Scottish Parliament, 4 December 2008

347 contributions from 81 members. The official report.

Official Report 4 December 2008

Broadcasting

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3013, in the name of Ted Brocklebank, on broadcasting.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I begin by making a declaration of interest. As indicated in the register of members' interests, I have a shareholding in Scottish Television Ltd. The fact that those shares are languishing at a near all-time low says as much about my investment skills as it does about the current economic plight of STV.

The Commission on Scottish Devolution, chaired by Sir Kenneth Calman, published its interim report "The Future of Scottish Devolution within the Union: A First Report" on 2 December. The report states that devolution of broadcasting merits further consideration, although it accepts that it would be difficult to create a new Scottish digital channel, which Scottish Conservatives have long campaigned for, without the Scottish Parliament having a role in scrutinising and holding managers of that channel to account. I agree. Indeed, Conservatives said as much in their report to the Scottish Broadcasting Commission.

Like the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, I do not accept that a case has been made for the full devolution of broadcasting, but I have long argued that the Scottish Parliament should be much more involved in what is transmitted on television screens in Scotland and in how that is funded. It is no coincidence, in my view, that the drop in funding for network production of Scottish news and current affairs during the first eight years of the Parliament had much to do with the perception that broadcasting was a hands-off area that was reserved to Westminster.

I am delighted that the BBC in particular has promised to mend its ways and to allocate an increased share of network production to Scotland, although I believe that its aim should be to reach its target by 2012 rather than the more leisurely 2016. However, it is deeply concerning to hear that BBC Scotland is to shed another 74 broadcasting jobs, which is on top of the 100 who were made redundant last year.

In this climate, it is important that Channel 4, too, should substantially increase its share of production from Scotland. The excellent independent production sector in Scotland is being held back only by lack of continuity of work. In that regard, I welcome the arrival of BBC Alba. Even with limited funding, it has started to provide continuity as well as excellent audience figures.

The Office of Communications consultation on the future of public service broadcasting, however, reveals that for many broadcasters, including STV, the benefits of holding PSB licences will soon be outweighed by the cost of providing news and current affairs content at the required level. Indeed, according to Ofcom, that could happen as soon as next year for STV. That company has estimated that it could require a cash injection of some £5 million a year to allow it to continue to produce news and current affairs at present levels.

STV's situation is made worse because, along with UTV and Channel Television, it remains independent of ITV. ITV's chief executive, Michael Grade, has called for a single, United Kingdom-wide licence and has warned of the real possibility of ITV handing back its PSB licence. That would not be in Scotland's national interest, particularly with so many policy issues now devolved to Scotland, and certainly not in terms of employing Scottish journalists, many of whom, as today's sad news from The Herald indicates, face a bleak future.

STV remains committed to its public service broadcasting role. However, if ITV goes nationwide, that would place a question mark over whether STV would be able to acquire highly popular network shows such as "Coronation Street", "Emmerdale" and "The X Factor". Michael Grade argues that ITV subsidises the three independent licensees to the tune of £25 million a year—a charge that STV refutes—but there are understandable fears that a nationwide ITV could end up competing head to head with STV in Scotland.

In the turbulent, ever-changing world of broadcasting, should we care if our main commercial channel goes to the wall? I believe that the Scottish Parliament should be extremely concerned about that possibility. Even in troubled financial times, we should not forget the basic free-market principle that competition between providers drives up quality and choice. That position is echoed in the findings of the TNS System Three poll that Ofcom commissioned, in which 76 per cent of Scottish respondents said that it was important to have a choice of TV news providers in Scotland.

Competition is the lifeblood of broadcasting and the media in general. I spent some three decades of my life working for the commercial TV sector, before working as an independent programme maker. The main competition was usually the BBC. Despite the BBC's recent difficulties and despite concerns about the spread of its activities, I remain a huge fan of it, and BBC Scotland in particular. In my days as a producer, the subsidised BBC could always outspend us, but few at the BBC would question the vital role that the commercial channels have played in spurring creative competition.

Among the many scoops that we achieved at little Grampian Television in my time were that we were the first United Kingdom regional TV company to broadcast in colour; we were the first to adopt the new lightweight electronic news-gathering cameras; and we were the first to broadcast live by satellite from a North Sea oil rig. Ken MacQuarrie of the BBC has generously conceded that competition from Scottish commercial TV companies was one of the main drivers in keeping BBC Scotland ahead of other regional centres.

I remain convinced of the need for competition, which is why we call on Ofcom to implement the enhanced evolution option, as favoured by most respondents to its consultation, with STV or a successor Scottish licensee providing PSB for Scotland, including the Borders region, as part of a wider UK network. We agree that additional funding will be required to do that. In that regard, Ofcom has identified several possible options. Potentially huge sums will be realised with the sell-off of the digital spectrum—some estimate it at £33 billion. Funds will be available, too, from unspent moneys that were previously allocated to the BBC for the digital switchover—some £130 million per annum. Of course, there has also been talk of top-slicing the BBC licence fee.

Since broadcasting is reserved, we do not believe that it is our role to plump for any of those options today, particularly since broadcasting is changing so quickly, but we do say that the funding issue must be addressed. We await with interest the announcement from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Andy Burnham of Labour's broadcasting plans, which we hope will be produced as early as February. We will look to him to give strong support for commercial PSB competition for the BBC in Scotland and to indicate how that might be funded. We also look forward to his support for the proposed new Scottish digital channel, especially if Labour adopts the partially commercially funded model that Scottish Conservatives advocate, which could also provide a stabilising role for STV and avoid the need for a duplicate infrastructure. However, we accept that STV's existing problems need to be addressed before then.

We firmly believe that a digital channel, partly funded by commercials, could also allow for the development of city and local TV, which is widely available throughout Europe, with Spain alone having 1,000 channels. Such broadcasting is also highly successful in America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. It has been suggested that up to 16 local TV channels could be viable in Scotland, which could provide up to 330 new jobs. However, we think that the Government should urgently engage with Ofcom to ensure that the spectrum is available for the roll-out of a vital new digital service.

A future Conservative Government will be as committed to local TV as it will be to commercial PSB competition for the BBC in Scotland. I commend the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that 4 December 2008 is the final date for submissions to Ofcom's Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) Review, Preparing for the Digital Future; recognises that, while broadcasting is reserved, there is a need for a healthy, competitive Scottish-based television programme-making sector outwith the BBC, notwithstanding that organisation's historic, respected and pivotal role in Scottish broadcasting; recognises the role of STV as the only remaining Scottish-based commercial PSB provider; prefers Ofcom's enhanced evolution option with a commercial TV channel continuing to provide PSB for Scotland as part of a wider UK network; recognises that STV's survival as a PSB provider is at risk in the current economic climate, particularly since ITV is now advocating a single UK-wide brand, and calls on Ofcom to explore all options to ensure that there is PSB competition for BBC Scotland in the nation's rapidly changing broadcasting landscape.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am happy to speak in support of both the motion and the amendment, which is in my name.

As I said in the 8 October debate in Parliament on the Scottish Broadcasting Commission's final report, much of what underpins the commission's recommendation on a Scottish digital channel is the belief that STV cannot survive in its current form. The commission was right that there must be plurality in public service broadcasting to ensure that the public have choice, that there is breadth and depth of news and current affairs coverage, and that quality and standards are maintained. Nowhere is that more important than in Scotland, where devolution has increased the need for the public to have access to impartial and accurate factual broadcasting about public life in Scotland.

Unfortunately, increasing commercial and financial pressures on the broadcasters has seen investment in news and current affairs decline. I echo Ted Brocklebank's concerns about the additional job cuts at BBC Scotland and the impact that that may have on the quality of broadcasting that is produced for Scotland by Scotland. Scotland needs vibrant and viable commercial public service competitors to the BBC, to ensure that the public continue to have access to a range of news and current affairs sources, and that, through competition, standards and quality are maintained. However, the reality is that, in its current form, the future for STV is bleak.

As a result of the actions, or inactions, of Ofcom and the UK Government, a situation has developed in which one company—ITV plc—operates as a near monopoly that can dictate the future direction of commercial public service broadcasting. When ITV was first set up—which happened before my time—it was deliberately given a federal structure, which is something that Liberal Democrats instinctively like. The principle was that a number of different regional broadcasters would come together to form a national network that would provide a mix of regional and national programming. Admittedly, some of the regions owed more to the geography of transmitters than to natural regions, but the idea was that no single broadcaster would be dominant, so the ITV schedule would be made up of programmes made by different regional companies. Indeed, there were strict rules against companies holding more than one franchise. Those rules were relaxed by successive Conservative and Labour Governments, as different licensing regimes and different franchise proposals were developed for ITV. However, the principle of plurality remained within ITV, and it retained a federal structure.

The present Labour Government has abandoned that principle by lifting completely the restrictions on how many franchises can be held by one company. That opened the door for the creation of the ITV plc monster, which now holds more than 90 per cent of the ITV franchises. ITV plc has virtually monopoly control of the ITV network and full ownership and control of the spin-off digital channels ITV2, ITV3 and ITV4. There is some abuse of that position in the broadcasting on those channels of programming that ITV does not own in its entirety. ITV plc has used that dominance to pressure the regulator to remove its public service broadcasting obligations and to reduce or eliminate completely its regional broadcasting requirements.

It was inevitable that the digital age would bring changes in the broadcasting landscape, given viewers' increased choice over what to watch and when to watch it. It was inevitable that the wider choice for advertisers would mean that ITV would no longer be the licence to print money that it once was. However, the failure of the regulator and the UK Government to prevent the creation of ITV plc by ensuring the retention of independent regional franchises removed plurality in public service broadcasting, which has made it easier for the new monopoly ITV plc to put a gun to the heads of the regulator and say, "Agree to our demands or we walk away." That is the context in which I fear for the future of STV. In an environment in which the ITV schedule is increasingly dictated by ITV plc, with fewer and fewer public service or regional broadcasting commitments, STV will find it increasingly difficult to provide commercial justification for regional opt-outs from popular network programmes. We need only look at the outcry when BBC Scotland moved "Spooks", which was broadcast throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, to make way for "A History of Scotland". I fear that it is only a matter of time before STV is forced to bow to the inevitable by falling under the wheels of the ITV plc juggernaut so that there is only one ITV franchise for the whole of the United Kingdom.

There is much to concern us in Ofcom's second public service broadcasting review. As I mentioned in the October debate, there is no requirement for ITV to commission any of 75 per cent of its programming from anyone other than ITV plc, leaving STV and UTV in the wilderness. To my mind, we should not support the enhanced evolution option, but it is the least worst option in the Ofcom review. The review is a desperate attempt by Ofcom to do a Canute and hold back the tide that is washing over it, but I fear that it is too little, too late.

The amendment gives us an important opportunity to touch on two other matters in today's debate. First, it is totally unacceptable that digital switchover will create a two-tier—or possibly even three-tier—system. Those who are fortunate enough to be served by a main transmitter will receive the full gamut of free-to-view digital channels; those who, by accident of geography, receive their signal from a relay transmitter—as is the case in much of Scotland, including in Cupar and Strathmiglo in my constituency—will get what has latterly been referred to as Freeview lite, which actually means restricted availability of programming. My constituents might be lucky that they will be unable to watch some of the rubbish that appears on digital television, but they will also not have access to high-definition broadcasts. Surely, as licence fee payers, my constituents are entitled to the same service as everyone else. All licence fee payers are paying for digital switchover, so all should be entitled to the same services as a result of switchover. It is a disgrace that that is not the case. Ofcom must do more to ensure that that happens.

Finally, on the seventh multiplex, I do not claim to be an expert on the technicalities, but I understand that digital switchover provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enable transmitters to provide additional spectrum in Scotland. It is important that Ofcom takes on board the needs of Scotland—perhaps through a new Scottish digital channel—for local television by ensuring that we have access to that spectrum.

I move amendment S3M-3013.1, to insert at end:

"; further believes that all Scottish residents should have access to the full range of broadcasting following digital switchover, and calls on Ofcom to ensure that all relay transmitters are capable of transmitting the full spectrum of free-to-view broadcasting and that the 7th Mux is enabled in Scotland."

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is timely that the debate is being held today, given that 4 December is the closing date for responding to the Ofcom consultation. Sadly, the debate is also timely following yesterday's news that BBC Scotland intends to cut even more jobs in addition to those that it cut earlier this year. It is hard to correlate that with Mark Thompson's commitment to production expansion in Scotland, which he said would have a floor, not a ceiling, of 9 per cent. Understandably, many in the Parliament and beyond will be concerned about jobs and programming.

I generally support the motion, but I cannot support its reference to supporting Ofcom's enhanced evolution model. Our response to the consultation, which is now on Ofcom's website, states that the Scottish Government has no preference for any of Ofcom's long-term models, provided that they are adapted to take full account of the recommendations of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission report.

We recognise that a commercial broadcaster can make a vital and vibrant contribution to broadcasting in Scotland. STV has a strong history, has a familiar and valued brand, and is a strong contributor to competition. As a provider of national and local news, STV is one of the strongest channel 3 licensees, with 42 per cent of people relying on it as their main source of news about Scotland. STV plays an important part in the Scottish broadcasting industry and makes a valued contribution to the economy.

We also recognise that STV is part of a complex licensing agreement with ITV that can pose difficulties, bring benefits and raise concerns. Most recently, those concerns have been about how STV can maintain its public service broadcasting commitments if ITV walks away from its public service broadcasting licence. I know that STV remains committed to being part of the public service broadcasting landscape in Scotland. STV can continue to play a part in offering variety and competition in Scotland. We said as much in our response to Ofcom. However, as Ofcom's review suggests, we should also look at alternatives. We should not be restricted to focusing on plurality of news.

The Ofcom PSB review recognises that the requirements of the nations of the UK extend to

"sufficient content ... to address their distinct political and cultural needs".

Research that was carried out by the Scottish Broadcasting Commission found that audiences in Scotland are less satisfied with current levels of provision in other key genres of programmes about Scotland. The proposed Scottish network would satisfy that demand for more Scottish programmes. In research that was carried out for the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, 82 per cent of those who were asked stated that they would be interested in watching a new Scottish television channel. The Scottish network would increase the opportunities for Scotland to see itself in a variety of quality programmes that would be available to all.

For an example of the desire for quality programming, we need look no further than BBC Alba. Its success since its launch in September shows that there is an appetite for quality Scottish content. The new channel secured viewing figures of 600,000 in its first week. Like members from all parties in the Parliament, I urge the BBC trust to give the new channel Freeview carriage so that it can reach all of Scotland and achieve its potential.

Ultimately, Ofcom has put forward a number of proposals for consultation. In the 8 October debate on the Scottish Broadcasting Commission report, I urged all members to respond to Ofcom's consultation. I hope that many have taken that opportunity to shape the future of public service broadcasting in Scotland.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Presiding Officer, I apologise to members, to you and to Ted Brocklebank for not being present for the opening speech. I was held up with an important constituency matter.

I welcome the way in which the Conservatives have chosen to use their debating time this morning. It is timely that we should debate broadcasting on the closing date for responses to Ofcom's consultation on its second public service broadcasting review. It is always helpful to have a timely debate.

As we have discussed in previous broadcasting debates, seismic shifts have taken place in broadcasting, as Ofcom reports have highlighted. The old regime, which existed for more than 40 years, was based on a deal that provided a monopoly on TV advertising. We also know from previous debates that, this year, Google made more money from advertising than did any of our television companies. We can see how things have changed dramatically. We will see quite dramatic change in the collapse of the old system, with 2012 being the final date for complete digital switchover. Digital platforms bring many opportunities, but there are many challenges and issues to resolve.

I take this opportunity to support what the minister said about the challenges in the industry and yesterday's announcement about the loss of more jobs at BBC Scotland. The BBC is an important part of our plurality in public service broadcasting, and I am sure that we will all continue to scrutinise its output, because we want quality to continue at the BBC.

Ofcom's work makes it clear that the public want to preserve public service broadcasting. That is the common ground that lies between us. Although we might have slight differences of opinion with the Conservatives about how that might be achieved, we are clear that the overall objective is to preserve what people want, and that is public service broadcasting—news and current affairs and other programmes that the public purse is expected to support.

We do not always get around to talking about radio, from which many people get their news. For example, many drivers listen to the news on their way to work or on the way home. We must pay some attention to radio's importance in this debate. We must be prepared to address any gaps in radio provision.

No one does not support the plurality of television. There are many different providers, such as Channel 4. Let us not forget Five, which has been an excellent provider of news and children's programmes. However, there are concerns about the ITV network and the proposal that ITV will eventually swallow up STV's identity. That would be a backward step and we should comment on it. STV has been particularly successful in providing local news to several local communities. It has drilled down into different communities to provide news where people want it. It has been a great success, and I hope that it will continue.

