Scottish Parliament, 26 February 2009

283 contributions from 86 members. The official report.

Official Report 26 February 2009

Financial Services Advisory Board

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a statement by John Swinney on the Financial Services Advisory Board. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

On 5 February, we debated motion S3M-3384, on the creation of a financial sector jobs task force. The terms of the motion that was agreed were that the Scottish Government would ask the Financial Services Advisory Board—FiSAB—to consider how the financial services industry would adapt to address the current challenges in the sector. It was also requested that, through the Scottish Government, FiSAB would consider the establishment of a task force within its current structures, and that we would consider the role and remit of that task force. Today, as promised, I am reporting back to Parliament on progress following FiSAB's meeting on Tuesday, 10 February.

All the matters that I have mentioned were discussed by FiSAB, which readily agreed to the establishment of a task force. I will provide details of those discussions later, but it might be useful first to remind ourselves of FiSAB's remit, structure and workings so that we can put into context how the task force will operate.

FiSAB is a unique collaboration that involves the Government and the wider public sector, individual financial services organisations, Scottish Financial Enterprise and trade unions. It is chaired by the First Minister and oversees a joint strategy with a vision for the long-term success of the industry in Scotland that recognises that continued collaboration is needed in order to realise that vision. The Government's commitment to FiSAB's success is demonstrated by the fact that we have continued it since we came to office and that the First Minister, Jim Mather and I are members of the board.

The industry deputy chair of FiSAB is the much-respected John Campbell of State Street, and I take this opportunity to pay public tribute to him. After nearly four years, he is standing down from his roles of chair of Scottish Financial Enterprise and industry deputy chair of FiSAB. We have greatly benefited from his focused approach, his knowledge and his huge expertise.

As I explained during the debate on 5 February, FiSAB has met at least twice a year until now. It is supported in the day-to-day operational delivery of the financial services strategy by the financial services implementation group—FiSIG—which meets every two months. Smaller delivery groups meet to discuss specific issues when that is required in the intervening months.

The strategy document articulates a vision of

"an innovative, competitive and thriving international financial services industry in Scotland, underpinned by world-class infrastructure and universally recognised as a leader on the global stage."

Even in pre-credit crunch times, that was an ambitious vision; it is even more ambitious now. However, I want to be clear that it remains our shared vision. Neither the current economic difficulties that businesses in Scotland face, nor the particular difficulties that our banking sector faces, are distracting us from trying to help Scotland's financial services industry to realise that vision.

The strategy has three aims—on people, profile and infrastructure—that underpin its vision. We will strengthen Scotland's world-class workforce through collaborative effort; we will work in partnership to build the industry's profile within and beyond Scotland; and we will identify and work together to achieve the business infrastructure that can support a highly successful financial services industry. A commitment to exploit market opportunities through innovation underlies all the work across those three pillars. The strategy is more relevant now than it was 18 months ago.

FiSAB noted that not all parts of the financial services industry are in difficulty. That is reflected in esure's announcement of 500 new jobs in the insurance sector in Glasgow—all members will want to join me in welcoming that—and in the results of companies such as Aberdeen Asset Management. FiSAB therefore remained convinced that the strategy was essential for the long-term success of the industry.

Following work undertaken by John Campbell to ensure that FiSAB membership continued to reflect the diversity and changing nature of our industry, action has been taken to recruit new members from across its sectors. It has also been agreed that invitations should be issued to the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority to join FiSAB, alongside Her Majesty's Treasury. That means that representatives of all three regulatory bodies will be around the table with leaders of the main Scottish companies and the trade unions.

I turn to some of the specific matters that FiSAB discussed on 10 February. First, FiSIG reported on progress against actions that are contained in the existing implementation plans and on its review of those plans to ensure that they still meet the new challenges that are faced in the current financial crisis and recession. FiSIG concluded that the aims and pillars that are set out in the strategy are still appropriate, but that some work was required in the coming months to reprioritise and reposition some plans. The main work priorities that were identified were reconsidering education, skills and financial capability priorities; repositioning and re-emphasising communications activity; and ensuring an appropriate regulatory response and that Scotland is a business-friendly location. FiSIG's work fed into a discussion around a presentation on the sector by Professor John Kay of the Council of Economic Advisers. We were also joined at the meeting by Lord Smith, another council member.

