to the maximum benefit of patients, the cabinet secretary must appreciate the waste of resources, effort and hope that this situation is creating.

Does the cabinet secretary recognise that non-emergency patient transport is a serious concern for the Scottish public and that it merits scrutiny? Will she explain to Catherine and to others who are in her position why non-emergency patient transport policies seem to vary depending on the location and type of appointment? Finally, will the cabinet secretary guarantee that Catherine's ambulance to take her to her next west of Scotland mobility and rehabilitation centre appointment will turn up at her house at 8 o'clock on 23 May? That is the kind of pressure that someone such as Catherine is under as, to make that appointment, she will have to be up at 5 o'clock in the morning. Sometimes she is let down by the services that are supposed to assist and protect her.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

In this important debate, the morale of ambulance personnel and patients are in all our thoughts, but I will concentrate on some remote and rural Highland issues that flag up the problems that we have with the management of the service today.

I have a quote from the north and west Sutherland local health partnership meeting that was held on 1 May in Tongue. Andy Fuller from the Scottish Ambulance Service Highland said:

"The Agenda for Change agreement has caused a lot of issues for staffing ambulances locally, as the on-call payment, overtime rates and call-out payment rates have changed. Currently there is no method available with the Agenda for Change payment system to reflect potentially local solutions to remote and rural locations."

We have inherited this system and we have to work within its constraints. That has led to an Ambulance Service that is working to budgets that are constrained but not necessarily to standards that are suitable for patients. That manifests itself in the fact, which was mentioned by Mary Scanlon, that staff are not allowed to cover other shifts if they are on leave, which leads to a shortfall in cover and single crewing. In the west of Lochaber, it is reckoned that 60 per cent of ambulances will be single crewed until September because of that problem. As there will be only one member of staff fewer covering Strontian or Glencoe, there will be no potential for cover through overtime. That is the nub of the problem that is faced by people in two parts of the north and west Highlands.

The agenda for change is at the root of these problems and we need a Scottish solution for Scottish problems.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank Rob Gibson for raising the point; it is a real issue. The agenda for change system that we inherited has inherent problems in remote and rural areas. We are currently in discussion with the Scottish Ambulance Service about those issues to ensure that we get the resolution that Mr Gibson and others are seeking.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for that point. By airing these issues in the chamber, we are getting closer to the truth.

I also have notes from other meetings between the Ambulance Service and community councils. Mr MacLeod, who is the area manager for west Lochaber, spoke to the West Ardnamurchan community council on 5 May.

"Mr MacLeod was asked about relief cover, he stated the problem remained 'funding'. Staff turnover was also a problem and a new pay mechanism has had an impact on the service. Relief staff are based in Fort William and Glencoe, there is an annual deficit of 1200 hours."

A committee inquiry and report would allow plenty of time to evaluate such facts from across the whole country. It is important to provide time for that in Parliament so that it leads to a debate. Our problem is this: if ambulance staff are removed from Kinlochbervie, for example, to make up the numbers in Wick so that the targets in Wick, which is a town, can be met, is it a success that calls in Wick are answered in seven minutes or a failure that it takes an ambulance more than two hours to reach someone on the west coast?

The cabinet secretary is correct that we have to have a change in the approaches that are taken. When she met the trade unions in Inverness, they were

"gobsmacked by the positive response from the minister ... The meeting went superbly well. She was very supportive in the sense that if there was any wrongdoing by the management, she wanted to know."

That is the nub of the issue, and the Scottish National Party's amendment covers the way forward.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I rise to speak in this important debate to support the Labour Party motion. As other speakers in the debate have done, I start by paying tribute to the important role that is carried out in our communities by ambulance workers.

The central issue is how we deploy ambulance services most effectively to serve the public in emergency situations. Concerns have been expressed throughout the chamber about the reduction in the number of double-crewed ambulances throughout Scotland. People call on ambulances to deal with emergency situations where lives are often under threat and people need a quick response from a fully equipped ambulance. In those circumstances, single units do not provide what is required. When they reach the scene, they provide a temporary solution and they are often unable to move the ill or injured person. That undermines the effectiveness of the service.

We also need to consider staff safety. Sadly, emergency services are called out to scenes where violence has occurred or is occurring. That is particularly difficult if a single-crewed unit attends; unaccompanied staff should not be exposed to such situations. Our staff have key skills and expertise and provide quality care, so it is important that we back them up and ensure that they are protected.

As other members have said, the trade unions have expressed concern that patient care is becoming a casualty, that vacant shifts are not being covered because of budgetary restrictions and that, because of staff reductions, training and health and safety are being compromised. Those are issues of concern.

The question has to be posed whether the new arrangements are cuts or efficiencies. Efficiencies are a big theme for the SNP, which proposed £1.6 billion of them. Such a large figure had to be put in place because the SNP overpromised in its manifesto commitments.

The changes that we are discussing seem to be quite a clever scheme. They allowed the First Minister to stand up last week and say that there are more ambulance crews in the streets of Scotland than there were previously. No doubt, when the scheme was discussed around the table, it seemed to be a wise way forward, but if patients' lives are in danger and they are required to wait when there is a delay in a twin crew turning up, it is not an efficiency saving—it is a cut.

The debate is important and it has allowed members to discuss their concerns about the Ambulance Service. It stands to reason that if the number of double-manned ambulance crews is reduced and they are replaced with single-manned units, it will undermine the service and put staff at risk. Those are serious issues and it is time to think again about them.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

I, too, welcome the debate, as it gives me an ideal opportunity to put on record my thanks to, and appreciation for, the front-line ambulance staff who are based at the station in Livingston. I visited the station recently and I have accepted the staff's very kind invitation to join them on a night shift one weekend. I look forward to doing that.

Having listened to front-line staff in Livingston, I certainly hope that the Health and Sport Committee will undertake a review of the Scottish Ambulance Service. Personally, I feel that such a review would be timely, as it would follow on from last year's Audit Scotland report on out-of-hours services. In that report, Audit Scotland correctly highlighted the need to improve the links between the out-of-hours service, NHS 24 and the Ambulance Service. The report emphasised the need to strengthen communication and, crucially, it urged a review of the impact of the out-of-hours service on the Ambulance Service.

I note and welcome the eight-minute target for category A call-outs, which is all very laudable, but I believe that additional, more sophisticated performance indicators are needed. Surely if an ambulance crew does not arrive within eight minutes but succeeds in saving a life, that is a good result in anybody's book.

Responding to emergencies day in, day out requires physical, emotional and mental strength. It is unacceptable that staff struggle to get meal and refreshment breaks, especially when they are working a 12-hour night shift.