The motion provides enough scope for us to be able to support the general tenet of the Conservatives' position. We will not rule anything out, but we are not stuck on any particular model either. We are looking for options, partnership and plurality. Above all, we want quality in our public service broadcasting and programming. If we can achieve that, we will have done something important.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate. My speech will focus on the experiences of the Border TV region, and the challenges that ITV has faced in delivering the public service broadcasting commitment.

We agree that Ofcom in Scotland should be strengthened to ensure that the people of Scotland get a fairer deal from public service broadcasting. However, I am disappointed that Ofcom did not do more to champion the interests of the consumer during the review of local news services in the Border TV area. Although we agree with Ofcom's view that ITV should focus on programmes that have been made in the UK, network news, and national and regional news services, the proposed merger between Border TV and Tyne Tees is ill-suited to delivering those objectives and to achieving the most benefit for the Border TV area. Although Ofcom has given the green light to the proposals for Border TV and Tyne Tees, it is critical that Ofcom keeps a watching brief over the PSB commitment to the Borders to ensure that PSB is not further diluted and that ITV is held to its promises on the local opt-outs.

Experience in the Borders demonstrates the challenges that broadcasters, including STV, face in providing PSB. Despite being relatively successful, the continued existence of the local Borders news service could not be justified, given the economic challenges facing ITV. Border TV has provided local news and programming to the Scottish Borders, south-west Scotland, Cumbria and the Isle of Man for almost 50 years, and has the second largest geographical region in the ITV network. Despite the difficulties of catering for such a wide and diverse audience, the flagship daily news programme "Lookaround" has some of the highest ratings of any BBC or ITV regional news programme in the UK.

In March 2005, a Sunday newspaper highlighted those exceptionally high ratings when it reported that while "Scotland Today" and "North Tonight" drew a 26 per cent audience share, and "London Tonight" took a 28 per cent share, "Lookaround" was watched by a whopping 42 per cent of the Border TV region's population at 6pm on weekday evenings. Although I acknowledge that those ratings might have slipped in recent years, Border TV news continues to have some of the highest ratings in the UK.

Why does it have such a success rate? Why does it score so much better than the STV regions? The Sunday Herald put that question to the then managing director of ITV Border, Paddy Merrall, who said that ITV Border news was "more relevant to people". That goes to the heart of the matter: TV should be relevant to the communities that it serves. We only need to look at the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in 2001 to see the valuable public information service that the channel provided by giving people the latest, up-to-date news and public information on the problems as they unfolded. Similarly, in the past few hours, Border TV news has been providing a critical service to my constituents in Kelso during the gas network failure. That will be unlikely to happen when the news is coming from the north-east, with a local news opt-out. The loss of our local news service would be another example of people in rural communities being marginalised.

I fully acknowledge that the broadcasting market is developing, with a wealth of new platforms and services, including digital and multi-channel television. With broadband, there is also greater use of the internet to access news services. That might be the norm 10 or 20 years from now, but for many rural parts of Scotland there is no access to adequate broadband coverage—many have no access to broadband services at all. Furthermore, many people, particularly the elderly, still do not have access to computers and so cannot hope to gain access to alternative forms of news coverage if local news disappears completely. They depend on the local television services that are currently provided by ITV Border.

Ofcom must resist the agenda of urbanisation and centralisation. It must consider all the PSB options that are being proposed, and bear in mind the rural and diverse nature of parts of Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives believe that broadcasters have struggled to keep pace with the changing political environment. There has been a decline in Scottish programming and funding for Scottish programmes, which has damaged the creative industry in Scotland. Public service broadcasting must be reformed before the licences run out in 2014. I hope that the lessons of Border TV will be taken on board.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Today's debate is timely, especially after yesterday's announcement that BBC Scotland is set to lose 20 posts from news and current affairs, as well as another 54 positions, including producers, assistant producers, directors and researchers. That is in addition to the 96 positions that were cut earlier this year. If the BBC wanted to make job cuts, it should have done the decent thing recently and sacked two people as opposed to the fudge that it came up with. That would have saved the licence fee payer millions of pounds that could have been reinvested to maintain jobs, talent and skills in the corporation.

The debate is about broadcasting and competition in Scotland and the role of STV, which I will come back to in a moment. However it would be remiss of me not to mention yesterday's other shocking announcement by Newsquest that it is sacking its employees and asking them to apply for their positions, with up to 40 not being filled. That was a disastrous announcement for the media in Scotland. However, I wonder to what extent the announcement was another element of the hangover from when STV, under the Scottish Media Group, owned the Newsquest titles.

Referring directly to the motion, having received the Scottish Broadcasting Commission's conclusions, and looking forward to the Ofcom report, I am pleased that broadcasting is being taken seriously in this chamber. In these tough economic times, competition is largely put aside while survival is uppermost in the minds of most businesses. With the recent events in Scottish broadcasting, survival might well be the appropriate word.

It could be argued that there is internal competition between STV and ITV around public service broadcasting provision. However, I am concerned about the future of commercial public service broadcasting in Scotland because of the potential lack of competition for the BBC.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government's submission to the Ofcom review states that the Scottish Government shares Ofcom's view that the BBC should not be the sole provider of public service content. The stage 1 findings of the Ofcom review, which show the importance that audiences place on the continued availability of high-quality, original content that meets public service purposes, came as no surprise. Stage 2 of the review attempts to take forward the choices that are available to give audiences the tailored local output that they ultimately desire. John Lamont discussed that. It is ironic that the Scottish Broadcasting Commission reported in October that a substantial increase in investment in Scotland by the UK public service broadcasters is required. Yesterday's announcement and Michael Grade's comments about STV being subsidised highlight that that view is not being paid attention to or that there is no commitment to ensure that what has been proposed will be carried out.

Broadcasting is vital to Scotland's economic, cultural and democratic health, and, as I am sure members of all parties agree, more high-quality content should be produced here. Unfortunately, the recent report by the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television—PACT—revealed that independent network television production in Scotland fell dramatically in 2007. A mere two hours of independently produced drama were produced in Scotland for broadcast to the whole of the UK, which is worrying for the Scottish broadcasting industry. That enhances the Scottish Broadcasting Commission's case for a Scottish digital channel. It is time for London-centric broadcasting to come to an end and to allow Scotland to shine with the talent that is on offer here.

An interesting piece of information emerged with the damp squib that was this week's Calman commission report: the agreement with the Scottish Broadcasting Commission that there should be a greater focus on broadcasting in Scotland. The Calman commission went further in stating that the Scottish Parliament and ministers should take a more active role in considering the broadcasting industry. As a nationalist, I welcome any support to bring more—indeed, ultimately all—powers to the Parliament. Normal self-respecting nations have such a right.

In conclusion, I stress that the principle of competition between public service broadcasters creates a healthier industry for audiences as well as for broadcasters.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Mr McMillan's inventive interpretation of the Calman commission's findings is interesting.

Debates on broadcasting in the Parliament usually focus on, or are dominated by, the role of the BBC, which is, of course, the most important of our public service contributors. Today's debate centres on STV's role, on a day that is overshadowed by threats to jobs at three of our most important newspapers. The cumulative impact of commercial pressures, technological changes and developing viewing and reading habits, which are so altering our media landscape, has never been more starkly illuminated in recent times.

Before I turn to the decisions that will affect STV's future, it is important to express our concern, as Stuart McMillan has done, about the more than 200 jobs that are at risk at The Herald, the Sunday Herald and the Evening Times. Newspapers have, like STV, been badly hit by falling advertising revenue. Not only are advertisers switching to online media, the crucial sectors of car and property advertising have been weakened by the downturn in the economy. The readership of all newspaper titles is in steady decline, but no one should be in any doubt that staff cuts or the loss of entire titles has serious consequences for an informed Scottish public and electorate. Journalists will be anxious about what their new conditions of service will be and, indeed, about whether they will have a job to return to. I urge the owners of the Herald group to sit down immediately with the National Union of Journalists to rethink its overly dramatic approach to what we recognise to be a difficult situation.

The similarities between the pressures and decisions that the print media and the broadcast media face are clear. Nearly every member has expressed their concern, which I share, at the prospect of the proposed job losses at the BBC. I worry about the effect that such job losses would have on the quality of programme making at BBC Scotland. Mr Brocklebank highlighted the fact that Ofcom's consultation on public service broadcasting closes today, so we have the opportunity at least to signal our support for the maintenance of a competitive public service broadcasting sector in Scotland. The Scottish Broadcasting Commission's findings and the BBC's welcome commitment to expand its production in Scotland have been positive recent developments, and I include in the list of recent positives the attitude and approach of STV's new management.

It is clear that STV is in a difficult position. The switch to digital and the realignment of advertising revenues are just two of the factors that brought into question its ability to fund its public service commitment. The extra, uncalled-for worry is ITV's attitude in bidding, in competition with STV in effect, for a single national licence for the whole of the UK. I am not sure that a national ITV would be in the interests of Scottish viewers—in fact, I doubt that it would be in the interests of UK viewers. I suspect that we would end up with little to distinguish the commercial broadcaster from the myriad other commercial companies now available on the digital spectrum that serve up cheap American programming to complement some British-made but mass-market productions, with the fig leaf of a public service obligation to ensure that it retains its listing on front pages. I have no doubt that we would lose any commitment to reporting Scottish and local news and Scottish sport, weather and—dare I say it—politics.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

May I take an intervention from Margo MacDonald, Presiding Officer?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

You may, but I cannot give you extra time, Mr Macintosh.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I will not do so if I will not get extra time. I am sorry.

With a national ITV, I doubt whether we would be left with any Scotland-based ITV programme production. That would have obvious and serious implications for regional and national diversity, not to mention the impact that there would be on Scotland's creative economy.

STV is pitching for some form of subsidy in order to maintain its news and PSB programmes but, if support is needed, it should not come from licence fees. I am more sympathetic to a couple of other bids from STV, notably for recognition and status as an independent producer, not just as a broadcaster, and for it to have a central role in any future new Scottish digital channel.

These are worrying times for the broadcast and print media in Scotland. As politicians, we are used to getting kicked around the columns of the dailies and Sundays—if one believes everything in the papers, we sometimes respond by kicking journalists around the football park—but all members know about the importance of a vibrant, competitive and independent fourth estate. There is no doubt that we would miss STV if it were gone. Let us try to ensure that at least some of the changes that are radically transforming our choices as readers, viewers and listeners are shaped by, if not taken in, the public interest.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Members have mentioned the timeliness of today's debate. As Linda Fabiani, Ken Macintosh and other members have said, it is unfortunate that it has become timelier—it is timely not only because Ofcom's consultation is drawing to a close but as a result of yesterday's announcements on restructuring and redundancies at the Herald newspaper group and BBC Scotland. As members have said, those announcements will be a body blow to the broadcast and print media in Scotland, and they must be disappointing news to staff as the Christmas holidays approach.

The recent Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television report, which Stuart McMillan mentioned, shows that there were "deeply disturbing" falls in independent network television production in Scotland in 2007. According to PACT, only two hours of independent drama produced in Scotland were broadcast to the whole of the UK during 2007. In comparison, across all the major broadcasters, 10,661 hours of programmes were made in London. On top of the situation being "deeply disturbing", it is dismal, disappointing and desperately London-centric.

It is against that backdrop that we must debate our aspirations for Scottish broadcasting, what we see as the broadcasting future in Scotland and how we can protect what exists at the moment and ensure that Scotland does not fall further behind. That is a pity, given that there was so much excitement about the publication of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission's report and so much enthusiasm about what new technologies and new, fresh ideas could bring to the important Scottish broadcasting industry.

I do not need to remind members that broadcasting has enormous socioeconomic and cultural importance and that it is an important tool that informs, teaches and allows us to develop our imaginations. The programmes that we watch often bind society together through providing shared cultural experiences that enrich our lives. Unfortunately, however, Scotland has been and continues to be almost marginalised from having an appropriate level of coverage.

The Scottish Broadcasting Commission noted that the BBC remains the cornerstone of public sector broadcasting but found in the evidence that it gathered that there was a perceived lack of ambition in BBC Scotland productions—although that cannot necessarily be said of the First Minister's Reverend I M Jolly performance during "Children in Need". The commission also heard that BBC Scotland's output did not accurately reflect the energy and vitality of modern Scottish life, and that its cultural and creative content was limited.

I do not want to sound overly negative about BBC Scotland, because I thoroughly enjoy much of what it puts out—most notably "A History of Scotland", which has already been mentioned; I and, I am sure, others find it compelling viewing. However, despite the BBC being the backbone of public service broadcasting, Ofcom's review noted that people want broadcasting to continue beyond it. It would be great if that could be done via STV, but I would be keen to explore options outwith Ofcom's proposals, which seek to find ways to move forward into the digital era and are being regarded as the only game in town.

The commission suggested that there should be a new Scottish network to provide Scottish viewers with more high-quality Scottish programming, to create opportunities to be innovative with content and to nurture talent on and off screen, among other things. It is essential that we achieve those aims if we want programming to reflect our communities properly, whether in news output, sporting events, dramas or documentaries.

Whether or not members agree with the proposals for a Scottish network, it is clear that we must work together to get a broadcasting industry that is fit for purpose in the 21st century. The industry should realise the potential of a country whose brightest and best talents often move to London to pursue their careers. We need an industry that is capable of producing programmes that do not have to be twee or kilted to tick the "Scottish made" box and that can make programmes and documentaries that are not always about Scotland but which can be about absolutely anything, with no limit to what is achievable.

If Scotland aspires to having a broadcasting industry that is fit for purpose, it needs to aspire to being a normal independent country that is fully in control of its broadcasting and which can respond to and reflect the unique needs and wants of the people who live here. Countless other small nations do that. With the digital age upon us, it is time for Scotland to switch on to its potential and get tuned in.

George (Labour, Lothians)

I, too, congratulate the Scottish Conservatives on choosing the subject, and Ted Brocklebank on his well-informed introduction. As he said, there has been a revolution in media in the past few years, particularly in the use of digital TV, the internet and mobile phones, and the convergence of all three. The discussion has changed. I wonder seriously whether, just as the debate on the Scottish 6 o'clock news—if members recall it—is now as irrelevant as telegrams, discussion of a purely Scottish network is also out of date and, if I may say so, rather parochial.

I have read the Scottish Broadcasting Commission report carefully. I must say that I find it disappointing, as it contains little of substance on the programmes, ideas and schedules of which a Scottish network would consist—all we get are generalities. If Scottish producers make good programmes—and they do, such as "Rebus" and a range of others—those should be seen throughout the UK and abroad just as much as in Scotland. What do we in Scotland want to see that others do not? That needs to be spelled out. I have my doubts that there are many such programmes, except perhaps news and current affairs—I can understand that.

Members have received a letter from the NUJ stating that it wants to retain the quality of BBC Scotland. I must ask where it has been, as the quality is pretty poor at the moment. I agree with Iain Macwhirter's comments to the commission on that. I will give a few examples. In the mornings, members should switch from that awful parochial kailyard stuff on "Good Morning Scotland" to the "Today" programme, which has erudite people such as Jim Naughtie, who, incidentally, went to Keith grammar school.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

George (Labour, Lothians)

No.

In the evening, rather than listen to "Newsdrive" with Abeer Macintyre whining away, members should switch to Radio 4, where they will hear the mellifluous wit and wisdom of Scotsman Eddie Mair. Would anything that is proposed by the Scottish Broadcasting Commission bring those excellent presenters back to Scotland? I doubt it.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

George (Labour, Lothians)

No.

I saw the most astonishing example yesterday. I do not know whether any members were watching "Reporting Scotland" when Jackie Bird talked about five presenters who had limited medical information disclosed by a doctor in Fife. We almost had Jackie Bird interviewing Jackie Bird about that astonishingly parochial matter. I do not find the commission's argument convincing.

On a note of consensus, I share strongly the concerns about the future of Scottish television, particularly with the worries about SMG's financial situation. I have seen programmes on the ITV network and spoken to people south of the border about what has happened when local commercial stations have been taken over by ITV. For example, a centre in Plymouth was closed down and local news and current affairs coverage is reducing. If anything comes out of the debate, I hope that it will be a unified agreement to fight that and to try to protect STV from being swallowed up by the ITV national network.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

It is always difficult to follow a comedian, especially one with such enormous potential as my old friend George Foulkes.