Competitive advantage in financial services nowadays depends on locational advantages, brand and reputational advantages, and innovation. Scotland's historical reputation for prudence and strengths in risk management must be built on as we come out of the current economic situation.

The Scottish financial services industry is diverse. Our banks have experienced significant difficulties, but we must be careful to ensure that we do not encourage negative perceptions of our industry as a whole. Many other elements of the industry remain very strong. We need to ensure that we fully understand how our industry is perceived as we take work forward to promote it further.

FiSAB agreed that business can create competitive advantage and that the Government must help with promotion, education, research and training. There has been reputational damage to the industry in Scotland, but we must keep that damage in perspective. The crisis is an international financial crisis, not a Scottish one.

Industry has work to do on rebuilding trust, and opportunities to grasp to help people look after their savings and prepare for their long-term future. As a result, FiSAB tasked FiSIG with ensuring that plans now reflect the outcomes of the discussions and ensure a focus on skills and careers, promotional activities and the need to work with our higher education institutions to reflect the importance of research. As members can see, on-going and targeted work is being done on delivering the aims of the strategy for the financial services industry in Scotland.

Finally—and crucially—the FiSAB discussions focused on consideration of the financial sector jobs task force. FiSAB agreed that it was important that that task force be set up within the collaborative structure that FiSAB provides. It recommended that the task force should be a separate group that meets regularly and that it should report to FiSAB. That will enable it to merge its work with work that is already under way and make use of linkages that have already been created. A draft remit and membership paper was produced, which FiSAB members are now finalising. FiSAB also agreed that the board should meet more regularly and its next meeting will take place on 1 June.

The Government recognises and accepts that in the current economic climate and in light of the specific challenges that the financial services industry worldwide faces, additional work needs to be undertaken on the projected loss of jobs, skills and talented individuals from within the financial services industry and the related business services industry in Scotland. That additional work should supplement, not replace, that which is already being undertaken by various agencies. The partnership action for continuing employment—PACE—service ensures that local public sector agencies respond to potential and proposed large-scale redundancies as quickly and effectively as possible and provide tailored support and help to individuals. Scottish Development International is continuing to work to identify opportunities for future growth; indeed, the terrific announcement by esure on 18 February, which I mentioned earlier, is testament to SDI's continued efforts. Skills Development Scotland, which is Scotland's flagship skills agency, is working to achieve improvements in skills provision throughout Scotland. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning will deliver a parliamentary statement on the skills strategy this afternoon.

The task force will co-ordinate efforts throughout Scotland to ensure that maximum levels of employment are retained within the financial services industry. It will focus on understanding the needs of the industry as the industry adjusts to the future structures that will emerge as a result of the current climate. Where restructuring results in head-count reductions, the task force will take action to retain skills within the wider Scottish labour market. That will be done by ensuring the promotion of entrepreneurship and self-employment where appropriate, matching transferable skills within the wider economy, and enhancing skills and qualifications to meet the needs of alternative employers as well as the future needs of emerging industries and markets.

The task force will be a focus for information on and analysis of projected changes to the industry to enable full alignment of the current economic development, investment attraction and skills and careers work that is currently being progressed. More than that, it will provide added value by future proofing the high levels of skills in the pool of financial services talent that currently contributes to Scotland's worldwide reputation for excellence.

To achieve all those ambitions, the task force must harness the significant knowledge and expertise that are already available. Key public sector members will, therefore, be the Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise, SDI, Skills Development Scotland and the Scottish funding council. The industry and its workforce must also be represented; therefore, invitations to join the task force will go to Unite and Scottish Financial Enterprise. There is a wealth of knowledge of and interest in the issue throughout the country, and the task force will engage with all that by taking advice from appropriate organisations and individuals as required.

On 5 February, I assured Parliament of the Government's willingness to progress issues within our proactive financial services strategy to meet the challenges that are raised by the current global economic crisis. We have taken on board all suggestions in terms of increasing the regularity of FiSAB meetings and the establishment of a financial sector jobs task force. I hope that we can rely on colleagues across the chamber to support our actions.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on his statement.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement. I also welcome the fact that his statement has been made very soon after the original debate. We have always said that we want the Parliament to be responsive to things that are happening in the financial services sector, and this is a step along the way. I associate myself with the comments about the work that has been done by John Campbell.