When describing the challenges of their work, Ambulance Service staff repeatedly iterated to me that they felt that calling out an ambulance seemed to be the default position. NHS 24 appears to be the regular culprit behind inappropriate call-outs. Telephone assessment based on buzz words can be a rather blunt instrument and compares poorly with face-to-face clinical assessments. In addition, as we all know, A and E targets for vacating hospital beds also have an impact on the Ambulance Service.

My constituency is semi-rural in parts but, with the growth of Livingston new town and the core development areas, the constituency has one of the fastest-growing populations in the United Kingdom, never mind Scotland. St John's hospital at the heart of my constituency has the highest rate of hospital-to-hospital transfers in Scotland, as evidenced in a recent national audit. All of that, combined with the removal of some acute services from St John's hospital to the Edinburgh royal infirmary in 2004, has had huge resource implications for the Ambulance Service in my constituency.

Increased journey times are a real issue. The increased number of journeys between West Lothian and Edinburgh has implications for equity of access for my constituents, as ambulances are increasingly caught up in out-of-area call-outs. That is a cruel reminder of the consequences of not keeping health care local.

With the 60th anniversary of the national health service approaching, we need to keep health care local if we are to be true to the NHS's founding principles. The SNP Government can be proud of its policy of keeping health care local. I urge the cabinet secretary to continue to pursue that policy with all her vigour.

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

The problem is that we already have single manning in my constituency. In a recent incident, the doctor from Scourie had to get in the back of the ambulance and leave the area and ride down the road to the hospital. What would have happened if someone in the area had taken a heart attack? It is too bad to think about. In another incident, the Kinlochbervie ambulance unit had to be joined by the man from the neighbouring ambulance unit at Bettyhill to make up a double-manned unit. However, that merely passes the problem along the north coast to Bettyhill. Even more ludicrous still, we had an incident that two single-manned ambulances had to attend and which required one ambulance man to get in the back of the other ambulance. The net result was that an ambulance was left parked up in the middle of nowhere. What does that say about the NHS? Finally, only three weeks ago when a road traffic accident involving a lorry happened just outside Ullapool, the Ullapool team had been stood down by the management so the ambulance had to come all the way from Dingwall—a journey of more than an hour—to attend to the people, some of whom were severely injured.

Why do we have such serious problems? As members have mentioned, one reason is the package of rewards whereby ambulance staff are paid for 28 hours and given a rather small sum for their time on stand-by. We know that we do not have enough paramedics, but many of the existing paramedics do not have the time to update their qualifications because they are too busy covering other ambulance men. Therefore, they fall off the list of paramedics. It was put to me this morning—probably by the same ambulance man who spoke to Mary Scanlon—that the remuneration package, quite frankly, does not encourage technicians to become paramedics. People know that it is just not worth the candle.

What has been done about the situation? In fairness to colleagues from all parties, MSPs have made repeated representations about the service in both the current parliamentary session and the previous one. Repeated representations have also been made by local doctors, who are, after all, at the sharp end of the problem.

Rob Gibson mentioned the Kinlochbervie situation. I want to go into that just a little further. What happened was that—ta-ra, ta-ra—a fifth man was put into Kinlochbervie. However, as Rob Gibson said, he was then taken out—oh no—to cover a shortfall elsewhere. With sickness and with leave, we are back to something very like single manning in Kinlochbervie.

It may not be entirely fair to say this, but from a Highland perspective it looks as if the money that is being invested is simply to reduce the response time from nine minutes to eight minutes—or from eight minutes to seven minutes. However, such response times do not have an awful lot of meaning where I come from. It has been put to me clearly that, but for the grace of God, something far worse could have happened when the GP was not in the area or when an ambulance had to be left parked up in the middle of nowhere. Cabinet secretary, what message does that send to my constituents? It is not a good one, particularly for an ageing population. Indeed—just thinking sideways for a second—what message does it send to tourists that, if they become poorly in Sutherland, they might wait a very long time before they are taken to a hospital?

To use an expression that I used in the debate on the maternity hospital in Wick—I will not bore members with that just now, as we won that one—we should recognise that God, the good Lord, made the geography and we cannot get round that. In inclement weather, we face very serious problems indeed. If the cabinet secretary wants to check that with one of her colleagues, she should speak to Mike Russell. I remember meeting him at the Durness games, where, unfortunately, he hit his head on a low roof beam and found it quite a palaver to get a local doctor. He can speak with some experience.

With all due respect to the minister—I accept that she showed generosity of spirit in listening to my representations only last week—all that has been said about the improvements in the service ring somewhat hollow for people in my constituency, where we have real problems. I am speaking in today's debate because my constituents want me—and all of us—to sort out the problem. For that reason, I warmly support the amendment in the name of my colleague Ross Finnie.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The amendment in the name of the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing seems to be unhealthily oblivious to the many concerns emerging across Scotland that are being brought to the attention of members of all parties. Now is not the time for back-slapping all round. No one is yet blaming the cabinet secretary for any deteriorating position, but if she simply takes the view that not much is wrong, they certainly will do. I am relieved that her opening speech showed more understanding of the situation than does her amendment. We all support the staff who do an invaluable job for the Scottish Ambulance Service but, as we might have observed in the motor industry, the enamel on the paint work is chipped, the vehicle is in need of an urgent inspection and, if nothing is done, we risk seeing the big end go.

I have been contacted by constituents about their recent experiences. In one instance, when the ambulance turned up, my constituent was asked to sit with the driver to direct the way to the hospital. In another instance, a relative was asked to lead the way by driving in front of the ambulance. On both occasions, the ambulance drivers were strangers to the area and did not know the location of the hospital. Other members have referred to such experiences in the many letters, e-mails and representations that they have received.

Written answers that I have received to parliamentary questions show that the overall number of vehicles in the Scottish ambulance fleet has dropped. That has been explained as a drop in the number of auxiliary vehicles rather than of ambulance and response vehicles. However, I am bound to point out that, as journey time consequences take effect as a result of the consolidation of A and E services and the cross-city travel that is required for the new Victoria hospital, substantially more vehicles may be required in Glasgow and the west of Scotland.

Nor is it acceptable to be breezy about the implications of single-manned rapid response vehicles. In the response to another parliamentary question, I learned that the number of incidents of violence and aggression towards ambulance staff has soared by more than 450 per cent in the past three years in west-central Scotland. Over the same period, the number of complaints against the Scottish Ambulance Service has increased by 120 per cent. Attempts to arrange a meeting with the chief executive have been fobbed off with suggestions of meetings with local management, which have subsequently been postponed.

Meanwhile, I have raised the plight of volunteer drivers, who are a vital resource for the ambulance service. I have been contacted by many such drivers, who are in despair because they feel that, given that there has been a 17 per cent real-terms fall in the mileage rate payable over the past year alone, they are now subsidising the service. As a result, there has been a 14 per cent fall in the number of volunteer drivers, and many more tell me that they are close to giving up. That is a dreadful situation.