In the past, when one has considered Scotland's cultural wellbeing, thoughts have turned to traditional and classical music, dance or literature. In that august company, the electronic media, especially television, seem like precocious upstarts, yet we must not underestimate the effect of television on Scotland's cultural life today. It transmits directly to our living rooms images of national and local news, sport, music, dance and drama. Television is now an important adjunct in the glue that binds our society together—it defines how we relate to one another and what sort of people we are; it is like a mirror showing us how we appear. Just as a mirror allows us to adjust our hair or remove an unwanted speck of dust, television allows us to adjust how we interact as a society, especially if the picture of ourselves that is presented to us is not to our liking.

What if the mirror was not totally reliable and reflected a slightly different society? In those circumstances, it would not be so useful. The fact is that Scottish society is subtly different from the model that pertains in the rest of the UK. For example, we have different health, education and legal services and our traditional forms of cultural expression differ slightly. That is why it is important that we have a healthy Scotland-based television programme-making sector that we can rely on to meet our needs. Until now, those needs have hardly been met.

That is not the only contribution that television makes. The making of television programmes in Scotland breeds a colony of artists, presenters and technicians and gives employment to them and to a host of support workers. The presence in our midst of such talented folk enhances our cultural life, not only through the programmes that they make but through what we might term the extracurricular activities and their contribution to the wider economy. If anything happened to eliminate that pool of talent in Scotland, we would be impoverished, culturally and financially.

I appreciate that BBC Scotland has a pivotal role in that respect, but we cannot rely on that institution alone. First, it alone cannot be relied on to produce enough work to keep those talented people based in Scotland. Secondly, as previous speakers have alluded to, the BBC has not exactly been dynamic in its treatment of Scottish affairs. The recent sackings and job losses do not bode well for the future. Competition is required so that high standards are achieved. For those reasons, it is essential to provide an environment in which other programme makers can flourish.

Ofcom's second public service broadcasting review recognises the challenges that face PSB in the years ahead and proposes three models for the post-switchover digital world. I do not have time to rehearse all the options, but it is arguable that none of them meets Scotland's needs. There are many options for the long-term future, but for now it is important that we maintain the integrity of STV, which is BBC Scotland's only major commercial competitor, and resist the suggestion that ITV be given the single UK licence. Instead, STV should be a PSB licence holder for Scotland and part of a network of UK licence holders that can commission programmes in Scotland and benefit from access to desirable UK networks. With pressure, that could increase the output of programmes that are made commercially in Scotland.

A healthy and competitive programme-making television sector benefits Scottish culture and the Scottish economy. As Scotland's needs differ from those of England and its regions, a one-size-fits-all UK policy is inappropriate.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I welcome the opportunity today to debate again the important subject of broadcasting. I should probably restate my interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists, a small shareholder in STV and a former employee of that company. Indeed, for two years, I was head of public affairs for Scottish Television, responsible for its corporate reputation with analysts and shareholders and in charge of the output from the press office to publicise its programmes. Things were very different 12 years ago when I had that job, although "Taggart" was still investigating murders in Glasgow, just as the programme is today. The fact that it is, and the fact that that programme has sustained its popularity for such a long time is testimony to the quality of its production and the fact that audiences continue to watch it. If it were rubbish, they would not.

Mr Brocklebank is to be congratulated on bringing broadcasting to the floor of the chamber yet again. As we know, today is the final day for submissions to Ofcom about its review of public service broadcasting and preparing for the digital future. In the previous debate, we made our views on that matter known. I certainly support the recommendation of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission that a new Scottish digital channel should be created. However, a debate is still to be had as to how that would be funded.

There is no doubt that advertising revenues for commercial stations such as STV are being squeezed, just as they are in the newspaper industry. Equally, there is no doubt that STV must be allowed to maintain its public service broadcasting licence. I will sound like a member of the SNP, but I do not believe that one single UK ITV licence will be good for the broadcasting industry in Scotland.

I mentioned one iconic STV programme, but there are others, and there is no doubt that losing the STV logo would be a serious threat to programme making north of the border. That would be felt particularly in the newsroom, where I once worked. Ofcom has already agreed to STV cutting in half its non-news output, but it also recognises that some public funding will be required to protect the flagship news programmes.

Regional television news has an important role to play in Scotland. It is also important that there should be competition for BBC Scotland, all the more so when we hear news of further planned cuts in staffing at BBC Scotland, including 20 posts in the news and current affairs department. As has been mentioned, the question needs to be asked how BBC Scotland intends to increase output produced in Scotland to 9 per cent if it is cutting staffing levels now.

At this point, I record my concerns about yesterday's announcement that all members of staff at the Evening Times, The Herald and Sunday Herald have been sacked and invited to reapply for their jobs. Some of those people are my constituents and, as a former father of the chapel at STV, I am disgusted by the tactics of the management. The Herald is one of the oldest newspapers in the English-speaking world and those who work for it deserve better, no matter what the company's current financial position.

Last week, I sent a letter to Ed Richards, the chief executive of Ofcom, in which I argued for STV to be given independent producer status. That would allow it to bid for commissions from both the BBC and Channel 4. If BBC Scotland and Channel 4 are to increase the amount of programming that they commission from Scotland—as they said they will—what I suggest seems a logical step. Sir Michael Grade, the boss of ITV, might not think much of Scottish programme makers or even of STV. If that is the case, he can have no objection to the company offering its wares to other networks. Then the audience can decide.

As others have mentioned, broadcasting is an important industry in Scotland. STV has played, and continues to play, a significant part in that industry. We should continue to lobby for it to retain its PSB licence for news and a separate news identity and do everything that we can to promote programmes made in Scotland for the Scots.

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

I, for one, am pleased that George Foulkes took part in the debate. He demonstrated clearly that we cannot satisfy all viewers and reminded me of a constituent who came to one of my surgeries to demand that I personally reduce the number of adverts on Border Television because he was furious about their repetitive nature. When I tried to point out that that was the whole point, he was little convinced and I lost a vote in the process.

Ted Brocklebank brought today's debate to the chamber in the context of the Commission on Scottish Devolution. Helpfully, the commission pointed to broadcasting as an area for further consideration of devolved powers and Liberal Democrats welcome that. It touches on the core of our amendment, which Iain Smith outlined. We have argued for some time that there is scope not just for accountability but for equal and joint reporting by the BBC to the Westminster and Holyrood Parliaments, taking into account particular aspects of Scottish society and culture with our separate education system, kirk and so on, as well as our topographical and geographical considerations. I have experienced that live issue in the past few weeks in the Border TV area that I represent.

The minister knows that several issues were raised in the members' business debate that I secured about the digital switchover that took place on 6 and 20 November in the Border TV area, with which the Presiding Officer will be familiar. Indeed, the core of that debate is reflected in our amendment this morning, for which we seek support.

Iain Smith outlined the structural changes to ITV and local and regional television in the context of the centralisation agenda which, as John Lamont said, has had significant impact in the Border TV area. We debated that subject too. It has meant that there has been a dilution of local coverage and news gathering in the production of current affairs programmes and the main evening news bulletin in particular. I am glad that ITV responded to representations to ensure that there is protected news broadcast time at the start of the bulletin in the south of Scotland, but it is only six minutes at the head of the bulletin. That is a diminution of what happened previously and it will provide a reduced service to the Borders.

Today's debate is not academic; it is immediate. I am glad that the minister has been sympathetic so far to Liberal Democrat calls for equal provision of digital services in rural parts of Scotland—particularly right now in the Border TV area—as per our amendment. I am pleased that the minister has written to the UK Government expressing those views. I hope that she and the Government will take the next step and support our amendment at 5 o'clock this afternoon. I will be interested to hear her views on that when she sums up.

I was fortunate to be at the Selkirk transmitter on the morning of the switchover—I was told by the technician not to touch any buttons. Some 53 per cent of viewers in my constituency in the Border TV area will receive a second-class, diluted digital service. That is the highest such proportion in the UK, which is unfair. That situation needs to be addressed now in the light of our belief that this Parliament should have more powers over broadcasting. It is not a matter of glib commercial consideration; it is a matter of justice and fairness when my constituents are being discriminated against. Voting for our amendment today will send a signal that the Parliament is not satisfied with that situation.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

It is unfortunate that Ofcom has signed off a reduction in the obligations of the ITV network to public service broadcasting and we should seek to reverse that decision if we can. It is possible that, if we do not resolve the situation soon, we will lose a key public service broadcaster. That is why the debate is so crucial.

Ken Macintosh said that we have concentrated on the BBC's role as a PSB provider; it is politicians' responsibility to ensure that we have a balance of competition and plurality by focusing on STV's role. Stuart McMillan and Ken Macintosh were right to make the connection between the news about the Herald group and the response to the challenges of the BBC and the industry generally, which has been to cut jobs. Ken Macintosh made the crucial point that cutting jobs does not improve quality and that if we do not give the public good-quality information, they will be less informed. Let us not underestimate how important that is.

The biggest challenge that we face will be to find the funding mechanisms that will bring resolution. We are genuinely open minded about the funding of public service broadcasting, which has to be considered in the context of public sector provision, as well as the new digital channel. We can see the challenge to the public purse of maintaining public service broadcasting and providing funding for a new digital channel.

Aileen Campbell referred to the Scottish Broadcasting Commission. I put on record again that the commission has done excellent work. The commission has created a dynamic about broadcasting in the Parliament that would not have come about otherwise. Not surprisingly, however, I do not agree with Aileen Campbell that Scotland on its own would be able to provide the quality and the public subsidy that are needed. We need to consider how much the UK Government will raise by selling off the old spectrum and ask whether some of the funds should come from that.

The public want good-quality provision and, if the new digital channel comes about, it must focus on that. George Foulkes, who reminded us of the existence of telegrams as a method of communication and demonstrated how far we have come in that area, rightly pointed out that Scottish viewers want quality programming, whether their choice is "Spooks" or "Heroes". They want a mix of high-quality programmes. They want to see programmes that are made in Scotland, but they also want to see programmes that are made elsewhere. Perhaps George Foulkes, as ever, is boldly going where no one else dares to go. Perhaps he is saying the things about our output that others are thinking.

When it comes to news and current affairs, the public want everything, including online news and podcasts. We have to work out how we are going to give the public everything, and that is a serious challenge.

Ian McKee made an excellent speech about healthy programme making, which is crucial to us because it enhances our cultural life, whether or not our preference is "Still Game", which I believe is now exportable to the rest of the UK even if it does have subtitles. However, we can argue about that at a later date.

David Whitton made the important point that STV has provided a competitive edge in public service broadcasting and has the potential to make more programmes. As he rightly pointed out, giving it independent producer status is something that should be considered for the future.

There is a lot at stake if we do not resolve the situation. We will support the motion and the Liberal Democrats' amendment at decision time.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Various stances have been taken in this interesting debate, but there is a general recognition of the importance of quality and plurality in public service broadcasting. The Scottish Government wants to ensure that public service broadcasting fully meets Scotland's needs in the future. We have the benefit of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission's report to guide us on the matter. As I said earlier, we used the report's recommendations as our starting point for formulating our response to the Ofcom review. I remind everyone that we are committed to taking forward the Scottish Broadcasting Commission's recommendations. Members have expressed support for that.

The debate focused on STV and the necessity of competition in public service broadcasting. The Scottish Government recognises and values STV's contribution to broadcasting in Scotland, but I remain a wee bit concerned that the only safeguard to plurality in Scotland is in the hands of a commercial company whose decisions are based ultimately on commercial factors.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On plurality and the minister's concern about a commercial competitor, if the new digital channel comes along under the funding model that she describes—in other words, if it is fully funded—the only competition for the BBC would be another totally subsidised Scottish digital channel. That does not sound like competition to me.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Everything that I have said, and everything that I put in the response to Ofcom, suggests that plurality means considering and discussing all the options and coming up with the best option for Scotland. We have not adopted any particular model.

Pauline McNeill mentioned radio, as she has in the past. I agree that radio is an extremely important part of broadcasting. Often in the morning, it is on the radio—especially local radio stations—that people pick up the news and current affairs that relate to them. Be they in Glasgow, Skye or Fife, people hear things on local radio that interest them. The Scottish Government wants to ensure that radio services are maintained. Recently, officials sent a submission to Barry Cox, the chair of the UK digital radio working group, setting out the issues that we have with any proposed move towards digital radio in the UK, and especially about coverage throughout Scotland.

That brings me to the Lib Dem amendment. I completely understand where it is coming from. I have stated before in the chamber that we have concerns about coverage in the Borders, Perth and other places as digitalisation is rolled out. We will abstain from the votes on the Lib Dem amendment and the motion. That does not detract from our sympathy with what has been said, but I have a firm reason for our abstaining from the votes: Ofcom cannot force the commercial operators to upgrade the relay transmitters. However, discussions are taking place between Ofcom and the commercial operators to try to move the matter forward, and all members should support those important discussions. On the seventh mux, the Scottish Government has already sought an assurance from Ofcom that it will fully consider the Scottish federation of local television's submissions on the matter. We support the sentiment behind the Liberal Democrats' amendment and I assure them that they have our support on the matter, as I have stated many times before.

I close by reiterating my recognition of the value of STV to Scotland. It is valued by viewers as part of the broadcasting industry, and it is valued as a contributor to the economy. It has some much-watched programmes, and I hope that it remains part of the public service broadcasting landscape in Scotland. It is a recognised and valued brand that has the potential to continue to maintain variety and plurality in Scotland.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I hope that it is clear from Scottish Conservatives' speeches that we warmly welcome Ofcom's second major review of broadcasting in Scotland, which provides an exciting opportunity for Scotland to contribute to the debate on the future broadcasting model for the UK. We have no doubt that public service broadcasting needs to be reformed before the licence runs out in 2012.

I hope that we have also made it clear that there needs to be a healthy and competitive Scotland-based television programme-making sector outwith the BBC. The fact that surveys constantly show that Scottish audiences want a choice of channels for watching Scottish news reflects the quality of the regional news that is offered to them.

That is significant given that 85 per cent of the Scottish population use television as their main access to news and information. The public undoubtedly place considerable importance on the portrayal of Scotland in broadcasting. They believe that coverage should be inclusive and should provide for all audiences in Scotland and reflect Scotland's character.

I am sure that it is a source of considerable concern to Parliament, and maybe even to Lothian and Borders Police, that Lord Foulkes has daily trouble with the radio knobs in his car as he seeks the mellifluous tones of Jim Naughtie and John Humphrys. However, he is right to point out that the BBC and other broadcasters face a fast-changing political and technological environment in Scotland.

As Pauline McNeill said, there has been a decline in Scottish programming and funding for Scotland, which is damaging to our creative industries.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I wonder—as a former presenter of "Good Morning Scotland"—whether Elizabeth Smith would like to dissociate herself and the rest of Parliament from Lord George Foulkes's opinions.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Margo MacDonald, too, has mellifluous tones.

There are exciting opportunities for programme makers who choose to make the most of our strong independent sector. Scotland is the second-biggest production base outside London, with approximately 100 production companies. As my colleague Ted Brocklebank rightly said, we welcome the BBC's decision to allocate an increased share of network production to Scotland, but we hope that the target will be reached by 2012 rather than by 2016. We also hope that the increase in Channel 4's share of productions from Scotland and the introduction of BBC Alba will help to provide work for the excellent independent production sector.

We must recognise that it will become increasingly difficult for PSBs to provide and improve the services that they offer. Ofcom's review highlighted the fact that public service broadcasting is at a crossroads, and John Lamont flagged up some of the implications for the Borders. Audiences might value competition for the BBC, but we need to monitor carefully the underlying economic challenges that public service broadcasting faces.

Audiences might place a high value on UK-made public service programming from a mix of providers, but Ofcom makes it very clear that the costs of making programmes is going up while their main financial benefit—privileged access to spectrum—is going down. For example, if ITV is to retain its PSB licence, the cost of having two STV licences will exceed the benefits probably by 2009-10. As a result, the Scottish Conservatives believe that the evolutionary method of reforming public sector broadcasting has most merit, even if that view is not shared by the minister. Under such an approach BBC, ITV1, Channel 4 and Five would continue to provide public service programming as they do at present, with either reduced commitments or extra public funding. As Ken Macintosh said, competition is vital if the media are to maintain transparency.

As UK broadcasting history shows, Conservative Governments have largely been responsible for plurality of provision. For example, we licensed ITV way back in 1955—just before my time—and oversaw the launch of the new satellite Channel 4 in 1982 and Channel Five in 1997. I have to say, without wanting to sound too modest, that that is why we are championing a new Scottish digital channel. Such a move would give a welcome boost to smaller independent production companies to provide local news and documentaries. I once again emphasise our commitment in that respect.