Most people in the financial services sector are very concerned about their employment. It is important that a jobs task force is set up to show them that we are doing things that matter. We all—particularly the employers—have a responsibility to the workforce and the wider industry. The cabinet secretary has spoken about the competitive advantages that Scotland has, among which are the people who work in the sector and the skills that they have.

I welcome the invitation that has been extended to the Unite trade union, which reflects the Labour amendment to the motion that was debated on 5 February. I welcome the fact that Unite will have the opportunity to sit on the task force. It is vital that the task force also interacts with the likes of PACE, SDI and SDS. I suggest that the task force could interact similarly with the forthcoming apprenticeships summit and other Government initiatives to improve employment in the area.

I have a couple of questions for the cabinet secretary. He has given us some detail about the task force meetings, but can he clarify that further? He says that the task force will meet regularly, but when will it meet, when will its first meeting be held and how many meetings does he envisage will take place over the next year? Given the fact that the task force is an initiative that came from Parliament, has the cabinet secretary considered how it will report to Parliament? Members would appreciate the opportunity to consider its work and to contribute to it.

We look forward to the establishment of the task force and to its making a difference for the people who work in the financial services sector in Scotland.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I thank Mr Park for his constructive remarks. I assure him that it is our intention—it was in the spirit of my statement—to ensure that we draw together all aspects of relevant Government activity in the work of the task force. His point about the apprenticeships summit is well made and I will ensure that that is taken forward.

He is also correct to say that, although times are tough and there are many distressing headlines about the industry, there remains in Scotland a significant volume of expertise as well as high-quality employment and talented individuals in the sector. We must retain those if we are to retain our competitive advantage in the years to come.

On the regularity of meetings, I envisage that the task force will, more than likely, meet on a monthly basis. Obviously, if there were an acute announcement about employment loss, I would expect the task force to meet more frequently than that and to be responsive to the conditions and circumstances that we faced. I hope that that is not required, but if it is we will ensure that those meetings take place. The task force will hold its first meeting in the next few weeks. Since the parliamentary debate, there have been preliminary discussions to establish the arrangements, and I expect the first meeting to take place very shortly.

Mr Park said that the task force is a parliamentary initiative and asked how it will interact with the Parliament. I acknowledge that it was the Liberal Democrats who suggested the establishment of the task force in Parliament during our discussions on the budget, and I am happy to consider how the task force should interact with the Parliament. The appropriate route for that might be through the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, of which Iain Smith is the convener; however, there may be other forums. Ministers will be happy to appear before Parliament in any circumstances to do that. I expect that the task force will be chaired by a Scottish Government official, who will also be available to appear before a committee of the Parliament if required.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement and I welcome the speed with which the Government has reported back to Parliament on the progress that has been made.

The minister mentioned the projected loss of jobs. We have heard some pretty horrendous figures bandied around in relation to that. Does FiSAB or the Scottish Government have a specific projection of the job losses that are likely or, indeed, possible? If so, what is that projection?

The other part of the motion that was passed by Parliament on 5 February stated that each report back by ministers should include details of the number of jobs in the financial sector—both direct and indirect—to enable us to assess the scale of the challenge. When are we likely to see the first official figures from the Government in relation to that part of the motion?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

FiSAB has not made any projections on the loss of employment. We can all read the newspapers and the announcements that have been made. This morning, I had a conversation with Gordon Pell of the Royal Bank of Scotland on the results that RBS has just announced. There has been significant speculation about employment loss within RBS. However, I take considerable comfort from the decision that has been taken by RBS to establish a core retail trading operation as a distinct business entity within the United Kingdom. As a consequence of that decision to separate the core, very profitable retail business of the Royal Bank of Scotland from the more unprofitable, loss-making ventures that have been associated with some of its international transactions—particularly its acquisition of ABN AMRO—the employment loss in the Royal Bank of Scotland that has been speculated about may not materialise in this country to the extent that we might, at first, have feared. Nevertheless, that remains a point of consistent dialogue with RBS and other organisations. Obviously, we are continuing our dialogue with Lloyds TSB following its acquisition of HBOS.