This month, in response to another written question, I was told that the Scottish Ambulance Service had no plans to review the rate payable. However, the answer added, somewhat enigmatically, that

"the service was asked to look again at this matter, and have confirmed that they will now be reviewing the rates".—[Official Report, Written Answers, 13 May 2008; S3W-12662.]

By whom was it asked to look at the matter again? There is no point in the cabinet secretary suggesting that the service should have autonomy and recommending that the Health and Sport Committee should investigate matters if, at the same time, the Government is directing the service to review mileage rates and other matters.

All this is potentially tragic for patients. Volunteers are an essential element of the service. Patients already wait for ages, often in distress, because they are not deemed to be of sufficient priority. What are their prospects if we lose more volunteers? As hospital services are merged, might not we need more volunteers?

The debate is not an attack on ambulance staff, who do an outstanding job. It is an opportunity to air a series of concerns that, it transpires, has been growing among members. The cabinet secretary should acknowledge that, collectively, those concerns amount to more than a row of beans.

The cabinet secretary is due to hold her annual review with the Scottish Ambulance Service on 12 August. Yesterday she made the welcome announcement that the opportunity for the audience to participate in the review will be extended to allow spontaneous contributions from the floor. We must hope that questions will not have to be pre-submitted and carefully vetted, and that they will not be ruled out of order. If the review event on 12 August is sufficiently well advertised, I hope that members of the public will turn out.

Meanwhile, the cabinet secretary must turn her urgent attention to a service the performance of which might well be improving against certain measurements, but which is spluttering overall. Someone needs to get a grip, and the Parliament needs to be satisfied that someone has done so.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate.

In response to Ross Finnie's remarks about parliamentary scrutiny of ministers, I state categorically that I accept my responsibility for the Scottish Ambulance Service and, for that matter, for any other NHS board. Jackson Carlaw's comments about volunteer drivers' mileage rates demonstrate my acceptance of that responsibility. I clarify that the reference in my amendment to "autonomy" is to the autonomy of the Health and Sport Committee rather than of the Scottish Ambulance Service.

I will be happy to make a full statement on the issue to Parliament and to follow that with a parliamentary debate—although such matters are for the Parliamentary Bureau to make decisions on. Such is my happiness that I will vote for the Liberal Democrats' amendment, although I would still be delighted if the Health and Sport Committee decided—autonomously—to hold an inquiry on the subject.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I welcome the fact that the SNP will support the Liberal Democrats' amendment, but does the cabinet secretary accept that part of the argument has involved questioning the achievements of the Scottish Ambulance Service? My concern about the SNP's amendment as it stands is that it takes those achievements for granted and does not indicate that they need to be thoroughly investigated. There are serious concerns about that.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Perhaps what I am about to say will reassure Margaret Curran. A number of points have been made in the debate. Although shortage of time will not allow me to respond to them all now, I give the Parliament an assurance that I will investigate each and every point that has been made and, when appropriate, will respond directly to the members concerned and in the statement to which I have referred. That is right and proper.

Although all the points that have been made deserve to be treated seriously, there is a distinction to be drawn between situations that are inherently wrong and unjustified and issues that have arisen as a result of the Scottish Ambulance Service's efforts to improve performance. Into the first category I would put the single manning of ambulances that should be double crewed, on which I have commented, and, if it were true, the dropping of shifts to cut costs, but it is not true that that is happening. Shifts are being reorganised, because the reality is that the Scottish Ambulance Service is now better able to predict demand on a day-to-day, hour-to-hour basis than it used to be, which means that shifts can be organised more sensibly. The traffic light system that Mary Scanlon mentioned would belong in the same category, if such a system existed, but I am happy to give the member an assurance that no such system operates in the Highlands. I will take extremely seriously all the issues in that category.

The issues in the other category—which I am not suggesting do not still require to be scrutinised—are those that relate to deliberate developments by the Scottish Ambulance Service in an effort to improve performance. Rapid response units fall into that category. Let me be absolutely clear about the distinction between the single manning of ambulances that should be double crewed and rapid response units. Rapid response units are not substitutes for double-crewed ambulances. They are designed to ensure that patients get as quick a response as possible and that back-up is provided when it is required.

That is not an attempt to score a party-political point; it is a simple statement of fact. The rapid response unit has not been introduced by this Government over the past year; it was introduced by the previous Administration in 2002. It is important to acknowledge that.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I want to get through as many points as I can; I will come on to Cathie Craigie's point.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

How does the cabinet secretary know what my point is?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I want to have time to get to the important point that Cathie Craigie made in her speech.

To Cathy Jamieson, I say as gently as possible that no heart attack patients would have been able to go to Ayr hospital if her Government had got away with its plans to close the accident and emergency unit there. I will respond directly to the point that she made. Heart attack patients are treated in line with Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network guideline 93, which I urge members to read. Patients who need angioplasty and who are stable enough to be transferred to the hospital that is best placed to administer that intervention go there directly. If not, they are transferred to the nearest A and E unit. Treatment can be administered in ambulances—I inform Mary Scanlon that all paramedics are trained to deliver thrombolysis.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I do not have time to take any more interventions.

Extremely important points were made by Nigel Don and Rob Gibson. I am acutely aware of the challenges that are faced in delivering an ambulance service in remote and rural areas, which is one reason why I visited Wester Ross just last week. The Scottish Ambulance Service is keen to consider innovative solutions to those challenges. I discussed ideas such as those that Nigel Don suggested with members of the community in Wester Ross, and I will be happy to discuss them with the Scottish Ambulance Service.

I say to Cathie Craigie that I acknowledge the importance of the non-emergency ambulance service; it is important that we do not forget it. Whether transport is required is a clinical decision, so there is a degree of variation. However, it is important that the Scottish Ambulance Service works with territorial boards to ensure consistency of service for patients. That is one reason why the service is investing in more mid-tier ambulance vehicles.

James Kelly made important points about the safety of staff, which is paramount. As regards what Angela Constance said, I appreciate that the eight-minute target is not the be-all and end-all, but it is based on international evidence and, as such, is an important target.

Time does not permit me to deal with the many other points that were raised. I repeat that I will investigate them all, and I look forward to taking part in further full discussions in the Parliament.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

All members have made it clear that we commend the work of the Scottish Ambulance Service, the staff of which have risen to many challenges over the past decade. It is the only health board to have achieved level 3 performance under the NHS Quality Improvement Scotland standards. We must acknowledge that the service has an excellent history. Members have praised the present staff for their efforts.