Mr Blair Jenkins has made it clear that there is a greater need for accountability within Scotland for the programmes that are run, and for greater influence on policy in responding to demand for different types of programme. The public are concerned about the variety and quality of the programmes they watch, so we must ensure that a workable future for public service broadcasting is developed.

As the executive summary to the Scottish Broadcasting Commission Report says:

"Broadcasting is important to the economic, cultural and democratic health of the nation. At its best, it has a unique power and impact which can enrich ... our thinking",

our discussion and our society's knowledge. I hope, therefore, that a solution will be found to secure the future of public service broadcasting.

We welcome the debate and I commend the Scottish Conservative motion to the chamber.

Local Government Finance

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3014, in the name of Derek Brownlee, on local government finance.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Fundamental reform of local government finance should be neither considered lightly nor undertaken without full consideration of the positive and negative consequences of the options. It might feel as though we have been debating local income tax for many years, but the fact is that the system of local government finance is altered perhaps only once in a generation.

Why, in that case, should legislation be restricted to only one option—the Government's option? We know that opinion in Parliament, as in the country, is divided on the issue. The SNP favours a nationally set income tax, the Liberal Democrats favour a locally set income tax, and the Greens favour a land value tax. We, on the other hand, have set out proposals for council tax reform. Labour has indicated a similar desire, although it would no doubt propose different reforms to those that we favour.

Today, we advance a simple proposition: instead of restricting consideration to one option, we should allow Parliament to consider all of them. Each of us can argue the case for our preferred option and outline the case against the options that we oppose. Such an approach would allow us to tease out the practical implications of the various options. Indeed, that point was raised in Margo MacDonald's amendment, which we would have supported, had it been selected for debate.

The Government obviously does not agree with what I thought was a very reasonable proposition and has decided to close down debate on the matter.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Stalinists.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Well— Last year, we were told to wait for the consultation to be published, then we were told to wait until the consultation had finished. Now we have been told to wait until next year. However, the Government's real agenda is to make the issue of local government finance a straight choice between the status quo and its own proposals.

Quite apart from the lack of a majority for its proposals—which in itself is quite a problem—the problem with the Government's approach is that no one in the Parliament is arguing for the status quo. Even those of us who prefer to retain the council tax want it to be reformed. Although polarising the debate between the Government's preferred option and the status quo might give the Government a slightly better chance of winning a vote, it does not give Scotland a better system of local government finance because it simply excludes too many options.

Whatever our preference for local government finance reform, there is no point in our changing the law only for further change to be made in the next Parliament, where the arithmetic will be different. We might never reach widespread consensus on the right system, but unless we can fully examine every option and unless every party is able to put forward proposals on their own merits and have them debated and voted on, there will be no chance that whatever is voted through will gain lasting acceptance. Whatever one's perspective on local government might be, such an approach cannot be sensible.

Although the Government's amendment is simply a rehash of the case against council tax that it has made on many occasions, it does not seem to suggest that there is any problem with having a broader debate. The bottom line for the Government is that council tax reform is a serious option that should be considered.

The Conservative position is clear. I am not going to hide the fact that we do not like local income tax and reject both the SNP and Liberal Democrat variants. We want council tax reform, with the subsidy the Government says it will use to subsidise local income tax used instead to reduce every council tax bill. On top of that, we favour a discount for pensioner households—something that Mr Alex Neil, who is absent this morning, has famously favoured—and we are very interested in options for a green discount for energy efficiency measures, which could be delivered via a property-based tax such as council tax, but not via a person-based tax such as local income tax.

We believe that there are so many problems with local income tax that if the legislation were ever passed, it would be unlikely ever to come into effect. At that juncture, reforming the council tax will be the obvious solution. If the Government is genuinely convinced that local income tax is better, why on earth does it fear counterproposals for a reformed council tax? The only reason for its opposition is that it knows that it is possible to deal with some of the concerns around council tax by reforming rather than abolishing it. The Government is ploughing this particular furrow not because it sees no merit in the various options for reforming local government finance, but because of political dogma.

I am not going to pretend that I have been convinced of the case for the land value tax, but the same argument applies: if local income tax is better, why on earth is the Government frightened of debate? Why is it worried about alternatives? If local income tax is that good, it will stand on its merits. Only if it does not stack up is there any reason to restrict the scope of the debate. I am certainly quite happy to examine the Green party's proposals on their merits. I hope that Parliament shares that view.

The Government is happy to tack on some mention of land value tax to every motion that it lodges on local income tax but, as far as I can see, it has done nothing to advance the debate on the issue—which is what I am sure it has promised Mr Patrick Harvie on every occasion. A look at the Official Report shows that we seem to have been discussing and promising the Greens serious consideration of land value tax since the first session of Parliament. However, that consideration has never taken place, so the Government should really stop stringing the Green party along on such an important matter.

We know what will happen to the Liberal Democrats: the Government will tell them that it will introduce local income tax at a fixed national rate initially to let it bed down and then, in the fullness of time move—perhaps—to a locally variable tax. Of course, there is, because of the practical difficulties, no intention that that local variation will ever happen. However, the move will no doubt be enough to secure Liberal Democrat votes in the meantime.

Curiously, the Liberal Democrats have a greater chance of getting a vote on their preferred system of local government finance under the approach in the Conservative motion than they have under what is set out in their own rather tame amendment. No doubt they will make it clear whether they will support the Conservative motion if their amendment does not succeed. I look forward to their speeches.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the intention of the Scottish Government to introduce legislation to reform the system of local government taxation and calls on it to ensure that the scope of the Bill when introduced is sufficiently wide as to enable members to debate and vote on all options, including reform of the council tax, a land value tax, a local income tax with variable rates determined locally and the Scottish Government's own proposals.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

What a difference a day makes. Yesterday, Mr Brownlee and Mr Whitton were engaged in the most ferocious political battle on the floor of Parliament. I have never seen Mr Brownlee more venomous in a contribution to a parliamentary debate, nor have I seen Mr Whitton more exercised in defending the record of the United Kingdom Government. They were fighting about which Government—Labour or Conservative—was more responsible for the decline of the United Kingdom economy.

That was a ferocious battle, but unity has broken out today. Mr Brownlee and Mr Whitton are back in the same club—the council tax club for Labour and the Conservatives. They are determined to put on a show of unity today because the Conservatives were responsible for a 40 per cent increase in the council tax when they were in power and the Labour Party was responsible for a 60 per cent increase in the council tax when it was in power. No wonder they have been brought together in unity.

However, Mr Whitton should beware of the trap that Mr Brownlee has set for him. It is implicit in the motion, in which Mr Brownlee says we should consider all these options:

"reform of the council tax, a land value tax, a local income tax with variable rates determined locally and the Scottish Government's own proposals."

Of course, that presumes that the Labour Party has something to contribute to the debate. Mr Iain Gray, the Labour leader who was installed on 4 October, said candidly:

"We don't have our own proposals. ... We went into the 2007 election with a proposal to try and make the council tax fairer"—

Mr Brownlee's position—

"and it didn't add up. Central to our new manifesto is a properly worked out suggestion for how we make the council tax fairer."

There is not a scrap of evidence to suggest that Labour is anywhere close to producing that.

There are quotations not just from Mr Gray but from Mr Kerr, who in his aspirational moment when he wanted to be leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, said:

"I would immediately signal a long-term desire to replace the council tax."

Mr Kerr obviously cannot support the motion, because it accepts to some extent the continuation of the council tax.

The man of wisdom on the Labour benches, who is unfortunately absent today—the man worth listening to on the Labour benches—is the former Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, Mr McCabe, who said on 3 August that the council tax is an "unfair burden" and that Labour must back

"a firm timetable for abolition."

He said that the plan to reform the council at the previous election was "a pointless fudge" presented as "a radical change". The Labour Party should be very careful about the trap that the wily Mr Brownlee has set for it today.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I was just wondering whether the cabinet secretary would listen to the man of wisdom on the Scottish National Party benches, Fergus Ewing, who said in 2006:

"It is reasonable to say that the council tax per se is not unfair".—[Official Report, 1 February 2006; c 22919.]

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

We are a broad church that is prepared to tolerate open debate, unlike the "Stalinists" on the Conservative benches.

I am afraid that, despite Mr Brownlee's logical presentation—or his best efforts at it—the Conservative position is completely and utterly all over the place. On 2 October, Mr Brownlee moved a motion that called on the Scottish Government to "publish in detail" the impact on local authority revenues

"prior to the introduction of a council tax abolition Bill

He accepted that we are going for council tax abolition. That prompted me, in one of my more generous moments, to say:

"I welcome the debate and the indication in the Conservative motion and the Labour Party amendment that those parties are at last coming to terms with the fact that change to local taxation is coming."—[Official Report, 2 October 2008; c 11384.]

Today, we have a U-turn—a volte-face. We have seen the introduction of a new concept to the parliamentary etiquette—the multi-option bill. That is strange from a party that is so vehement in its opposition to a multi-option referendum on the constitutional question, which I heard Ms Goldie wax lyrical about some weeks ago. The Conservatives are chopping and changing their position without any certainty about where they are going.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

To save time, will the cabinet secretary tell us whether the Government is going to capitulate to the Liberal Democrats and have a locally variable rate?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Brown just does not enter into the spirit of decent parliamentary debate. We are working together with the Liberal Democrats to reach consensus, as the First Minister set out so eloquently on that wonderful day when he became First Minister, when he explained how we would bring people together. Even Mr Purvis and I have been brought together in agreement today. I look forward enthusiastically to Mr Purvis's speech, of which I am sure I will approve; I will just slip my speech over to him.

The council tax is unfair and regressive. It dominated the election campaign and people throughout the country have realised that it has no credibility. The party that was its principal advocate was ousted from office because it had no credibility on the council tax.

We believe in a local income tax that is based on the ability to pay, which will reflect the interests of the people of Scotland. We are determined to press ahead with that reform.

I move amendment S3M-3014.2, to leave out from "calls on" to end and insert:

"believes that the council tax is discredited and should be abolished and that a local income tax based on ability to pay is a fairer system of local taxation, and calls on the Scottish Government to publish early in 2009 its detailed response to the consultation on local income tax for debate by this Parliament."

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

I am not sure whether I can compete with the members of the council tax club or with the Very Rev John Swinney of the SNP broad church. I will, however, point out that—just last week, I think—Derek Brownlee demanded "clarity and certainty" about the legislative proposals that the SNP was due to bring forward, but now he is calling for greater confusion. He said that businesses want—need, in fact—a clear statement on the proposals that are to be brought forward in the spring. Now, he is calling for everything to be cast up in the air again. Two years ago, Mr Brownlee castigated the Burt review of local government finance and said that it was a complete waste of time. Now he wants to reconvene the commissioners to start that work all over again.

The publication of the bill by the Scottish Government will give Parliament an opportunity to consider the general principles of a system of local taxation that is based on the ability to pay and which is progressive and fair. Those are the general principles that Liberal Democrats support. I hope that that will get cross-party support in the chamber.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Will the member give way?

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

I fear that it may not.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Can Jeremy Purvis confirm that the Liberal Democrats will not support the bill unless it includes the provision for each council in Scotland to set a local rate of income tax at the outset?

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

Mr Henry asks me to address the amendment in my name, which I am happy to do. If parties support the amendment, that will give a clear signal that Parliament supports not only councils having flexibility in expenditure but their being available to them variable rates of local income tax for local government revenue. Our position is clear: we do not support a national system of local taxation. Local taxation has to be local; otherwise, it is a national income tax addition, which we simply do not support.

It is interesting that the debate this week has been about the financial powers of this Parliament. There has been little debate about the financial powers of local government. Derek Brownlee is right to some extent that this debate is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. He also said that he regrets that the approach might well be dogmatic. I concede that the council tax is not a dogmatic policy, because it replaced a dogmatic policy. The council tax was crisis management—it replaced the poll tax—and was neither consistent with the core understanding of what local government powers should be, nor was it fair or progressive.

We have the ability to correct a 17-year wrong. That should be based not on a toom tabard of a concordat with local government, but on a proper fiscal relationship that will, in the long term, move to parity for local government for the revenue that it raises and the expenditure for which it is responsible. The structure for that should be based on principles that are similar to the principles for which we are arguing in the fiscal relationship with the UK.

We are still waiting for the Labour Party's response. After the debate in October, I wrote to Iain Gray asking for Labour's policy proposals. He wrote back saying that Mr Kerr would reply on his behalf. I am still waiting for that letter. I suspect that it will be part of a round-robin or a Christmas card.

I hope that other parties will bring forward their proposals. We have had some tinkering at the edges from the Conservatives, but everyone should understand that their core belief is that the council tax is fair. The Conservatives are wrong in that—communities throughout Scotland know that they are wrong. By voting for our amendment to the Government's amendment, we will send a strong signal of support for a local tax that is fair, progressive and based on the ability to pay.

I move amendment S3M-3014.2.1, to insert at end:

", giving further consideration to a system of local taxation that includes local variability, protection for those in full-time education, transition support for businesses and appropriate taxation for people receiving high levels of income from dividends."

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I am very happy to take part in today's debate on local government finance, and I will be speaking in support of the motion in the name of Derek Brownlee. Yesterday we were foes, today we are friends. Such is politics. If it is all right, in the spirit of parliamentary debate, for the SNP and the Liberal Democrats to get together, I see no reason why Mr Brownlee and I cannot get together in this particular case—especially as the very successful local council in East Dunbartonshire is run by the Labour and Conservative parties together.

Albert Einstein once stated:

"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax."

He could have added "local income tax in particular". I agree with Einstein's assessment. If one of the greatest minds of any generation struggled with the concept, I am certainly not alone in questioning the SNP's proposed local income tax or, indeed, the Liberal Democrat variant. The proposed local income tax is simply another diversion by an SNP Government whose economic policy is beset by dither and decay. SNP members love to criticise the council tax, but they would do better to focus on the flaws in their own proposed system and to seek answers to the numerous problems that exist with local income tax. If they do not do that, they should just drop the idea altogether.

The SNP touts its support for the policy, but a look at the consultation numbers reveals a very different picture. The SNP's consultation on the popularity of local income tax drew what are described in show business as "mixed reviews". Although 55 per cent of individual respondents believe that the local income tax is the fairest approach to taxation, only 34 per cent—about a third—of people aged between 34 and 54, who make up the bulk of the working population, support a local income tax. Within that same demographic, 40 per cent of 34 to 44-year-olds and 43 per cent of 55 to 64-year-olds feel that the council tax is fairer. Only 47 per cent of those who were polled are full-time employees, who would suffer the most from the switch. Support for a local income tax is much different from what the SNP would have us believe, and it is certainly not at anything like the levels that the First Minister brags about.

Furthermore, the headlines do not reveal the mixed reviews that local income tax is getting from business.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Will David Whitton at least do us the courtesy of conceding that local income tax is rather more popular than the council tax, reformed or otherwise?

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

No I will not, because I do not see the evidence to back up that assertion.

The key theme from organisational responses to the consultation is that more information is required on local income tax before any sort of decision can be reached. Naturally, the SNP has delayed getting the answers to the business community. Clearly, there is a lot of concern during these troubling economic times about any sort of change to the tax structure.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member has one minute left.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

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

"It is extremely disappointing the Government are planning to press ahead with legislation to introduce a Local Income Tax in Scotland without addressing the widespread concerns among the business community regarding such a measure."

The overwhelming support that the SNP claims simply does not exist. In addition, the introduction of local income tax in Scotland would complicate the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Income taxes are not as black and white as property taxes. What happens to people who work in London during the week but who reside permanently in Scotland? As is shown by the relationship between Sweden and Denmark, income taxes only complicate relationships. There is a bridge that allows easy travel between Malmö in Sweden and Copenhagen in Denmark.

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

Will the member give way on that point?

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

No, I will not—I am in my last minute. I am sorry.

What happens to the commuters who work in Denmark and live in Malmö? Through redistribution, the Danish Government must pay almost £37 million to the Swedish Government to compensate for loss of revenue, which causes the city of Malmö to lose out.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member should wind up.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Presiding Officer, I could speak all day about the flaws of local income tax but, sadly, time does not allow me to do so. Suffice it to say that we will support the Conservative motion.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

This is a Parliament of minorities and, since the welcome demise of the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, it is a Parliament in which a majority has to be constructed on every issue and in which, other than in the unlikely event of Labour and the SNP ganging up on the rest of us, the support of at least three parties is required for a majority. I believe that to be a healthy situation that is broadly welcomed by people in Scotland of all political persuasions, and that our Parliament is the better for it.