Work is being undertaken on information regarding employment in the financial services industry in Scotland. Some initial material has been presented to me, which I will consider further. When we have more information to provide to Parliament, we will do that expeditiously and will deposit it in the Scottish Parliament information centre.

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

These are significant times for the financial services sector in Scotland and we are pleased that the Government is establishing a task force on financial sector jobs. In addition, this afternoon it will hold the first meeting of the strategic review of the budget process, which is also highly significant. Following the Conservatives, one might say that the next best thing to a Liberal Democrat Government is a Government that does Liberal Democrat things.

Local authorities will, in partnership, play a key role in ensuring the success of the task force. The cabinet secretary will know that the City of Edinburgh Council and other local authorities that cover travel-to-work areas for the financial services sector are already undertaking work that could play a key role, but that needs to be co-ordinated. There was no mention of local authorities in the cabinet secretary's statement. I wonder whether he is able to outline the view of the Government—and, indeed, of FiSAB and the task force—with regard to local authority involvement.

Can the cabinet secretary also provide more detail about the proposed format of the information on the workforce, skills and employability in the financial services sector and the way in which it will be published and reported on? How will that information inform the on-going work of the task force?

Finally, can he provide an assurance that the private sector companies involved with the task force will work with it proactively, so that it is not just a reactive body that responds to the job loss announcements that we fear, but one that can act proactively to make a real difference?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I thank Mr Purvis for his contribution and his warm endorsement of the direction of Government policy, albeit that he had a hand in inspiring it. That should not make it a bad thing, per se; I say that as generously as I can.

On the point about local authority involvement, obviously some parts of the country will have more acute involvement in the financial services sector. Clearly, there will be issues for the City of Edinburgh Council, Midlothian Council, West Lothian Council, East Dunbartonshire Council and Perth and Kinross Council. There are concentrations of local authority involvement, so I will certainly invite local authority participation in the task force's work.

On employment information, we are doing the work that Parliament asked us to do and we will lodge the results in SPICe. Obviously, ministers will be happy to follow up any subsequent inquiries that members raise in that respect.

On Mr Purvis's final point about the work and role of private sector companies, I say to him and Parliament that one of the points that hugely impresses me about FiSAB, an organisation that we inherited from our predecessors, is that a climate has been created whereby private sector companies willingly, positively and enthusiastically contribute to a dialogue with Government about how the sector develops. Clearly, we are in a very different situation from the one that we imagined we would be in—and that we certainly were in when we came to office in May 2007—but there is every evidence of companies being willing to co-operate with, and volunteer information for, FiSAB's work. We have appreciated that since we came to office, and I have every expectation that it will continue in the period ahead.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We come to open questions.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

The cabinet secretary touched on esure's welcome announcement that it will create 500 new jobs in Scotland. In the light of that, and of chairman Peter Wood's praise for our excellent people, superb infrastructure and can-do ethic, what else does the cabinet secretary believe that we can do to make Scotland a more attractive place to do business, in not just the financial sector, but all sectors?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Peter Wood's comments at the esure launch were tremendously reassuring and are an effective counterbalance to some of the information that we have had about the condition of the financial services sector, which has been at the doom-and-gloom end of the spectrum. The Government is very much engaged with FiSAB as to how we can effectively promote the sector. Scottish Development International is using all those arguments and attributes to encourage investment in Scotland by financial services companies and to create the conditions that will allow different employers to see that there is a pool of talented individuals in Scotland. Obviously, the Government is interested in putting Scotland at a competitive advantage and we will seek every opportunity to realise that vision through the Government's agenda in Scotland.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

As the cabinet secretary will know, PACE works best when it gets in early, so what steps is he taking to ensure that it does get involved early with those who declare job losses, even when we know that they will come from certain companies? What steps is he taking, even now, to get in and do that? Much of the investment that he is looking for will naturally come from the public sector, but does he believe that a contribution should come, too, from those who make people redundant? After all, if a chief executive can get a £16 million retirement pot, it is maybe not too much to ask that those on a much lower salary get some financial contribution from the company that makes them redundant.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

On Mr Whitton's first point, the PACE system is structured to ensure that we have an early and active dialogue with companies that may be considering those employment issues. Of course, as I have already shared with Parliament, I had a conversation with RBS this morning and the First Minister has done likewise. We will be in dialogue with companies that may face those employment issues and will ensure that PACE is activated in that respect.