The need to treat thrombolysis in the golden hour has been a challenge. Primary angioplasty, which requires patients in the Glasgow area to be transferred to the Golden Jubilee hospital and patients in the Ayrshire, Arran and Lanarkshire areas to be transferred to Hairmyres, is a new challenge. There is the problem of increasing demand—as Mary Scanlon said, demand rose by 12 per cent last year, on top of rises in previous years. In addition, there is greater need for intervention by paramedics rather than by technicians.

As well as those clinical challenges, there have been administrative challenges, which other members have mentioned. Agenda for change, which staff, management and Government agreed in partnership was the appropriate way forward, cannot always be applied to all areas satisfactorily. As with any national scheme, the geography of the rural areas needs to be taken into account. Nigel Don and others mentioned that.

The change in the call centres has been a challenge, as has the fact that sickness levels are still at 5.5 per cent, when the national target is to get them down to 4 per cent. Financial challenges are faced in information management and technology. Fuel prices, which have not been mentioned much, and modernisation are important issues, too. On top of that, the Government has imposed a 2 per cent efficiency target. Although the service gets to keep the savings, achieving them is an additional challenge to management in a service that already faces major challenges. James Kelly referred to that.

In the past, all the challenges have been met through an effective partnership between Government, management and staff. Reports from bodies such as Audit Scotland have shown how well the service is doing financially and in other ways. However, it faces an additional financial challenge in that its budget uplift has reduced from around 6 per cent a year during the Labour-Liberal years to 4 per cent a year. In last year's annual report, Nicola Sturgeon referred to the 12 per cent increase in demand, but went on to talk about the

"disappointing performance against the target set ... to reach 75% of category A calls within eight minutes",

as the eight-minute target was met in only 55.7 per cent of cases. The cabinet secretary can now say that a 74 per cent rate has been achieved and that we are within striking distance of the target that was set. However, if a service that is under the stresses that I have mentioned moves from 55 to 74 per cent, that makes one wonder what is going on. Is it a tick-box exercise, or is the service not only meeting the target, which we all agree is important, but improving the patient experience?

Yes, the Labour Government introduced the rapid response vehicle system, but it has been expanded beyond all recognition to meet the target. That rate of expansion is causing enormous stresses and problems and is almost certainly leading to deterioration in the patient experience. If a single-manned motorcycle or car arrives at an incident, what can that one person achieve in a serious situation? They can achieve something and many are experienced—[Interruption.] The cabinet secretary shakes her head, but the most recent information we have is that not all the vehicles are manned by paramedics. In Glasgow, 80 per cent were manned by paramedics and 20 per cent by technicians. If somebody has a very serious issue, which would they prefer? Angela Constance was absolutely correct about that. If I was a patient having a serious heart attack, I would prefer a double-manned vehicle with paramedics rather than a single-manned vehicle with a technician who could not meet my requirements. The cabinet secretary keeps shaking her head, but those concerns are being expressed to many members by the public and, more important, by ambulance crews. The reduction in double manning, with a reduction of 70 shifts in Glasgow, rather than just the rapid response system, must be considered carefully.

That is one of the core issues, but staff have raised other issues, about cleaning, training and safety. More important is a letter from the staff, dated 21 May. I should declare that I am a member of Unite. A press release from Unite states:

"Partnership working in the Service was always amongst the most forward thinking within the Health Service in Scotland".

Today, I have received a collective grievance letter from staff. The Unite press release mentions the possibility of strike action, if those grievances are not tackled. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has not seen the letter and that it is not reasonable to ask her to respond to it now. However, we have moved from a service with one of the best records in the health service to one in which there is

"a bullying and harassment culture"

and a feeling that jobs are under threat. That situation has, in part, led to the collective grievance being registered.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I put on record, as I did earlier, that I would not defend the situation that Richard Simpson has outlined, which is unacceptable. I repeat what I said in my opening remarks: I will take those allegations very seriously indeed.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Dr Simpson, you must come to a close, please.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that, but the point is that by pushing for the eight-minute target to be reached in 75 per cent of cases in one year, we have put enormous pressure on the management. We need a far deeper and greater understanding of that.

I do not have much time.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

You must close, please.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Right. I am sorry that I do not have time to cover rural manning and other issues.

The suggestion in our motion is the appropriate way in which to proceed. We need an independent investigation of the issue now, before the service breaks down.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is committed to introducing a mandatory tenancy deposit scheme in terms of its powers under part 4 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006. (S3O-3409)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The Scottish Government is working with a number of organisations, including the National Union of Students Scotland, Shelter and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which are members of a stakeholder group that was established to consider the need for a tenancy deposit scheme in Scotland. The group agreed that further work should be carried out to develop an evidence base on the scale of the problem before any decisions are taken. The outputs from tenant and landlord surveys will be available later this year and will also be taken in to account.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am grateful for that reply, to which I listened carefully. Am I wrong in forming the impression from it, and from the minister's answer to a parliamentary question by my colleague Iain Smith in February, that he is going backwards rather than forwards on the principle of the scheme? He seems to be heading towards tinkering with current deposit management practice rather than introducing a proper scheme.

Is the minister aware that tenancy deposit protection schemes have been introduced successfully in England and Wales? Does he agree that it is unacceptable for Scotland to lag behind other parts of the United Kingdom on the provision of much needed and equitable protection for tenants and a level playing field in disputes over deposits? Does he agree that the case has long been made for the introduction of such a scheme and will he therefore instruct his officials and the stakeholder group that the issue for consideration is no longer whether a tenancy deposit scheme should be introduced, but when and how it should happen?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

We should not pre-empt the work of the stakeholder group, which was established to consider the issue. Several issues have arisen from that group's work. It has asked for tenant and landlord surveys, which are being carried out. The comprehensive survey of tenants, which includes questions on tenants' experience of deposits, is being carried out by Tribal Consulting Ltd and George Street Research Ltd. We have designed the landlord survey with contractors at the University of Sheffield. The survey has been piloted and will be rolled out in the next few weeks.

It is relevant that, when such a scheme was proposed in amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill in 2005, the then Deputy Minister for Communities, Johann Lamont, made it clear in evidence to the Communities Committee that she did not want to introduce a scheme if the costs were found to be disproportionate to the scale of the problem in Scotland. I agree with that. It is right that we are analysing the situation properly. There are early indications from the various schemes in England—there is not a single national scheme—that some landlords may, by increasing rent levels, be passing on the costs of membership of the insurance-based schemes to their tenants. I am not sure that we want that to happen in Scotland. We must be cautious before we progress, but we are entirely open minded and are waiting for the results of the expert group, which is working to ensure that we reach a proper and considered response.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The previous Labour-led Executive made clear its intention to introduce a deposit scheme that would be up and running by the middle of 2008, but we are in the middle of 2008 and so far we have heard little from the Government on it. The minister mentioned costs. Does he agree that the issue is not simply about comparing the total amount of deposits that are withheld unfairly against the costs of the deposit protection scheme, because a scheme could reduce the fear and threat of unfair withholding of deposits, which would reduce tension between tenants and landlords?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Briefly, please, Ms Baker.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That reduction may be unquantifiable in simple cash terms, but does the minister agree that it would be a crucial benefit of a scheme?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I accept absolutely that the issue is not just about a straight cash comparison between the two amounts. However, I hope that Claire Baker will agree that we cannot proceed on the basis of anecdotal evidence and that we must have solid evidence. That is why the working group was established, why it is waiting for the research to be produced and why the tenant and landlord surveys are being carried out.