Local government taxation has been a contentious issue for the past 30 years. It is a subject on which there are significant differences of opinion in this Parliament and in Scotland's other Parliament. Three parties broadly support a property-based tax, ameliorated by discounts and benefits, and referable to the financial circumstances and nature of the household that occupies any particular property. Two parties believe in introducing a local tax based on income.

Those broad lines of division mask significant differences among the parties on both sides of the property tax versus income tax debate. The Greens advocate a land value tax, while the Conservatives support the introduction of pensioner discounts for council tax. The Labour Party and others want council tax levels to reflect the energy efficiency of homes as a spur to achieving a sustainable energy policy. Equally, on the local income tax side of the argument, there are considerable differences between the Scottish National Party and the Liberal Democrats as to the form and scope of such an income tax.

The motion seeks to reflect that diversity of opinion in the Parliament. We do not think it right for the terms of debate to be framed solely by those who want to abolish a property-based tax and introduce an income-based tax. We believe that the scope of the proposed bill should be sufficiently wide to enable all parties to put forward their proposals and to seek to build a majority for a reformed system of local government taxation. That, we submit, is the fair way to proceed, and it should appeal to all fair-minded people.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Would it be fair to characterise the Conservatives' proposal as seeking an enabling bill that would allow ministers to make statutory instruments to introduce any kind of local taxation that they might choose?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

No, we certainly would not support that proposition. We believe in real debate, not the few minutes that Mr Adam wants for debating a Scottish statutory instrument.

Our proposals should be supported across the chamber, but, as we know, that will not happen. I am disappointed by the sterile and partisan nature of the amendments that were lodged by Mr Swinney and Mr Purvis. I was particularly intrigued to note in the Business Bulletin that Mr Swinney's amendment is expressly supported by Jim Mather. I regret that Mr Mather will not be speaking in the debate. He has been conspicuously silent on the subject of local income tax. I wonder whether he, as a self-proclaimed friend of the Scottish business community, is embarrassed by the fact that every single business organisation in Scotland has denounced local income tax. I wonder to myself whether local income tax might be another TPRA moment for Jim Mather—I refer to the third-party right of appeal, the policy that he really hates and cannot wait to dump at the first convenient opportunity. We should watch this space—we should watch Mr Mather very carefully on this one.

I was delighted to note the participation of Sir Sean Connery in the homecoming television advert. I am sure that we would all welcome the permanent homecoming of Sir Sean, and no one more than Mr Swinney, given that the resumption of tax residence in Scotland by Sir Sean would go a significant way towards plugging the gaping financial hole in Mr Swinney's local income tax plans. I ask myself whether Sir Sean might once again ride to the rescue of the Scottish National Party in its hour of financial crisis. On this occasion, I do not think so, but we never know.

I support the motion.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

It is always a pleasure to follow David McLetchie and his erudite commentary on the issues under debate. Like many members, I, too, welcomed the recently produced homecoming Scotland video. Incidentally, the video is to be shown only in cinemas in Scotland, rather than in cinemas across the world, so a lot of people will be making a five-mile journey home, rather than the 3,000-mile journey home that we expected.

Sir Sean said:

"I think about you all the time",

but he will be chuckling at the fact that he will not be making a contribution under local income tax.

In his entertaining turn, John Swinney made no reference to any of the substantive points that have been raised in the motion and in the recent public debate. Perhaps he will welcome the opportunity to amplify the issues in the near future.

John Swinney also made no reference to the issues that were raised in the consultation response that he snuck out at the crack of dawn on a much more difficult news day than anyone could imagine. He did not mention the views that the Scottish Chambers of Commerce expressed last week or those of local authorities, which for a number of years have wanted to protect their autonomy against intrusion by central Government. He made no mention, either, of the concerns that many other public sector bodies have expressed about the impact on the voluntary sector if there was a shortfall in funding. Mr Swinney's speech might have been entertaining, but those are substantive matters of interest that we need to interrogate.

John Swinney referred to old-time religion. I am a great believer that a sinner can repent and, when he is at the penitence stool, identify where he got it wrong. One member of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce said that LIT could have a "positively spine-chilling" impact on small businesses across Scotland.

In 1988, I became a member of the City of Glasgow District Council during the difficult days of the poll tax—I am sure that Conservative members went through that bitter experience. We were assured that the introduction of the poll tax would not have a significant impact on individuals or communities and that it was a reasonable response to concerns about the old rates, but the result was extremely negative. That is my concern about LIT, which does not address some of the fundamental issues to do with the funding of local government services.

When Mr Swinney mentioned Stalinists, I was reminded of the novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four" by George Orwell, in which those in power used Newspeak to restrict the nature of the debate and the language that could be used. They tried to remove from the language certain words that could be used to describe their policies. Something that was bad could not be described as such, so a new word, "ungood", had to be invented. The words "excellent" or "splendid", which I have heard Mr Swinney use about local income tax, became "doubleplus good". I do not think that LIT is doubleplus good for those who need local government-funded services; in fact, I would call it doubleplus bad, because it makes three fundamental mistakes.

First, LIT is not a local income tax because it would be set nationally. Secondly, it would not give local government the autonomy to set taxation levels that would be appropriate locally. Thirdly, and most fundamentally, the Scottish National Party said at the last election that it wanted to remove the unfair council tax, but it did not complete the sentence. That is the problem with the policy that the cabinet secretary is defending—it does not complete the sentence, in that it does not deal with the impact that LIT would have. On that ground, I am happy to support the motion, which at least articulates the view that we want a better way to fund local government services than a local income tax.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

It is with a sense of déjà vu that I find myself again speaking in a debate on local government finance, but I accept that as the abolition of the hated and unfair council tax is top of the list of our constituents' concerns, it should be at the top of the Parliament's agenda.

It has been 21 months since the SNP announced its proposals for scrapping the council tax and introducing a fair local tax that is based on ability to pay. After all that time, we have still not heard about any real alternatives to those proposals.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Yes we have.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

I will deal with the Conservatives' position shortly.

Let me be clear: doing nothing is not an option. The people of Scotland will not forgive any party that stands in the way of the SNP Government's bill to abolish the council tax.

In relation to his motion, I remind Mr Brownlee that it is the job of Opposition members to come up with alternatives to the Government's proposals when they disagree with them. I will give credit where credit is due—Mr Brownlee has suggested tinkering with the hated council tax, but he must publish his workings because the sums just do not add up.

Some parties have been quite open about their lack of alternatives to the council tax. As Mr Swinney has already quoted what Iain Gray said last October, which was also mentioned in Parliament yesterday, it would be unfair of me to repeat it, but Mr Gray accepted that the Labour Party had no proposals and that the suggestions to tinker with the council tax that it made in the campaign for the most recent parliamentary elections were worked out on the back of a cigarette packet.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Does Mr FitzPatrick share my view that it was the SNP's policy on local income tax that did for it in Glenrothes?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

I have no idea why the people of Glenrothes did not vote for the best candidate. We will learn lessons to ensure that that never happens again. I am quite convinced that the progress that the SNP is making throughout the country will continue at the next election.

Mr Gray said that the Labour Party was working on new proposals for making the council tax fairer, but so far we have heard nothing. However, given that he is often seen clutching a fag packet with a determined look on his face when he leaves the chamber after First Minister's questions, perhaps he is indeed working on Labour's new proposals, which were conspicuously absent from the consultation process. Labour's position remains that it knows that the council tax is unfair, but it does not know what to do about it.

Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have mentioned what is, when it comes to the retention of the hated council tax, the elephant in the room—the much-delayed but ultimately unavoidable council tax revaluation. The revaluation that took place in Wales led to 65 per cent of properties in Cardiff being moved up by at least one band.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The revaluation in Wales led to a 5 per cent increase in the overall tax take. It is perfectly feasible to do a revaluation on a revenue-neutral basis.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should be finishing now, Mr FitzPatrick.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

Mr Brownlee and the Labour Party need to be open—they must tell the people of Scotland when they propose to carry out a revaluation. It is not possible to keep the council tax without having a rebanding.

I conclude by highlighting the views of one of the respondents to the consultation on local income tax. Scottish Action Against Council Tax shares the views of the majority of Scots. That organisation, which is made up of ordinary Scottish taxpayers from around the country, stated that it does not want the council tax to be tinkered with or any one-off payments or reductions to be made; it wants that hated tax to be scrapped altogether and replaced by a fairer local income tax that is based on ability to pay. That is what the people of Scotland want, which is why the SNP Government will introduce the council tax abolition bill, not the council tax version 2 bill.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I might never have made this speech if Alex Salmond had only replied to the letter that I wrote to him at the general election to inquire about his plans for local income tax. That said, my speech should not be interpreted as offering support for what we must call "the hated council tax". I prefer an income-based tax to a property-based tax. I remind Frank McAveety that the criticism of the poll tax was that the duke would pay the same as the dustman. His speech contained just a hint of Orwellian doublespeak.

I have always doubted whether a local income tax could be bolted on to a comprehensive and cohesive tax system such as the one that we have in the United Kingdom. The Government's consultation paper on LIT asks who should collect the tax and whether it should be collected at source, by payment—by the taxpayer, I presume—or by a combination of the two. That is the Achilles' heel of LIT in the devolution setting. In an independent country that had its own central tax-collecting authority, there would be an instrument to instruct on LIT collection, but that is not the case in a devolved Scotland.

Paragraph 29 of the consultation paper states:

"We will work with the UK Government to ensure that processes are thoroughly tested before implementation."

That clearly implies that HM Revenue and Customs, with the agreement of the UK Government, will be the LIT collection instrument, and that the UK Government will be asked to legislate to ensure that employers, who represent the first tax collection point, are required to calculate and deduct the tax and then to send it to HMRC for onward transmission to the Scottish Government. It is difficult to see how any body other than HMRC could be the collection instrument, because if the Scottish Government set up its own equivalent, that would eat deeply into the block grant that we get from Westminster.

What puzzles me is why, despite the number of times that the First Minister has reaffirmed his determination to go ahead with LIT, we have not heard anything substantial about the Government's discussions with HMRC and the UK Government.

A constituent of mine who does voluntary research, a Mr Sillars—[Laughter.]—made a freedom of information request to HMRC dated 3 October. He asked for copies of correspondence—including memos and notes—between the Scottish Government and HMRC since the 2007 election on HMRC becoming involved in the collection of the SNP Government's local income tax and for any similar material from previous parliamentary sessions. He received this reply:

"I am writing to inform you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established that HMRC does not hold the information you have requested."

Before any bill is published, we need to know the position regarding collection by HMRC: whether it will do it, what the cost will be, and whether we believe that it will be able to do it accurately, given that department's poor record on tax credits. If HMRC is not the chosen instrument of collection, what will be chosen, how will it be established, at what cost, and what confidence can we have that it will do the job properly?

All that I have said is, of course, predicated on the Scottish Government's proposal for a national LIT—if that is not a contradiction in terms. When it comes to 32 variable taxes, it is all the more imperative that the bill spells out the detail, complexity and cost. That is why I find it very difficult to support the Government's proposition on local income tax.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I suppose that today's divisions on the issues of fairness and what will replace the hated council tax are only to be expected. We have also heard the Scottish Government's analysis from Joe FitzPatrick, which shows that the division exists in the country too.

The consultation showed that groups that make up the working-age population are less supportive of local income tax than groups of older people. Only 10 of the 86 organisations that submitted views supported local income tax. Less than half said that it would be better for the economy, and less than half of the individuals who responded said that the proposed rate was correct.

My question is: how would those people know? How are they able to compare the local income tax system with a range of systems? How can individuals know how fair an income tax would be unless they know what they would be asked to pay? We still do not know that. We do not know whether the exemptions for students and the armed forces would go or stay. We do know whether people would be taxed on the current year's earnings or on the previous year's earnings.

Would it be considered fair for people in Greenock to pay 6p in the pound while people in Eastwood paid 4p in the pound? The business community would willingly agree that a cut in the business rate was fair, but we know that the impact of cuts on communities and the quality of services would not be considered fair. How would the principle of comparable service levels be maintained if there were different levels of taxation across the country?

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

Will the member explain why he is defending a system under which a taxpayer in his area could pay £1,050 while a taxpayer in my area paid £1,000? It is a question of local accountability. Why is local accountability fair for a property-based tax but not for an income-based tax?

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The division in the chamber is about replacing that system. There is broad agreement that the current system needs to be amended or replaced, and we are discussing how we test the fairness of different systems. If we have only one option—local income tax—rather than a range of options, how can we make that judgment? We are in a deep economic crisis, with unemployment expected to increase in Edinburgh. What would local income tax bring to local government finance in Edinburgh if the tax base collapsed?

Why are we still waiting? As Joe FitzPatrick said, it is 21 months since the policy was launched. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, a leading professional accountancy body for public service, has asked why we are still waiting for the promised detailed route map towards a local income tax. Critical issues have still not been answered, including the loss of the financial autonomy and accountability of local authorities and their democratically elected members—no small matter—and the £750 million annual shortfall. That professional body's strong recommendation was that the Scottish Government needs to be clearer on the detail. I agree. Only then will we be in a position to pass judgment on any new tax to replace the hated council tax.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

The Conservative proposal before us is an unusual beast. Despite Mr McLetchie's denials, I find it difficult to see it as a proposal for anything other than an enabling bill. He is asking the Government to introduce a bill that offers a range of options. I presume that he has painted in all the options that are currently under debate, but as he is such a democrat, with such strong feelings about the effectiveness of a group of minorities running the country, I assume that he has not ruled out any system of taxation.

I find it hard to understand how Mr McLetchie can expect a Government to introduce the Opposition's proposals in a Government bill. Without wishing to dismiss other people's views, I find that an unusual approach to democracy.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Will the member give way?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

If Mr McLetchie wants to explain his approach, I will be delighted to listen.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

We ask simply that the scope of the bill is such that we can introduce our own proposals. We do not need the Government to draft our proposals for us; we are more than capable of doing that—and of producing a more effective outcome than I am sure the Government will.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Given that the Conservatives are not currently in government, minority or otherwise, I do not think that it is our responsibility to introduce an enabling bill that allows them to lodge the amendments that they want. If they do not care for the Government's approach, they will have the opportunity to vote against it.

The Conservatives' proposal, which is for what must be an enabling bill, has no credibility. It is clearly just a device to gather a grouping of those who oppose local income tax to support a motion. It is not a serious proposal for a serious bill.

Having listened to several Labour members, I am disappointed that we do not yet have any idea what their alternative is. At least Mr McNeil described the council tax appropriately as "hated"—I perhaps picked him up wrong, but I thought that that is what he said. There is no doubt that the council tax is absolutely discredited. The Government, with some Liberal Democrat allies—who knows what will happen at 5pm tonight?—at least has a credible alternative.

Mr McNeil pointed out some aspects of the consultation. However, only five of the organisations to which he referred suggested that the council tax was the fairest way to proceed. There is no doubt that all the objective evidence suggests that local income tax is the fairest way to proceed.

If we are to debate alternatives, we need to have those alternatives. This is the time to have the debate about alternatives, not when we are introducing a bill, because a sensible bill can be about only one proposal. There may be debates on the nuances of that proposal, but an enabling bill is not credible, and it does the Conservatives no credit whatsoever to propose one.

The Government's LIT proposals make a lot of sense, and they clearly carry support in the country. If the Tories and Labour do not have alternative proposals, they should accept the will of the Parliament, which, following the two previous debates, has been to allow LIT to proceed. If they do not want to support the bill, they can vote against it when the time comes.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Unusually, I agree with Joe FitzPatrick: the Conservatives need to publish the figures to justify and sustain their arguments. However, I hope equally that John Swinney will listen to his exhortation and publish an analysis of the cost to small business of administering the local income tax. Joe FitzPatrick cannot justifiably ask the Conservatives to publish the figures that justify their arguments while failing to ask ministers of his party to publish the figures that justify theirs.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I do not particularly blame Hugh Henry for not reading everything that comes out of the Scottish Conservative press office. However, we revealed our proposal for a pension discount in our manifesto and fully costed it last year; our submission to the local government finance consultation, which Mr Swinney talked about, was the longest of any; and, in September, we published our proposals for an across-the-board discount, so we cannot be accused of not publishing our proposals.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I made no accusations; I merely said that I agreed with Joe FitzPatrick's exhortation and that he needs to speak to John Swinney about publishing figures. I welcome the thrust of Derek Brownlee's speech and congratulate him on it. It was measured and well set out. He is right to point to the futility of introducing a controversial taxation proposal in a Parliament such as this, given the uncertainty that the country might face after the next election and the further turmoil that would follow from that.