The deposit protection scheme is not the only protection that is under consideration. The landlord registration scheme had a 15 per cent approval rating in May 2007; by May 2008, its approval rating was 75 per cent. We are also working with landlords on a national voluntary accreditation scheme. We are making efforts to ensure that the private rented sector is fit for purpose, and that a quality scheme is in place to protect tenants and landlords. We are moving forward on that work, but it is right that we wait for proper evidence to be presented to the working group to allow it to make recommendations. That will allow us to move forwards on the basis of evidence.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive to what extent the issue of violent crime in housing estates throughout Scotland has been tackled. (S3O-3408)

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

Tackling the deep-seated culture of violence that blights too many housing estates across Scotland will take time, but we are making good progress. Our on-going anti-violence campaign continues to focus police efforts on weapon carrying and alcohol misuse, and the initiative that I recently announced to tackle gang violence will work intensively with over 500 young men across Scotland. That is supported by our £7 million investment so far through the cashback scheme, which will provide young people from those communities with more positive opportunities and will complement the good work that is being delivered locally to make our communities safer and stronger.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Following reports in national newspapers on Tuesday, will the cabinet secretary assure us that swift action is being taken, and will be taken, to tackle incidents of violent crime whenever and wherever they occur?

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

John Wilson may take that as read. Our police will enforce the law. Violent behaviour is unacceptable, whether it is perpetrated in Scotland or in other jurisdictions, and we have to ensure that it is punished.

We also have to build on the measures that my predecessor quite correctly commenced: we have to tackle the roots of the culture of alcohol and violence. That culture has to be broken.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what services will be devolved to rural general hospitals. (S3O-3439)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The recommendations of the remote and rural steering group report, "Delivering for Remote and Rural Healthcare", set out the services that are expected—as a minimum—of rural general hospitals. Those services include improved diagnostics, emergency care, maternity services and the management of long-term conditions. Copies of the report have been placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Is not it the case that many of those services have already been devolved? Indeed, many rural general hospitals offer more services than are laid out in the report. Will the cabinet secretary assure us that those services will be protected?

Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that devolving services carries increased costs? Will she therefore ensure that rural health boards receive the funding that they require to advance their services and, indeed, to develop more services?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I point out to Rhoda Grant that the funding allocation to NHS boards already takes account of issues regarding the delivery of remote and rural health care. It is right that that is the case.

Not all that long ago, we seemed to be in a constant round of uncertainty over the future of rural general hospitals, many of which faced the threat of closure. Rhoda Grant is right to say that many services are now being provided in rural general hospitals. I emphasise that what is set out in the report should be regarded as a minimum. However, the report also considers how we can change the model of delivering health care in remote and rural communities, to ensure not only that the services are available now, but that they are sustainable. As a result, we now—for the first time in a long time—have real reason to be optimistic about the future of rural hospitals.

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

My question comes under the heading "management of long-term conditions". Will the cabinet secretary consider discussing with Highland NHS Board the return of renal dialysis services to east Sutherland, perhaps through the Lawson memorial hospital in Golspie? Those services used to be available and were very popular and successful. Now, some of my constituents have, three days a week, to rise at six in the morning and do not get back home until seven at night.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I am more than happy to raise that issue with NHS Highland and will report back to Jamie Stone. I have no doubt that he has already raised the point with NHS Highland. If he has not, I am sure that he will in the future.

As Jamie Stone knows, this Government believes in local delivery of health care wherever that is possible. Over the past year, I have seen many good examples of services such as dialysis and chemotherapy being provided locally, thus cutting the number of journeys that patients have had to make. I thoroughly endorse those examples and would encourage others wherever they are possible. For clinical reasons, local provision may not always be possible, but I certainly endorse the thrust of Jamie Stone's question.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am glad that the cabinet secretary wants to see more than just the minimum services that are set out in the report on remote and rural health care issues.

The computed tomography scanner at Caithness general hospital is an example of such a service. Does the cabinet secretary expect more CT scanners to be available in remote hospitals? I ask because of the time that it can take patients to get to hospitals that have CT scanners. The golden hour was mentioned during the previous debate.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

As I said in my initial answer, the report envisages improved diagnostic facilities in rural general hospitals. Clearly, that will mean provision of diagnostic equipment.

As I have travelled round some of our rural communities, I have been impressed by the increasing use of telemedicine, which can enable some diagnostic tests to be carried out remotely without the patient having to travel. Test results can be assessed remotely. That is a positive development that I would like to see gathering pace in the NHS. The issue is also at the heart of the report.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to promote the viability of rural post offices. (S3O-3413)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Scottish Government recognises the valuable social and economic role of post offices, particularly in deprived and remote areas of Scotland. However, post offices and postal services are wholly reserved to the United Kingdom Government.

I have, however, encouraged members of the Scottish Parliament and local authorities to look very carefully at the proposals from Royal Mail to ensure that the interests of the public—especially vulnerable groups—have been taken properly into account. Since the announcement in May last year, I have continued to be in active discussion with Post Office Ltd to ensure that its restructuring programme promotes transparency and open discussion of the issues with key stakeholders. Only yesterday, I was in a meeting with senior management of Royal Mail Group to ensure that it is aware of potential business opportunities under the Scottish Government's agenda to streamline and improve public services.

I have also encouraged local authorities to consider opportunities to promote services alongside local post offices to aid their viability.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Of course I understand that post office provision is a Westminster matter.

Next week, my constituents will discover the extent of the closure programme across the north-east region. There is no doubt that many communities will see either the complete closure of their local post office or a significant reduction in the days and hours of opening. Does the minister agree that, especially in villages in rural areas, the demise of the post office can herald the further decline in the viability of community life? Will he therefore encourage and support any community that wishes to take over its post office and run it as part of a social enterprise, by ensuring that the community can apply for assistance via the Government's rural priorities scheme, which was announced last month, under the thriving rural communities strand?