At some point, we need to consider what Brian Adam said about how much support there is. Joe FitzPatrick grandiosely stated that local income tax is what the people of Scotland want. Indeed, in the Paisley Daily Express this week, a nationalist parliamentary candidate welcomed the results of the Scottish Government's consultation on council tax. He said:

"I'm glad and yet unsurprised that the people of Scotland have given their backing to the SNP's proposal".

On what basis does he say that the people of Scotland have done that? He says:

"more than half of all individual respondents supported the SNP's proposals".

There were 430 respondents, 55 per cent of whom supported the proposals. In other words, only 237 people were in favour. That is what he calls the people of Scotland: 237 in favour.

Joe FitzPatrick described Scottish Action Against Council Tax as the voice of the people of Scotland, but I have never heard of that organisation. That shows the reality of the SNP's proposals. According to the SNP, 237 people represent the people of Scotland. However, its own analysis of the consultation responses says that

"Given the primarily self-selecting nature of"

the consultation exercise, the numbers could not be said to be representative.

The most damning point of the whole argument is the one that Margo MacDonald made about collection. She is absolutely right about the problems that would arise from trying to collect local income tax through HMRC. She is also right to say that, in an independent country, one could reasonably aspire to what the SNP proposes. However, with the dog's breakfast of proposals hidden from the people of Scotland as they are just now, the Parliament cannot reasonably draw any conclusion on any proposal.

When people are asked about their views on taxation, they may know what they are against. However, so far, the detail of the proposals that are on offer from the SNP and the Liberal Democrats has been hidden from the people of Scotland. If we are to justify ourselves as a truly democratic, representative Parliament, that detail needs to be published.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I am not sure that I have been much enlightened by the debate. When I first read the Conservative motion, I was reminded of my childhood Saturday mornings at Woolies pick-'n'-mix: "Oh dear, we really can't decide what we want, but that's okay—we can have a wee taste of everything." I realise that I am a newcomer to the Parliament, but it is the first time that I have come across the pick-'n'-mix, multi-option bill, and I am glad to hear that Brian Adam—who is far more experienced than I—is also perplexed by that suggestion.

Of course, during the debate, the Tories confirmed that their favourite sweetie would be the retention of the council tax. I do not think much of their choice. Under that option, people on the highest incomes would benefit more than pensioners and low-income families. The proposal may be superficially attractive, but it would leave many of the poorest in our society out in the cold.

The Labour Party has been vociferous in its opposition to local income tax based on the ability to pay but, as yet, less than forthcoming about how it plans to tackle the gross inequities of the council tax system, under which the poorest 10 per cent pay four times more of their income than the richest 10 per cent do. The Labour Party has confirmed its membership of what Mr Swinney referred to as the council tax club, but it has not yet come up with a workable alternative.

Hugh Henry criticised our proposals by saying that they would burden local businesses with collection charges, but he failed to point out that, for many years, his Government asked local businesses to collect tax credits and that, with one week's notice, they were asked to change VAT—a heavy burden on them. Thousands of low-income households struggle under the punitive burden of the council tax. Does Iain Gray still believe, as he did two months ago, that that system is unfair? If so, when will he tell us what he wants to replace it with?

Earlier this year, a survey of 30,000 users of the internet service MSN money put council tax as the most hated tax—above fuel duty, inheritance tax, VAT and income tax. We know that it is a regressive and unfair tax that simply cannot be fixed. We want to replace it with a fairer local income tax that is based on the ability to pay.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

What did the Liberal Democrats ask the wider public about what they believed the implications of a 6p local income tax might be, and what were the results?

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

The survey was not ours; it was carried out by MSN money, as I said.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats are prepared to work with the Scottish Government to abolish the council tax and introduce a fairer system. However, as Jeremy Purvis said, the current proposals do not address some key issues, including the protection of students, the accountability of local councils, support for small businesses and appropriate taxation for people who receive high levels of income from dividends. We will continue to pursue those issues with the Government and make constructive proposals.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will Alison McInnes give way?

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

No, I am in my last minute.

Changes to the council tax are overdue, but it contributes only a small percentage to the pot of local government funding, and other inequalities in the local government settlement need to be addressed. Local authority discretion and accountability should be strengthened. Unfortunately, the council tax freeze and that audacious con, the concordat, have weakened those principles. This year, local government is even more dependent on central Government hand-outs. That is an unhealthy relationship, as it allows central Government too much control over what happens locally and leads to less local transparency in decision making and less local accountability. I am sure that there must be a fairer and more transparent way of allocating resources to local government.

The Liberal Democrats would like the vagaries of the local government formula to be addressed. If Aberdeen City Council was funded at the same level per head of population as Dundee City Council, it would have an astonishing £104 million extra every year to spend, so it is little wonder that Aberdeen City Council is struggling to cope with its budget allocation. A fairer system must be found.

We want a fairer system of taxation that is based on the ability to pay. It must be truly local and address issues such as the protection of students, support for small businesses and appropriate taxation for people who receive high levels of income from dividends.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Nothing that I have heard persuades me that the introduction of local income tax will be good for Scotland and the Scots. Indeed, it is clear that, contrary to what the First Minister and the SNP claim, there is no massive majority in support of the new nat tax.

As I pointed out in my opening speech, only 34 per cent—that is, just over a third—of people aged between 34 and 54, which is the main working age, believe that local income tax is the fairest approach to taxation. That contrasts with the SNP's spin on the local income tax consultation. It claimed that 55 per cent of individual respondents to the consultation thought that local income tax was fairer. I am grateful to my colleague Hugh Henry for exposing that nonsense for what it was. The devil is in the detail.

On the subject of detail, fewer than half of the individuals who responded thought that local income tax would provide a wealthier Scotland. That view is shared by Scotland's business community, whose principal representatives held face-to-face talks with Mr Swinney last week. We do not know exactly what was said, but we can guess that the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses Scotland and Scottish Financial Enterprise were less than complimentary about the proposals, given that those organisations have loudly condemned local income tax. Indeed, I remind Mr Swinney of what was said in public forum by Norman Quirk on 19 November, at the Scottish Chambers of Commerce annual dinner. Mr Swinney had to sit and squirm as he heard Mr Quirk say:

"Even in an economic boom time, the risk to Scottish competitiveness would be worrying; in the current climate it is positively spine-chilling. Our clear message to the Scottish Government and the supporters of a local income tax is to listen to the overwhelming view of the Scottish business community and think again."

It is a wonder that Mr Swinney continues to go to business dinners. They are clearly bad for his health.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Would the Labour Party support a progressive income-based tax if it were part of a cohesive system of taxation, or does it support a property-based tax per se?

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

We support a property-based tax per se.

Mr Swinney was, as always, good on rhetoric but short on comment about the local income tax consultation. Mr FitzPatrick did his best to push the party line but had no answer to the Glenrothes question. To be fair, neither does his leader, Alex Salmond. Suffice to say that the SNP was sent homeward to think again, as the song goes. Labour Party members think that it is time for the SNP and Liberals to think again about local income tax.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Will the member give way?

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I am sorry. I have only four minutes.

The Government says that its primary purpose is the growth of the Scottish economy and the creation of more jobs. Did it not listen to Mr Quirk? Has it not heeded the views of the business community and the Scottish trade unions? Has it paid any attention to the views that were expressed during the consultation, particularly by people who are of working age?

Local income tax will penalise carers, armed forces personnel, families in receipt of tax credits and the disabled. Unless Mr Swinney and the SNP and the Liberals do the right thing, it will also penalise the whole of Scotland.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Margo MacDonald asked about the extent of contact between the Scottish Government and HMRC. Frank McAveety asked a similar question a couple of weeks ago at question time. What I put on the record in response to Mr McAveety remains the case. Her Majesty's Government has requested that the Government in Scotland take forward its discussions about the implementation of local income tax primarily with the Treasury.

We have had contact with the Treasury. We have also had discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Defence and HMRC. I met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to discuss the issue and Treasury officials have been involved in discussions. A process of dialogue is under way and we have a detailed proposition to put forward, which we will discuss with the UK Government.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Can the cabinet secretary enlighten us about whether, in any of the discussions that he mentioned, the UK Government has indicated a willingness to collect the tax on behalf of the Scottish Government and return it to local authorities?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The UK Government has said that it will consider the proposals that we put forward. That is why we are taking forward discussions, which perhaps reflects the mature way in which the Scottish Government goes about its business with the UK Government.

Much comment has been made on the consultation exercise that the Government carried out. Let me put on the record that 55 per cent of respondents considered local income tax to be the fairest approach to taxation, compared with the 25 per cent who supported the council tax. Numerous recent opinion surveys have shown that somewhere in the order of 60 per cent of the public support local income tax. I gently point out to members that the issue predominated during the parliamentary election campaign, in which the council tax parties did not do well.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Mr Swinney said that 55 per cent of respondents favoured a local income tax. Does he agree that the 57 per cent of respondents who favoured a nationally rather than locally set tax should be listened to? Will those respondents' views be taken into account?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Ministers always reflect on the contents of consultation exercises and will continue to do so.

At the heart of the issue is whether we decide to make progress on local government taxation. Back in 1998, when Mr McAveety was the leader of Glasgow City Council, he had to come to terms with a defeat by the SNP in the Garrowhill by-election. He said:

"Labour voters in Garrowhill gave us a clear message. We've got to get our act together on such issues as the high council tax."

That was in 1998, but the Labour Party is still flailing around trying to reach an answer on what to do about the council tax.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the cabinet secretary compliment me on my ensuring that there was a council tax freeze in the following year?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am delighted to welcome Glasgow City Council's council tax freeze, and I was delighted to propose such a freeze in this year's budget. I am only sorry that Mr McAveety could not bring himself to vote for a reforming budget, which froze the council tax and delivered to householders in every part of Scotland the support that he had delivered to the people of Glasgow in such a pioneering fashion.

I make two points that I think get to the nub of the debate. Brian Adam delivered a devastating critique of the Conservatives' proposition. He described how the Conservatives are calling for an enabling bill that would allow ministers to bring forward regulations that would make changes to local government finance. That is not how we should make such changes. The Conservatives have made no suggestions about how to resolve issues to do with the choice between the different propositions that are mentioned in the motion.

The most startling revelation in the debate came in Mr Brownlee's response to my colleague Mr FitzPatrick, on revaluation. The cat is out of the bag. The Tories are signed up to a revaluation of the council tax, which would punish them as much as the rates revaluation in the 1980s and the poll tax in the 1990s did. That is a sure sign that the Conservatives remain out of touch with the people of Scotland on the issue.

We will make our proposals for a local income tax based on the ability to pay, and we will argue for parliamentary support for those proposals.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

The local income tax is very different from all that went before it—the unpopular rates system, the unpopular poll tax and the unpopular council tax. The big difference is that the local income tax has become unpopular before anyone has paid a penny—at least the other taxes were around for 10 or 15 years before they caused outrage. The local income tax has been discredited before it is even finalised.

Mr Swinney was away in the realms of fantasy in his closing speech. He suggested that parties that supported a local income tax did much better in 2007 than did parties that did not support such a tax. Anyone who has even a casual relationship with mathematics can see that the number of members elected in 2007 who supported a local income tax was exactly the same as the number of members elected who did not support such a tax.

The most interesting revelation in the debate has been the unhappy dance between the SNP and the Liberal Democrats. The relationship is so unhappy that SNP members have not said whether they will support the amendment in Mr Purvis's name. It is telling that when Mr Brian Adam, who apparently launched a "devastating critique"—if members blinked they would have missed it—said that he is happy to work with the Liberal Democrats, he added, "who knows what will happen" in tonight's vote. I suspect that there will be 15 votes in favour of Mr Purvis's amendment.

Among some other interesting revelations, the main one involved the question of who will blink first on the local income tax. Will the tax be national, as suggested in the consultation exercise, or will it be otherwise? The Liberal Democrats have said that there is no way that they will agree to a nationally set local income tax. Will Mr Purvis capitulate or will John Swinney give up, desperate to secure the votes of the Liberal Democrats so that this discredited tax can be implemented? Only time will tell, but it is clear that one party or the other will have to give enormous ground and will receive a real red face.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

In light of the demand for clarity and detail, will Mr Brown confirm whether his party will support the retention of the £400 million in council tax benefits money if the change goes ahead? Further, will he tell us when the revaluation that the Conservatives now support will happen?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

The Conservatives have been extremely clear about the benefits money: we are happy for that matter to be discussed and negotiated. We have not ruled out the retention of the £480 million or so. That position has been clear for months.

In the previous debate on this matter, Keith Brown agreed that it was important that the Government publish in detail the allocation method for the local income tax and, more important, state how it would affect each and every local authority. A few months ago, the Parliament resolved that that ought to happen. Although, in that debate, the cabinet secretary said that the Government had that information already, we have seen no sign of it.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will the member give way?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

I will happily give way, if the cabinet secretary can explain that.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

We will entirely honour the commitment that we gave with regard to the motion in the previous debate, which set out the position that Mr Brownlee held before he flip-flopped on the matter and adopted the position that he outlined in today's debate.

Will Mr Brown clarify two points in relation to the other Mr Brown's intervention? First, why do the Conservatives not support the council tax benefits position that the Government put forward in this debate; and, secondly, when will the revaluation that is being endorsed as part of the reformed council tax proposition take place?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Mr Swinney is being utterly disingenuous and is taking Mr Brownlee's comments absolutely out of context. Mr Brownlee said that the revaluation in Wales ended up with a 5 per cent increase, but that it was possible to have a revaluation that was revenue neutral. He did not support the prospect of a revaluation; he simply put forward, in a theoretical context, how it would happen.

Joe FitzPatrick tried to advance the view that the consultation was heavily in favour of the local income tax. However, the best quotation that the SNP could find to support that view was from a group called Scottish Action Against Council Tax that—would you believe it?—said in the consultation that they were against the idea of continuing the council tax.

Let us examine the information that we have had since the previous debate. The financial black hole has got bigger—by an additional £300 million, according to the pre-budget report. We now know that only two councils supported the consultation, which says great things about the historic concordat—those two words usually get a round of applause from SNP back benchers, but not today, it seems.

We have learned that 59 per cent of people are not prepared to pay more than 3p in the pound, which means that there is a deep division between the SNP and the Liberal Democrats. On that basis, Mr Brownlee lodged a reasonable motion, which was drafted extremely widely and kept open all the options, including options that we do not support. We put forward the idea of having a reformed council tax, and there have already been two proposals in that regard: one featured £150 being given back to every family in Scotland and the other featured a 50 per cent discount for pensioners. We said that we would listen to ideas about a land value tax. Some time ago, the Parliament resolved to consider that proposal, and I think that it is right that that should happen. Our motion even allows for discussion of both the SNP strain and the Liberal Democrat strain of local income tax. However, local income tax is discredited and unpopular; accordingly, I urge everyone to support the motion in the name of Derek Brownlee.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it envisages meeting all of its expenditure commitments as outlined in its draft budget for 2009-10. (S3O-5067)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Yes.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Is the minister aware of a report by the Centre for Public Policy for Regions that highlights the fact that the Scottish Government not only will spend more than its allocated budget but will use 90 per cent of its reserve at the Treasury? Given the expenditure commitments and in the light of the Parliament's vote on Labour's energy efficiency debate on 13 November, what progress has been made on identifying new funding mechanisms to promote an area-based roll-out of energy efficiency measures and microgeneration technology across Scotland, to the order of around £100 million?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As Sarah Boyack knows, the report of the Centre for Public Policy for Regions vindicated everything that the Government has said about the tightness of the financial settlement that we are now dealing with as a consequence of the changes to the profile of public expenditure arising from the spending review in 2007. We are dealing with a much smaller increase in public expenditure in Scotland than has been the case over the past eight years. For that reason, the Government has negotiated a deal that my predecessors were never able to negotiate, which involves a three-year arrangement to draw down end-year flexibility, which, of course, is Scottish public expenditure that has not been spent to date. We have factored that into our programme, and that will support our policy commitments and expenditure priorities.

As our manifesto said that we would, the Government has expanded the resources that are available for microgeneration and energy efficiency technologies, and the Government is continuing discussions with various parties in Government and outwith Government to ensure that we maximise the effectiveness of expenditure on energy efficiency measures to support the Government's agenda on climate change, which will receive a major boost by the publication on Friday of the Scottish Government's climate change bill.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Are we any closer to having the energy efficiency certificate for this building displayed in a prominent place as per the European directive that came into effect on 6 January 2006?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

If I may say, I do not think that that question is relevant to question 1.

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

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that, in his meeting last week with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, a request was made of the Government for greater flexibility in the delivery of Scottish National Party manifesto policies and for greater flexibility within the concordat?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Scottish Government continues a dialogue with local authorities on a range of issues. We examine the questions of the availability of finance and the progress that has been made on policy issues. That discussion will continue with the leaders of the local authorities in Scotland in the productive fashion that has been facilitated by the Government's new relationship with local government in Scotland.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to its news release of 12 November 2007 that stated that an extra 150 police officers would be recruited by the end of the financial year, whether those were recruits whom chief constables were already planning to recruit. (S3O-5085)

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

We promised that in 2007-08 we would recruit 150 additional officers, and that is what we delivered. This year, we are committed to recruiting 450 additional officers and, already, 440 of those officers have been recruited, with the remainder to follow.

Forces will be recruiting more than 1,600 officers this year—an all-time record. We will also recruit a further 200 officers in each of the subsequent two years.

We are well on our way to recruiting 1,000 additional police officers, as we promised to do in our manifesto. As I have said before, all of those officers are over and above recruitment that was already planned by forces.

We inherited the lowest police recruitment since devolution, but we have tackled that head on. As I announced on Tuesday, with 16,526 full-time equivalent police officers, we now have the highest ever recorded number of police officers in Scotland.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Last November, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice promised the Parliament that he would recruit an additional 150 police officers by the end of the financial year. I have in my possession a legally obtained document prepared by a senior police officer that confirms that the introduction of the so-called additional 150 police officers was already being planned by chief constables throughout Scotland.

Will the cabinet secretary apologise to the Parliament for failing to meet his commitment to deliver those additional police officers and for his blatant attempt to cook the books?

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

Absolutely not. If Labour had remained in power, it would not have committed to recruiting even one additional officer. We inherited from Labour the lowest level of recruitment since devolution, despite the fact that we also faced the highest level of retirals due to demographic trends.

We made a commitment to deliver 1,000 additional officers; we delivered 150 in our first year; and we are 10 short of delivering on our commitment for this year—and we will deliver. We have a record number of police officers but, as we have said, the issue is not simply the number of officers but how we deploy them. That is why I pay tribute to the chief constables for ensuring that the officers that we recruit are supplemented by officers who are taken from behind desks and put into our communities to make those communities safer and stronger.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the cabinet secretary join me in congratulating Strathclyde Police, which has increased its numbers by more than 200, ensuring that the citizens of Glasgow and beyond are safe in their communities? Does he agree that rather than being concerned about whether the recruitments are planned or not, the public are just happy to have more police on the streets?

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

Absolutely. It was a pleasure to meet Chief Constable Stephen House on Tuesday when we were confirming the record number of police officers—I know that he has done a fantastic job in recruiting. I also pay tribute to the Strathclyde Police joint board—and to Councillor Rooney in particular—which has ensured that it brings in recruits, in addition to those that are delivered by the Government, and that it redeploys officers. I concur entirely with my colleague's sentiments.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what support it is giving the crofting community. (S3O-5137)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Scottish Government supports crofting communities by investing in public services and creating opportunities for sustainable economic growth. The rural affairs and environment portfolio currently provides more than £40 million a year in financial support to crofting communities through specific crofting grants, the less favoured areas support scheme and wider agricultural and rural development support.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

That is encouraging, but the minister will be aware of the growing evidence that the Scottish rural development programme payments are too bureaucratic, unfocused and not easily accessed by crofters and farmers. I am also told that the payments are only available online, which excludes people such as me and others in the Highlands. It appears that consultants are the only people whom the current system supports. Will the minister take a long hard look at the Scottish rural development programme payments for the benefit of the entire crofting and agricultural community?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The SRDP offers the opportunity to access considerable sums of money, and we want to make that as easy as possible. My colleague Richard Lochhead has already announced that there will be a review. The forestry elements are being considered by George McRobbie and his team, and I am grateful for the effort that they are putting in.

The previous Government devised the SRDP with stakeholders, and we would like a higher take-up of the scheme, although take-up has already been substantial. To that end, we will ensure that when the review takes place, it will emphasise access—easy access in particular—to the scheme, although many of the schemes are competitive, as they should be. I have addressed those and other issues at crofters' meetings this week in Benbecula and Harris, and the crofting community knows that we are concerned and that we want to move forward.

I can offer some specific assistance to John Farquhar Munro: training in computer skills will be available as part of the scheme and, as a retired crofter, he is probably eligible.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has determined a date on which the findings of the strategic transport projects review will be announced. (S3O-5096)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Ministers have considered the emerging findings and there will be an announcement on the outcome of the review to Parliament on 10 December.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

I draw to the minister's attention a letter that I have received from the chief executive of North Ayrshire Council. It advises me that the council, its partners and the business community believe that upgrading the A737 is the single most important piece of investment to improve confidence in the economy of North Ayrshire. Will the minister assure me that the concerns of my local community will be taken into consideration in deciding the priorities and announcing the review's findings?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It would not be appropriate for me to anticipate the detail of next week's announcement, but I can say that three key factors will be applied. The first is to ensure the maximum efficient use of transport infrastructure; the second is to support the economy; and the third is to ensure that we have a safe network that is fit for purpose.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will quantify the cuts that would be required to local government and other services in Ochil were they to meet the United Kingdom Government efficiency savings target of 3 per cent. (S3O-5107)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Following the pre-budget report, our 2010-11 allocation is due to be cut by around £129 million as a consequence of changes to the United Kingdom Department of Health's budget. We also face a further cut, based on our Barnett share of a £5 billion reduction in UK departmental spending in 2010-11 and in 2011-12. Taken together, there is the potential for a £1 billion reduction in Scottish expenditure, of which £500 million is likely to fall in the current spending review period. Such a cut would have a significant negative effect on public services in Scotland.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that there is a growing tide of concern and anger about new Labour's cuts in public services, whether through the lowest ever increase in the Scottish block grant from London; new Labour in Scotland's 3 per cent cuts, as outlined by Wendy Alexander; or the straight £1 billion cut to which the cabinet secretary just referred, which was announced by Alistair Darling. Does he agree that that anger is most keenly felt among local councils, voluntary groups and those who rely on those organisations for vital services?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As Mr Brown will know, the Scottish Government has worked extremely hard to put in place a financial framework that provides a growing share of the Scottish block of expenditure to local government, and a rising amount of support for the voluntary and third sector within Scotland. We recognise that those priorities are important, because the third sector and local authorities contribute significantly to the delivery of public services in Scotland.

It is clear that we will face a significant amount of public spending pressure in 2010-11, which has been inflicted on us because of a reduction in the budget that we expected, in good faith, to have at our disposal. As a consequence, there will be a great deal of concern in communities throughout Scotland. The Scottish Government will do everything in its power to change the mind of the United Kingdom Government on this question and to ensure that our priorities adequately support the Government's aspirations to make Scotland a more successful country.

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

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that if any Scottish Government departments or agencies, or health boards, begin to report efficiency outturns that are nearing or more than 3 per cent, the Scottish Government will not request that they artificially lower those outturns to be nearer 2 per cent to suit political purposes?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As Mr Purvis will have noticed from some of the outputs in the efficient government programme, different areas of public service already exceed the efficiency savings targets that have been set for them. The crucial difference between that programme and the situation that we face as a consequence of the decisions that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the pre-budget report is that we have the ability to reinvest the resources from that programme in public services in Scotland. What the chancellor announced in the pre-budget report is simply a reduction in the resources that the Scottish Government believed, in good faith, we had at our disposal. That will have a negative effect on public services in Scotland.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Is it not the case that there are both cash and time-releasing savings for the United Kingdom but only cash-releasing savings for Scotland, with the consequence that our public services are suffering real cuts now?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

No, is the short answer to that. The Scottish Government has set out an efficiency savings programme. Later this afternoon, I will e-mail Jackie Baillie the definition of efficiency savings and what counts as efficiency savings in Scotland, so that she can fully understand the high standards that must be achieved before efficiency savings can be deemed to have been reached in Scotland. Of course, we reinvest those resources in the public services of Scotland. The significant difference between our position and that of the UK Government is that it has simply removed money from the allocation that we believed we had at our disposal—that is a cut.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the management of Glasgow Prestwick international airport following the publication of the airport's development master plan. (S3O-5058)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Scottish Government has had no discussions with the management of Glasgow Prestwick international airport since publication of the airport's draft master plan on 29 October.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I thank the minister for that reply. As he will know, Prestwick airport, which makes a huge contribution to the economy of Ayrshire and Scotland, forecasts that its annual passenger numbers are set to double over the next 10 years to 5.7 million. A key element identified in the master plan is the need to increase rail capacity on the Ayr to Glasgow line, and in particular the need to increase the current service frequency of two services an hour, especially at peak times. Will the minister support that position? Will he enter into discussions with Prestwick airport, First ScotRail and other relevant agencies to secure that increase in service?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Surface transport to our airports is an important part of the provision that we in Government must make. I shall be supporting Prestwick airport myself when I fly out on Sunday on its direct flight to Poznań for the climate change leaders side event that will take place on Monday and Tuesday. I recognise, both personally and as a minister, the importance of Prestwick airport and its being connected to the rest of Scotland.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what recent discussions it has had with the City of Edinburgh Council and TIE Ltd regarding the Edinburgh trams project. (S3O-5055)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Recent discussions have taken place with the City of Edinburgh Council regarding the administration of the Scottish Government's £500 million contribution and with TIE Ltd regarding the design for a tram-train interchange at Gogar. Preliminary discussions have taken place between the Scottish Government and the City of Edinburgh Council concerning additional means of funding the development of the Edinburgh waterfront area. In addition, preliminary discussions have been held regarding Transport and Works (Scotland) Act 2007 powers for further tram development.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I thank the minister for that answer. Will the discussions on the additional means of funding the waterfront development refer to additional public funding for that, which would therefore be a back-door, additional contribution by the minister's Government to the funding of the trams project?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It is clear that we have capped our contribution to the trams project at £500 million. Any moneys that are left over after phase 1A may be applied to phase 1B. We have made no change to our commitments on public funding from this Government.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it expects the level of economic growth to change in each year to 2012. (S3O-5057)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Scottish Government recognises that the performance of the Scottish economy is likely to weaken in the second half of 2008, reflecting the slow-down in the global economy. That is why we have taken the steps that are outlined in our economic recovery plan to support the Scottish economy through these challenging global economic conditions.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

But does not the Scottish economy, or at least income tax revenues, need to increase by 25 per cent in a single year to fill the hole in the minister's local income tax plans? Is that the Scottish Government's expectation?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Brownlee has got his numbers completely wrong. The First Minister set out clearly to Miss Goldie last week exactly why Mr Brownlee's figures are wrong. There will clearly be an increase in the level of tax take as the economy improves. I gently point out to Mr Brownlee, after his morning of fawning over the council tax, that there will undoubtedly be pressures on council tax income as a consequence of the economic downturn, so what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Before we move to First Minister's question time, I am delighted to welcome Tanzania's high commissioner to the United Kingdom and Quebec's agent-general in London, who have joined us in the Presiding Officer's gallery. They are most welcome. [Applause.]

First Minister's Question Time

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1241)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

There was widespread concern in April when the Scottish Government suddenly announced the extension of First ScotRail's contract to 2014. There was no consultation with passengers or with the workforce or with trade unions. Indeed, there was no consultation with anyone at all. Audit Scotland was scheduled to review the operation of the franchise, but ministers could not be bothered waiting for that either. Last week, Audit Scotland produced its report, which raised concerns and led to the resignation of a senior Transport Scotland official. Why did the First Minister fail to consult on the franchise review and on the extension options? Why did he not wait for Audit Scotland's report?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have read the Audit Scotland report that Iain Gray is brandishing. I found it interesting to see that, on the substance of the benefits of the franchise, Audit Scotland says the following:

"Transport Scotland's appraisal process was rigorous and has resulted in a guaranteed £73.1 million investment by First ScotRail".

That is what the heading of paragraph 57 says.

"Transport Scotland's management arrangements are generally effective",

says the heading above paragraph 27.

"First ScotRail's performance to date has been good, and continues to improve",

says page 24 of the report.

I would quarrel with one thing Iain Gray said in his introductory question: he said that the extension to the contract was unexpected, a surprise. I have looked back over the history of the contract. On 5 December 2002, the answer to a parliamentary question announced both the franchise length and the possibility of a three-year contract extension. That parliamentary question was answered by one Iain Gray.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

That is true. And I remember the lengthy consultation process we went through to award the franchise.

The Audit Scotland report says positive things about First ScotRail's performance and about the management of the franchise, but it says some scathing things about the Scottish Government's handling of the franchise extension. It states:

"The lack of consultation created practical difficulties."

Those practical difficulties will cost the taxpayer £1.5 million for closed-circuit television cameras in Strathclyde stations because the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change did not bother to ask where that money would be found between 2011 and 2014. Clearly, Audit Scotland believes that there may be other financial holes that will also need to be filled.

Will the First Minister admit that the failure to consult key stakeholders in advance was a serious and costly omission?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Audit Scotland report sets out governance issues, which Transport Scotland will take on board and improve upon, but that does not deflect from the £73.1 million of investment that is identified in the report. Nor does it tell us why the matter was such a big surprise to Iain Gray, who six years previously opened up the possibility of a three-year extension.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The contract involves £2.5 billion of taxpayers' money. The 215,000 passengers a day who depend on the service have just seen their fares soar. The contract was extended with no consultation, no assessment criteria and—most damning of all—no business case. Audit Scotland states:

"Transport Scotland did not provide the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change with a fully documented business case, taking the view that presentations to the minister were more appropriate."

That is public spending by PowerPoint. Perhaps the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change did not feel the need for a business case, but did the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth not ask to see one? Did the First Minister not ask to see a business case? Did no one in the cabinet ask what the business case was? Did the First Minister sign off the decision? If he did, on what basis did he do that?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

On the basis that it would provide improvements for rail passengers and railway workers in Scotland.

I noticed that Iain Gray slipped in a remark that indicated that he does not like the fare increases. No one likes fare increases, whether they are rail passengers or anyone else, but as far as I understand his questions Iain Gray is not challenging the real benefits that Audit Scotland identified the three-year extension will bring in the way of investment in and improvements to passenger services.

Fares will increase by 6 per cent from 2 January, which means that the average Scottish fare will be £2.65. In the United Kingdom, it is £4.60. Other operators have similar average fares. Chiltern Railways' average fare increase is 7.5 per cent, First Capital Connect's is 9 per cent and CrossCountry's is 11 per cent. No one likes fare increases, but will Iain Gray acknowledge that the investment pattern, the additional millions of pounds that are coming into our railways and the fare structure look a lot better in Scotland than they do elsewhere?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I am challenging an approach to government that too often poses too many questions about the way in which the Government goes about its business. What about the First Minister's cack-handed intervention in the Trump affair, or five ministers involving themselves in a planning application in Aviemore? What about the headlines alleging cronyism when it comes to handing out grants? And now we find that a multi-billion pound contract has no business case and a conflict of interest at its heart. There are too many questions and no answers. The Government clearly believes that the normal rules of transparency and good governance do not apply. It clearly believes that a nod and a wink will do, but it will not.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The question is coming; do not worry.

The Parliament's Audit Committee will want to consider Audit Scotland's report. Will the First Minister volunteer to appear before that committee and answer its questions about how the decision was made?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Of course. I am the first First Minister ever to appear before a committee. As far as the Trump affair is concerned, if it had been left to the Labour Party we can be absolutely certain that that investment would not have come to Scotland.

As far as procedures are concerned, at no stage in his line of questioning has Iain Gray challenged the real benefits identified by Audit Scotland for passengers and rail travellers in Scotland. That is important because the performance of Scotland's railways and the investment being made in Network Rail are some of the few areas in Scottish life that are protected from the £500 million of cuts that the Westminster Government is making.

On good and proper governance, I assure Iain Gray that Kenny MacAskill has personally assured me that he will not be sending in the polis to raid any MSP's office. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-1242)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I will meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in due course.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Two weeks ago, I challenged Nicola Sturgeon on the deeply disturbing issue of hospital-acquired infections. A lot of the recent discussion has understandably centred on one incident in one hospital, but our focus has to be wider and we must be proactive, not merely reactive.

It was clear from what Miss Sturgeon said about monitoring such infections that the Scottish Government is still taking a health board-by-health board, hospital-by-hospital approach and that it aspires to extend that to real-time tracking by clinical specialty. To cut through the technical jargon, that is not good enough. We need to move to ward-by-ward, bed-by-bed real-time tracking if we want to know whether another Vale of Leven crisis threatens at any point in any day in any hospital.