Will he also—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Briefly please, Ms McInnes.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary also commit to ensuring that Government directorates recognise the value of supporting the post office network by continuing to use and develop it as an important access point for services and as a useful route for disseminating information?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

There was much in that question from Alison McInnes with which I can agree. I represent the North Tayside constituency, which is adjacent to the region that she represents, so I am acutely aware of the importance of post offices in rural areas. A number of community ventures in my constituency have been successful in taking over post office services, which has led to development of local services.

As I said in my original answer, I have been encouraging local authorities to work with local groups to encourage provision of services at local level. Clearly, opportunities exist for social enterprises to develop as part of the Government's wider agenda. That will include the launch of the Scottish investment fund for social enterprises, which will take place shortly.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I note what the cabinet secretary says about Westminster responsibilities. Will he however confirm that his Administration has the power to provide financial assistance to post offices, if it decides that it wishes to do so?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Henry should have listened carefully to what I said, which was that

"post offices and postal services are wholly reserved to the United Kingdom Government."

As an Administration, we have been working constructively with local authorities and have been encouraging community organisations, through the Scottish investment fund, to regard opportunities to retain some services in local communities as part of an attempt and a venture to broaden the base of economic activity in our remote and rural communities. I am quite sure that Mr Henry would warmly support that.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That was very clever of Mr Henry, given that his question is on the next page of my script.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

To ask the Scottish Executive which three new prisons have been sanctioned by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and what funding method will be used to build each of those prisons. (S3O-3441)

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

Full details of the proposed prison development programme and sources of funding are available in the Scottish Government's infrastructure investment plan 2008. The Scottish Prison Service is taking forward plans to open three new prisons. HM Prison Bishopbriggs and HMP Grampian will be funded from the SPS capital budget. HMP Addiewell will be funded from the SPS resource budget.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I note that the cabinet secretary avoided saying which three new prisons were commissioned by him and the Administration that he represents. However, I heard him say in a television interview that he had commissioned three new prisons. In fact, HMP Addiewell was commissioned by the previous Administration, which also gave its agreement to the building of Low Moss. What the cabinet secretary has been saying to the public is wrong. I hope that today he will put on record the fact that he has not commissioned three new prisons.

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

I will put on record that the Government took the decision to stop HM Prison Bishopbriggs—which Mr Henry referred to as Low Moss—going down the privatisation road that was favoured by Mr Henry and his colleagues. Had we signed off the prison as a private institution, Scotland would have become the country with the largest percentage of prisoners in private prisons in the world, which would have been shameful.

We had to sign off HMP Addiewell because of the contract that the previous Administration had signed. As with so many other projects, a prison that could have been built for between £100 million and £200 million by standard procurement methods will, as Professor Pollock, Professor Coyle and others have testified, cost the Scottish taxpayer in excess of £1 billion. That money, which could have been used to tackle heroin addiction, will be used to lock up 700 people. Once again, the previous Administration has privatised a public asset, mortgaged our children's future and left our communities and taxpayers to pay the price. The shameful aspect of the matter is that it did so not only with prisons but with schools, hospitals and other fundamental public services.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will next hold meetings with the enterprise agencies. (S3O-3371)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Scottish Government ministers and officials hold regular meetings with Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and VisitScotland. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth met Scottish Enterprise's board and senior management team on 12 May. I will meet Jack Perry of Scottish Enterprise later today. The next scheduled meeting between ministers and all three enterprise agencies will be held on 8 September, but it is likely that further meetings will take place over the summer.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Should responsibility for the central performance management unit, marketing and the fulfilment centre of business gateway rest with Scottish Enterprise or local authorities?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

That is a matter for local authorities. However, we have joint and several responsibility for performance. Gavin Brown would do well to focus on the massive progress that has been made and on the credit that is due for the restructuring and streamlining of governance that has taken place. The new management structure will increase responsiveness to customers. That has produced a situation in which, according to The Scotsman on 2 May, 57.4 per cent of the business community credit the Government with doing a good or excellent job.

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

I assure the minister that more than 57.4 per cent of people in the Borders think that it is a bad idea to abolish Scottish Enterprise Borders. Last year the combined budget of Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway and SEB was £18 million, but it is estimated that the outturn in the coming year will be the equivalent of £5 million. Given that, will the Government publish a budget for the local enterprise function in the south of Scotland?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I encourage the member to engage positively at local level, as I have done in my role as a constituency MSP, to help local businesses to engage more in the public sector. There is a new atmosphere of which the member should take advantage.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Before we move to First Minister's question time, I am delighted to say that His Excellency Jean-Michel Veranneman De Watervliet, the Belgian ambassador to the United Kingdom, has joined us in the Presiding Officer's gallery today. Ambassador, you are most warmly welcome. [ Applause. ]

First Minister's Question Time

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I know that the whole chamber will want to join me in sending congratulations to that son of Govan and Labour supporter, Alex Ferguson, who led his team to such a magnificent victory last night.

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-794)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I join Wendy Alexander in congratulating Sir Alex Ferguson. I had the great pleasure of wishing him luck in person last week. I claim no credit for the penalty shoot-out; nonetheless, we can all join in congratulating Manchester United on its magnificent achievement.

Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

For years the Scottish National Party has been promising to abolish public-private partnerships. It has not done so. Instead, it has unveiled three main proposals, the first of which is the non-profit-distributing model. Will the First Minister tell us who developed that model?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Who applied the model are this Government and the Scottish National Party. I know a great deal about it because I had long discussions with Falkirk Council, under SNP control, as it worked to develop the model. It was harassed, harried, blocked and tackled by the previous Executive at every stage along the way.

I have here a list because I anticipated that Wendy Alexander might come on to the subject. I have been waiting to say what is on it. It is a list of the huge £14 billion of infrastructure projects planned by this Government over the next three years. The highlight among the projects that have been signed this past year is the 14 out of 44 signed-off schools that are being moved to the non-profit-distributing model.

Among the project announcements that are to come, one of the highlights that I am sure Wendy Alexander will want to welcome is the Southern general hospital, on which there will be £842 million of expenditure using conventional public finance techniques. Beyond that, every school that has been given approval since May 2007—another nine schools—is using the non-profit-distributing model. Wendy Alexander should welcome that progress.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The truth that the First Minister avoided at such length is that the non-profit- distributing model was developed by Labour and Argyll and Bute Council and is unquestionably a form of PPP.

Let us turn to the second of the SNP's proposals—a Scottish futures trust to raise finance from the private sector. The business case says:

"how investment will be raised from the private sector has not been explored in any detail".

Why not?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Wendy Alexander did not complete the quotation from page 39 of the document that was released on Tuesday. The second part of the same sentence is about the business case, and continues:

"rather that work will fall to SFT Delivery as part of the business planning for SFT Finance and Investment."

Wendy Alexander would not want to mislead the chamber by truncating quotations.

Let us get back to the non-profit-distributing model. The previous Administration had 100 projects, including Andy Kerr's pet project of Hairmyres hospital—the most profitable project in history. One puts up a modest amount of private investment to get a massive amount of public subsidy. How does that one project out of 100 contrast with the SNP's moving NPD to the very centre of the massive infrastructure programme planned by this Government?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The proposal has been two years in the making—but no discussions with the financiers.

The third of the SNP's proposals is council bonds, which are to be the backbone of the Scottish futures trust and, according to John Swinney, will be available to pay for major projects such as the Forth road bridge. For the sake of clarity, will the First Minister confirm which piece of local government legislation allows that to happen?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The prudential borrowing powers of local government allow for bond issues. Of course, Wendy Alexander should know that, given that, over the past few years, the excellent past mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, introduced bond issues for Transport for London. Surely Wendy Alexander is not seriously arguing that that can be done for Transport for London but not for Scottish local authorities.

As the Transport for London example illustrates, the advantage of mobilising capital by bond issues is that it can be done for a modest amount of basis points above the London interbank offered rate. Unfortunately, the scandal of the PFI beloved of the Labour Party, as illustrated in the Sunday Herald, is that massive profits were given for private speculation instead of being allocated for the public good. Indeed, so disastrous has the PFI experiment been that someone recently called it

"the unacceptable face of capitalism".

That speaker was Edward Leigh, the chairman—the Tory chairman, I might add—of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. If he thinks that, will a self-proclaimed socialist such as Wendy Alexander now confirm that PFI was a disastrous mistake for which every one of us will pay for generations to come?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

What I can say is that the SNP has adopted a Labour model without providing a shred of evidence that the profit levels will be any different.

However, let us try to clear up what is and is not legal. On Tuesday, John Swinney told us that these bonds could be used to build the Forth bridge. The SNP's own document acknowledges that there are legal obstacles; typically, of course, it fails to lay out what they are. The fact is that, in the First Minister's proposals, the bits that work are ours and the bits that do not are his. They are legally incompetent and financially illiterate; business has called the business case "bafflingly bereft of ... detail"; builders have condemned the delay; and sources in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have called them "a joke". It is time to bury the dogma, because multimillion pound projects require certainty. Will the First Minister acknowledge that John Swinney got it wrong and confirm that the procurement of the Forth road bridge will not rely on bonds from an untried, untested and, indeed, non-existent Scottish futures trust?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

John Swinney said that he would lay out the financing structure for the Forth crossing—something, incidentally, on which the Labour and Liberal parties were incapable of taking a decision—by the end of this year.

We can trade quotations. I know that Wendy Alexander, with her love of PricewaterCooperhouse—[Laughter.]—will want to acknowledge that the £100 million to £150 million-worth of savings, identified from the introduction of these new finance arrangements and validated by experts in the field, are an exciting prospect for the future of Scotland. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. That is enough.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I would have thought that the generally acknowledged expert on such matters would be Professor John Kay, fellow of St John's College, Oxford, visiting professor of economics at the London School of Economics and, of course, member of the Council of Economic Advisers. Labour members, particularly Andy Hairmyres, should listen—and listen well—to what he has had to say. He said:

"PFI is well past its sell by date. The Scottish Futures Trust can achieve its three objectives of cheaper finance, better project management and the operation of infrastructure projects for the benefit of the people of Scotland."

The Labour Party should remember that last phrase. The trust is

"for the benefit of the people of Scotland",

not for Andy Kerr's private speculators.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

In the heat of debate, it always helps if all members refer to each other by their chosen names, rather than by nicknames.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

What a pity.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-795)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am not going to go down the road of pet names. I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future, although I met him briefly a couple of nights ago.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The First Minister certainly has a better chance of meeting him than the voters of Crewe and Nantwich do.

Yesterday, a highly respected sheriff felt compelled to launch a blistering attack on Scottish Government policy allowing the early release of prisoners. He said:

"I would be failing in my duty ... if I did not make it clear that, in my opinion, judicial disposals are largely meaningless and the system is being brought into disrepute."

There we have it from the bench: confirmation that we live in the Scottish National Party's soft-touch Scotland. I know that and the public know that. Is the First Minister seriously going to suggest that that sheriff is wrong?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I notice that Sheriff Drummond's comments were, in part, supported by Lord McCluskey, who went on to point out that the system was introduced in 1993 by the Conservative Government. I hope that the whole Parliament acknowledges that there is now a substantial consensus that automatic early release should end—and it will end, as part of the wider review of penal policy that is being conducted by the independent commission led by Henry McLeish.

I looked carefully at Sheriff Drummond's remarks. The independence of mind and spirit of Scottish sheriffs, and their ability to speak, are valued parts of our judicial system. I was particularly interested in Sheriff Drummond's points about community sentencing. I am not certain that he would have seen the parliamentary answer on the matter of just a few days ago, but I would have thought that he would approve—as would Annabel Goldie, I am sure—of the fact that the plans that were announced on 27 November last year to reform and revitalise community sentences, to build public confidence and to improve the effectiveness of the system are now under way. There is additional funding of £9 million over the next three years, which was announced in the parliamentary answer to which I referred. While we await the views of the McLeish commission, and so as to move forward with, I hope, consensus, perhaps Annabel Goldie can give a welcome to that at least.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I do not think that the First Minister understood the question that I asked him. I was not talking about the broken system of community sentencing—although it is not working, and Henry McLeish is absolutely right to criticise it. I am talking about a frustrated and angry judiciary, whose custodial sentencing policy is being undermined by the SNP's soft touch on early release. If he does not listen to Sheriff Drummond, he should listen to victims and their families. Early release is being seen for the nonsense that it is, and it is rightly being attacked from all quarters.

Is the First Minister seriously prepared to limp on with the SNP's soft-touch policy of releasing more and more convicts into the community, rather than keeping prisoners in prison? Why is the Scottish Government unrelenting in standing up for criminals, when it should be standing up for victims? Enough is enough.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As I pointed out in answer to the first question, we are going to bring about the end of automatic early release. That aim is shared across the chamber. I gently made the point in the first answer to Annabel Goldie that the changes that are being introduced, which I think will be beneficial and will improve confidence in the Scottish judicial system, are changes to measures that were largely introduced by the Conservative Government in the 1990s. When Annabel Goldie speaks about other political parties, she should have an element of memory and history about who brought us into this position in the first place.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

You are distorting it.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Since Conservative members are slightly annoyed about being reminded of their party's history—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

We are being misrepresented.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Mr McLetchie.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

—and about being reminded of the various initiatives that were drawn up when Michael Forsyth was Secretary of State for Scotland—that hardliner on penal policy—I welcome the leaflet that has been produced for the Conservative party conference. It says:

"Scottish Conservative MPs are making the difference in the Scottish Parliament. Our 16 MSPs, in less than 12 months, have delivered 12 solid achievements."