We can do more. An electronic bed-management system that is perfectly capable of being extended to monitor bed and ward infections has already been successfully piloted in Aberdeen royal infirmary. Does the First Minister agree that, given what we know is out there, his Government's response to date has been tardy and inadequate? Will he now back the Scottish Conservatives' call for a bed-by-bed infection tracking pilot?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I do not agree that the Government's response has been tardy and inadequate. Annabel Goldie should acknowledge the substantial actions that have been taken to tackle hospital-acquired infections, not least of which are the trebling of available funding compared with that under the previous Administration; the setting of national targets to reduce Clostridium difficile cases; the provision of extra funding for prescribing policies, which are a key factor in tackling that dreadful condition; the performance in raising hygiene; the toughening up of cleaning standards; and, which is important, the empowering of senior charge nurses, the establishment of an independent inspectorate and the banning of the privatisation of cleaning contracts for the future. That is a substantial category of action.

Annabel Goldie made a specific point about Aberdeen royal infirmary. I am aware of the pilot exercise there. Obviously, we support that new technology in the national health service and we are perfectly happy to consider anything that will improve performance. More efficient bed management and the tracking of patient movements mean that NHS staff can manage their patients more effectively and efficiently. If the approach that has been described is used to its full potential, it could offer a valuable addition to local surveillance. The tracking system has benefits. When the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing visits NHS Grampian next week, she will see the pilot model at first hand, consider the planned extension to other facilities in the NHS Grampian area, and find out whether it would be appropriate to roll out the scheme throughout the national health service.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No one denies that these are financially challenging times, not least for the health service. That is why we must spend our NHS resources on clinical imperatives, not on political targets. The technology that I mentioned can save lives. I have a detailed briefing on it, which I am happy to send to the First Minister today.

Does the First Minister recognise the urgency and necessity of addressing the problem now? We have the means to do so, but we now need the political will. It is no longer a question of if; it is a question of when. Will the First Minister undertake to make a statement in the Parliament as soon as possible on when and where a bed-by-bed infection-tracking pilot will start?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will visit Aberdeen to see the pilot scheme on Monday, and she will certainly report back to Parliament on what is found. The pilot offers a promising addition to the range of measures that are being taken to tackle hospital-acquired infections. At this stage, we must consider and evaluate the pilot and its cost effectiveness, but the fact that the cabinet secretary is going to see the scheme so early and that we are interested in its being rolled out over other facilities in NHS Grampian indicates that we see merit in its results thus far and that we are engaged and interested in finding out whether it can help us across the whole health service.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1243)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

At its next meeting, the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Yesterday, the chief executive of Lloyds TSB, Eric Daniels, toured Government, parliamentary and media offices. I heard nothing yesterday and have read nothing today that says what the impact on jobs, branches and headquarters functions will be as a result of Lloyds TSB's takeover of HBOS. Is the First Minister any better informed than the rest of us about what the specific impact on Scotland will be?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I was not privy to what Eric Daniels and Archie Kane said to Tavish Scott, but one aspect that they discussed with me was the formation of a Scottish board structure to be chaired by Archie Kane, which would be an organisational gain on what has gone before. That should be welcomed, but does it mean that we know a great deal more about the potential threat to competition and jobs and the threat of rationalisation? No, but nonetheless we heard something new yesterday that should be welcomed because we should welcome anything in a structure that protects Scottish decision making.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The First Minister will be aware that, next week, there is to be a hearing of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, to consider competition in banking. The Office of Fair Trading's report on the merger makes it plain that Scotland and Scottish business are most at risk from a drop in competition and a rise in bank charges. The Competition Commission should not have been bypassed by ministers on such a substantial takeover. The case has been taken to the tribunal by a group of Scottish businesspeople—the Merger Action Group—who have raised significant sums of money to pay for the appeal.

Is there not a place for the Scottish Government in the process, which is in the interests of Scottish business? We now have small business against big business and big government. The Treasury is threatening to enforce big costs against the challengers. Will the First Minister therefore examine the case for providing legal support for the challenge?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Merger Action Group has gone to the Competition Appeal Tribunal precisely because it exists to allow what are termed aggrieved parties—they could be customers, shareholders or staff members—to progress an appeal against decisions of the secretary of state that they think are improper or hurried or have been prejudiced in any way. I can tell Tavish Scott that, on Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth wrote to the hon Mr Justice Barling, the president of the Competition Appeal Tribunal. We did that precisely because we share several of the Merger Action Group's concerns. I will make the letter available to the Parliament.

We have concerns about the impact on competition, which we previously set out in the Government's submission to the Office of Fair Trading. The Office of Fair Trading shared many of those concerns, but they were subsequently ignored or set aside by the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. The second aspect that we drew to Mr Justice Barling's attention was the suggestion—I believe that it was from Treasury counsel—that the matter should be settled under English jurisdiction. We thought that that was inappropriate, as both companies are registered in Scotland. I am delighted to say that, whether because of the letter from Mr Swinney or because of submissions from elsewhere, although the hearing will take place in London next week, Mr Justice Barling has settled that the matter will take place under Scottish jurisdiction, with any appeal being made to the Court of Session.

The procedures in the CAT are important and the Merger Action Group is perfectly entitled to exercise them. The matters to which Tavish Scott alludes, about which we are all concerned, are legitimate issues. The heart of the issue is that the Government ministers concerned, whether the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, should deliver the level playing field that we were promised. I think that they have not done so. We will look with interest to see what the CAT decides.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a constituency question from Pauline McNeill.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Does the First Minister agree that the announcement by the Herald group in my constituency that 240 journalists and staff will be sacked and invited to reapply for their jobs is a draconian employment practice in a modern Scotland and that it should be widely condemned? Does he agree that, notwithstanding the challenges that the media industry faces, The Herald and its sister papers have an important status in Scottish life and that the dramatic cut in jobs will be universally unwelcome? Given the public interest in the announcement, will the First Minister urge the management to negotiate with the trade unions to aim for a fairer process and a properly negotiated outcome?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, I agree with that. It would be better if the management went into negotiations with the unions. This is a difficult time for the Scottish media and press and there is a range of possible redundancies in several outlets, but it would be far better to approach them through negotiation between management and unions.

The owners of The Herald newspaper might wish to reflect on another aspect: if another employer in Scotland did the same—if an entire workforce was made redundant and people were asked to reapply for their jobs—what would be the editorial stance of The Herald, given its traditions? If we imagine, as I do, that, given its traditions, that newspaper would appeal for exactly what Pauline McNeill suggests, the owners of the Herald group should think carefully about the credibility of their newspaper in the light of the actions and style that they have adopted.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I am sure that we all agree that our communities are now much safer as a result of the imprisonment of Peter Tobin for the rest of his life. In light of the fact that DNA played such a crucial role in bringing Peter Tobin and others to justice, will the First Minister assure the chamber that he will keep an open mind on how we can legislate further to give our police officers additional powers in connection with the retention of DNA samples?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We have Professor Fraser's report, of course. We always look at such matters with a view to balancing the advantages and disadvantages of public safety.

Although many issues arise from the Tobin conviction that we must think about carefully, one thing that we should do is thank our police and prosecution services for making such an effective job of the trial. Although nothing can be said to temper the tragedy that affects the victims of that evil man, nonetheless the trial in Scotland was extremely satisfactory in its conduct and disposal.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will support the 16 days of global activism to tackle violence against women. (S3F-1253)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The 16 days of global activism is an important feature of this time of year. On Thursday 6 December, during the days of action last year, I signed the statement of intent. By signing the statement I pledged this Government's commitment to tackle violence against women over our parliamentary term.

Specifically, the Government has committed more than £44 million to address violence against women. That includes funding every rape crisis centre in Scotland and working with Rape Crisis Scotland on its hard-hitting, awareness-raising campaign. We have launched the national domestic abuse delivery plan for children and young people and we have provided funding for the Scottish domestic abuse helpline, the national rape crisis helpline and the national offices of Scottish Women's Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland. We have also provided funding for a network of dedicated children's workers across Scotland. This year, we have continued with that commitment by holding what has now become an annual Scottish Government debate. This year's debate, which will take place later today, will be on forced marriages under a motion lodged by the Minister for Communities and Sport.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

I am sure that the First Minister will want to extend a warm welcome to Scottish Women's Aid and Amnesty International, whose representatives are outside the Parliament today.

Women with insecure immigration status who are fleeing violence are unable to access public funds, which pay for refuge accommodation and support, so will the First Minister state whether the Scottish Government is able, within its powers, to offer financial support? Will he make representations to the Home Office to exempt women who are fleeing violence from the no-recourse-to-public-funds rule?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We will continue to work with the Home Office to implement the new scheme, which was announced earlier this year by Vernon Coaker, a Home Office minister, to provide women on a spousal visa who have no recourse to public funds with a contribution to housing and living costs of up to £1,000. The Government has set up a working group to look at the matter further and it will report to ministers when that scheme is in operation.

It is true that, under the devolved settlement, the Scottish Government cannot go beyond the remit of the Home Office, but we will continue to engage with the Home Office and ensure that the views of this Parliament are put forward to protect many vulnerable women.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government intends to respond to the findings of an Educational Institute of Scotland survey that children's education in nearly two-thirds of Scotland's local authorities is being harmed due to a downturn in classroom spending. (S3F-1258)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Government has put record resources into local government. It is, of course, for local authorities to determine how best to use those resources within the context of the historic concordat. We will continue to work closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to deliver the best education for all Scotland's young people.

The report to which Rhona Brankin refers appears to be incomplete and localised. I am delighted to tell her that we now have available the estimated outturn figures for local authorities throughout Scotland for the current financial year. They show that the average increase in education budgets this year is 5.5 per cent. I hope that Rhona Brankin is able to change her supplementary question.

The increase has been possible because the Government rejected Labour Party calls for 3 per cent efficiency savings, which, under the hungry caterpillar theory, could not be reinvested locally. We will continue to resist the annual cuts of £500 million that the Westminster Government wants to impose on Scotland. Labour's education cuts pose a huge danger to, and would damage, the future of Scottish education.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The First Minister is always keen to trumpet the so-called historic concordat with local government, but back in the real world teacher numbers in Scotland fell by 900 in the past quarter and the number of non-teaching staff fell by 400 in the same period. In some areas, we now have the disgraceful spectacle of teachers having to pay for stationery out of their own pockets. Is it not time the First Minister stopped passing the buck, got out of his ministerial limo and listened to teachers, parents and pupils throughout Scotland? They were promised better schools, but they are now witnessing the stark reality of SNP education cuts.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I note that Rhona Brankin was not able to alter her supplementary question. I say to her that the source is the provisional outturn budget estimate returns, which are the returns from local government, and they show a 5.5 per cent increase in education budgets across Scotland.

One of the reasons I like the historic concordat is that it appeals to consensus in Scottish society. I am not saying for a second that only SNP councils have increased their education budgets. I acknowledge that there is an increase of 10 per cent in the North Lanarkshire budget, which is controlled by the Labour Party, and an increase of 11 per cent in South Ayrshire, which has a Conservative minority administration. The SNP administration in Stirling has increased its education budget by more than 14 per cent.

Bearing it in mind that facts are chiels that winna ding and that those are the figures from local government itself, at what stage will the Labour Party acknowledge that the real threat to Scottish education is the £500 million of Westminster cuts that are coming down the road?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Does the First Minister agree that Glasgow City Council's decision to reduce teacher numbers is purely political, given that its education budget is increasing? Does he share my concern that the Labour Party in Glasgow is playing politics with the education of Glasgow children?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have been generous, because that is my nature, in my comments on the cross-party complexion of councils throughout Scotland. In the same tone, I acknowledge that, within the average 5.5 per cent increase, no council has reported a decrease in its education budget. There are new teachers in Clackmannanshire, Falkirk, Midlothian, Perth and Kinross, Scottish Borders and West Lothian.

In the context of rising education budgets, it is the case that some councils in Scotland seem to place a higher priority than others on employing teachers. I hope that there is not some political machination from the Labour Party to instruct its councils not to reduce class sizes because it has never liked the historic concordat.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the Auditor General for Scotland's report into the extension to the First ScotRail passenger rail franchise. (S3F-1266)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As previously discussed, we welcome Audit Scotland's comment that the rigorous evaluation that went into the extension option appraisal has guaranteed more than £73 million of new money to benefit passengers, taxpayers and rail employees throughout Scotland. As I also said earlier, the report also highlights issues of governance for Transport Scotland, which will be considered for future improvement.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I listened with interest to the earlier exchanges on this issue. As publication of the strategic transport projects review is imminent, how can the First Minister expect the people of Scotland to have any sort of confidence that the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change can be trusted to make the right decisions about vital transport links when he is quite happy to commit an extra £800 million of taxpayers' money to FirstScotrail without ever seeing a documented business case—a decision that, according to Audit Scotland, should not have been made in the way that it was?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I return to the real benefits that Audit Scotland has identified with regard to the decisions that were made. As for the issues of governance that are highlighted in the report, they will be looked at and Transport Scotland will make the relevant improvements.

Points of Order

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During First Minister's question time, the First Minister said that the Minister for Justice would prevent searches of MSPs' offices by the police. My point of order—[ Interruption. ] Just listen, First Minister. My point of order is not about the veracity of what the First Minister said. Presiding Officer, you have made it clear often enough that you are not responsible for adjudicating on the veracity of what is said in the chamber, but I want to ensure that Parliament is not misled. As you will be aware, I raised this issue at the Parliamentary Bureau meeting. Are you willing to make a statement to Parliament as soon as possible about the proper processes involved if, at any point in the future, the police put such a request before you?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Thank you for the point of order. As you are aware, Mr Rumbles, you raised the issue at the bureau meeting on Tuesday. The matter is under consideration and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the bureau will be informed of the outcome of those deliberations in due course.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. I actually said—it can be checked in the Official Report —that the Minister for Justice has no plans to send in police to MSPs' offices. That is factually correct and Mr Rumbles, in pursuing his wider concerns, should note it.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That is not a point of order, but it will be in the Official Report .

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. I had meant to write to you on this matter. A precedent might have been set when, on one occasion, the police were invited on to the floor of the chamber and into the gallery to remove members of the press corps. In that light, it is perhaps apposite that you rule on privilege in this place.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I can save you the trouble of writing, Ms MacDonald. As I have said, the matter is under consideration.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. I note that, last week, the Parliamentary Bureau agreed that you will present an adjudication on this matter to the bureau and others in due course. However, given this week's events at Westminster and the seriousness of the matter there and for elected parliamentarians anywhere in the United Kingdom, I think that it would be appropriate for your adjudication to be reported to the full chamber when all members are present rather than in the business bulletin or to the bureau. I hope that you will take that point on board.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I hear what the former First Minister says and will reflect on his point at the appropriate time.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Health and Wellbeing

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

NHS Fife is planning to transfer the podiatry service from Kirkcaldy health centre to Whyteman's Brae. That will free up accommodation in Kirkcaldy health centre to allow for expansion of the general practitioner practices based there.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

I will meet NHS Fife and staff at Whyteman's Brae later this month. The centre at Whyteman's Brae provides GP and community health services to some of the most disadvantaged communities. Does the Scottish Government have any plans to make additional resources available to support health practices such as Whyteman's Brae, to give them the additional support that is needed to provide a wide range of health services in disadvantaged communities?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I am reviewing the proposals from all boards on the use of primary and community care premises modernisation programme funds. I expect to be able to advise boards of the results shortly. In addition to those funds, Fife has access to its normal capital allocation. My officials will be working with the board to help it to deliver its identified projects as quickly as possible. NHS Fife has received an increase of £0.768 million over its 2007-08 formula capital allocation. It has also been notified of its indicative formula capital allocations for the next two financial years. I am happy to remain in communication with the member over the issue.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is satisfied that as much as possible is being done to introduce telehealth links ensuring easier, faster and more local access to health care. (S3O-5060)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The Scottish Government established the Scottish Centre for Telehealth in 2005 to facilitate the national introduction of telehealth services. There are many good examples of how the centre is helping to bring patients closer to health services, including testing access to hospital specialists from the homes of patients with chronic illnesses, such as motor neurone disease and epilepsy, and extending the use of telemedicine in areas such as unscheduled care and paediatrics. Looking to the future, the centre intends to mainstream such uses throughout Scotland where appropriate.

The Scottish Centre for Telehealth is nearing the end of its third year of existence and a review of its work is under way. That review will be complete by the end of January next year.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I understand that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will visit the telehealth centre in the near future. I hope that she is as impressed with what she sees there as Mary Scanlon and I were during our recent visit to the centre.

What practical steps are being taken to accelerate the extension of small-scale pilot schemes through to comprehensive national adoption of telehealth services, which I am in no doubt would be cost effective for the NHS?