There is only one problem: it says

"Our support helped introduce the freeze in council tax",

which I thought was achieved by John Swinney, and talks of

"Our local campaigns ... saving the A&E departments at Ayr and Monklands",

which I thought was achieved by Nicola Sturgeon.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-796)

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)

On 31 January, I told the First Minister about a patient who had been deleted from the waiting list by Tayside NHS Board. Within 30 minutes, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing had phoned Tayside Health Board and, by tea time, the board had reversed its position. That patient has now been treated. Why, then, do we find that, after knowing about the situation at Strathmartine hospital for seven months, the Minister for Public Health took no effective action to ensure that the personal records of hospital patients in Dundee were secure? Why the difference?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The health minister took the action of notifying the health board twice and was given assurances that the matter was being dealt with. Those things are not in dispute, because the health board has put its hands up, has acknowledged the serious situation and its responsibility for it and, even more important, is introducing procedures that will prevent it from happening again. That, at least, I hope Nicol Stephen will welcome.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Last November, John Swinney announced that there would be a co-ordinated review of information security policies in Scotland. He said:

"All bodies in Scottish central Government, including the NHS, are being asked to confirm compliance".—[Official Report, 28 November 2007; c 3798.]

The Minister for Public Health, Shona Robison, sat only a few paces away from him while he made that statement. Why did she not stop to think about the piles of data that she knew were discarded in an old hospital a short walk from her constituency office? When the United Kingdom Government lost personal data, the Scottish National Party called for resignations. That SNP minister knew that personal data were strewn across corridors and got nothing done. How on earth can the First Minister have any confidence left in his Minister for Public Health when she has failed to protect her own constituents, let alone patients throughout Scotland? Will she now accept responsibility and do the honourable thing?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The health minister did the honourable thing when she drew the matter to Tayside Health Board's attention twice and was assured that steps had been taken. I have here a letter from Sandy Watson OBE DL, the chairman of NHS Tayside, accepting the health board's responsibility for the situation that arose and, more important, undertaking to put it right. I will read one sentence that might allow Nicol Stephen to dwell on the subjects of ministerial accountability and responsibility:

"The fact that the records were left behind when the building was finally sold in 2005 is unacceptable and there is now, as a result, a clear protocol in place to avoid repetition."

Nicol Stephen should remember the year—2005—and who was Deputy First Minister and should welcome the fact that there will be no repetition.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

On the review of the fishing quota, which was not announced in the Parliament yesterday, will the First Minister publish the legal advice that the Scottish Government received on whether it was competent for it to impose a ban on the permanent transfer of quota? How does he respond to Mike Park of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, who has criticised the move in The Press and Journal , and Barrie Deas of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, who said that the ban had cut the value of the Scottish quota?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Barrie Deas's concerns on many aspects of fishing quotas should be well noted. He represents the English fishing industry, which, unfortunately, has lost quota after quota to the French, Spanish and Dutch and is left as a mere shadow of its former self.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

What about Mike Park?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Ms Brankin. Order, thank you.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

That happened at times when the industry south of the border was under substantial pressure.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

What about Mike Park?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Ms Brankin. Order, thank you.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

That is the most likely occasion for fishing quota to be transferred out of fishing communities. When that happens, the quota never comes back again. I am not sure that Richard Baker understands that, but if he had represented a fishing community for 20 years he would know it well.

I could cite the producers organisations of Scotland that are thoroughly behind the review of quota policy, which attaches quota to ownership and economic interest. Perhaps the most celebrated fisherman in Scotland these days is Jimmy Buchan, the owner of the Amity and one of the stars of the BBC programme "Trawlermen". This is what he said this morning about the policy:

"The future of Scotland's fishing communities and the industry that sustains them depends crucially on the fleet having access to sufficient quota. We can no longer afford the loss of quota or the costs imposed by quota speculators.

With fuel costs at a level that is beginning to threaten the viability of some vessels, action has to be taken to reduce the other costs that vessels have to bear and quota is the most important of these. We welcome this important step by the Scottish Government as it will help reduce the loss of quota to active fishermen and hence the communities in which they live."

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Government is making to take forward the recommendations contained in the Gould report on the May 2007 Scottish elections. (S3F-798)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Our response to the Gould report highlighted how we plan to progress Ron Gould's recommendations, and the fact that we are following all his recommendations.

We are currently consulting on decoupling the two sets of elections with a view to the next local elections being held in 2012, which seems to be emerging as the consensus position. We will publish proposals on a chief returning officer in the autumn, and will consult on how to implement the other detailed recommendations that pertain to this Parliament.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

After the complete hash that the United Kingdom's Scotland Office made of last year's elections, Ron Gould and the Scottish Parliament have clearly stated that they believe that legislative competence for the running of our elections should be taken from Westminster and given to Holyrood. Given that it would be unthinkable in England if, say, the European Union were to dictate to Westminster how it went about elections to the House of Commons, does the First Minister agree that the sooner that the Scottish Parliament has full legislative control of our nation's elections, the better?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As I was listening carefully to the question, I found it extraordinary that there were further murmurings from the Labour benches. I remind Labour members what they voted for on 10 January 2008, which was:

"That the Parliament"—

that is, this Parliament—

"welcomes the Gould report, including the recommendation calling for the further devolution of executive and legislative powers to the Scottish Government and the Parliament for the administration of its own elections and the decoupling of future elections to this Parliament and Scotland's councils".

That was carried by 107 votes to 16—and, if I remember correctly, the Liberal Democrats supported the resolution but did not like the decoupling aspect.

We—the vast majority of this Parliament—believe that all of the Gould recommendations should be implemented. Whatever U-turns there might be in the Labour Party on the subject of augmented devolution, we want to implement those recommendations and believe that any Parliament worthy of its name is capable of implementing, enforcing and running its own elections, just as it is manifestly clear that the Scotland Office, under the leadership of somebody whose name I cannot remember, was totally unable to do so.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

Given that the Gould report sought improvements to the integrity of the ballot in the polling station, will the Government actively consider my suggestion of having a letterbox-style slot cut into the rear panel of each polling booth, so that the voter can effectively post their ballot paper—whether folded or unfolded—straight into a secure ballot box behind the polling booth?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have to say that I occasionally get surprised at First Minister's questions.

That suggestion will no doubt be part of the consultation exercise that is currently being pursued. I do not remember it being part of the Gould recommendations but, nonetheless, it needs to be properly considered and examined.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I call James Kelly.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

Apologies, Presiding Officer, but my question is a constituency question.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am sorry, Mr Kelly; your name came up in the wrong place. We will move to question 5.