On the second point, about the involvement of companies, there must be a new culture of responsibility within the financial services sector—we all agree on that. Part of that culture is responsibility to the employees, as Mr Park said a moment ago. We will certainly encourage the participation of individual companies in working to support individuals who may face loss of employment and in supporting them to reskill and retrain to ensure that they are equipped for the challenges that lie ahead.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

In addressing the immediate credit-crunch problems, will the minister ensure that FiSAB will also maintain focus on a medium to long-term strategy that will build on Scotland's traditional strengths in the financial industry, with safeguards to ensure that recent mistakes will never be repeated and that best practice and integrity become the hallmark and attitude of Scotland's financial industry?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The characteristics to which Mr Welsh refers have, of course, long been associated with the financial services sector. In a sense, what is regrettable about the situation in which we find ourselves is that literally hundreds of years of wise counsel in the sector have been undermined by a relatively short period of poor judgment. What we must do is ensure that the balance is rectified and that we trade on the strength of several hundred years of expertise, experience and wisdom and learn the lessons from the period of errors. That is very much the Scottish Government's focus in our interaction with FiSAB and is very much the approach that we will take in making representations to the UK Government, which is looking at many of the regulatory issues that are associated with the questions of substance that Mr Welsh raised.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I welcome the minister's indication that the task force will be willing to work with Parliament. I am sure that the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee will welcome an early opportunity to engage with the task force once it is established. Does the minister agree that a key job for the task force will be to ensure that Scotland is the obvious place to locate any new businesses that emerge from the mergers, restructurings and sell-offs that are likely in the financial services sector?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

From his role in the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Mr Smith is obviously familiar with the enormous strength in the existing workforce of Scotland's financial services sector. If there is to be some change, we must ensure that we promote and present Scotland as a strong and competitive business location. We take great heart from the esure announcement, which indicates that there was a review of competitive locations and strengths in the area, and I am delighted that those esure jobs have gone to the city of Glasgow. Obviously, the sentiments that Mr Smith described will be very much at the heart of the agenda that SDI will pursue in trying to attract new investment to Scotland and to encourage anyone who may be rationalising or merging operations to look to Scotland as a credible venue for that operation.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

What communications have there been with the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority on bringing in representatives as observers at FiSAB meetings, as noted in the minutes of the FiSAB board meeting of September 2008?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

We have extended an invitation to the Bank of England and the FSA to participate and we look forward to their doing so. We have had the participation for some time of a representative of Her Majesty's Treasury. I certainly know from a discussion that I had with the Bank of England's representative in Scotland, just on Tuesday, how acute is its interest in the prospects for the Scottish economy. I look forward to encouraging its participation in the work of FiSAB and the task force.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The cabinet secretary is aware that there are 30,000 financial services jobs in Edinburgh and he may be aware that senior officials of the City of Edinburgh Council are already actively involved with partners in retaining jobs and promoting the abundant skills to be found in Edinburgh. How will he ensure that the task force works alongside and co-operates with that important work that is already being carried out?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I gave a response to Mr Purvis on local authority involvement, which is perhaps best crystallised by the City of Edinburgh Council's involvement. Obviously, I will reflect on how best to take forward local authority participation in the task force with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

In all those circumstances, the Government's view on the role and position of local authorities is that councils have a major opportunity to exercise local leadership of economic development. I know that the City of Edinburgh Council is very motivated in protecting employment and expanding Edinburgh's role in the financial services sector. The council will be able to rely on every support of the Scottish Government and its agencies in that task.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Presiding Officer, I apologise for arriving late this morning. Picking up from where the cabinet secretary left off, I endorse Malcolm Chisholm's point that the Government should be guided by what the local authorities in Glasgow and Edinburgh are doing on the ground, rather than try to incorporate them artificially into the task force. The task force could grow far too big. It needs to be focused.

My second point is to pick up on what the cabinet secretary said in his statement about the profile of the financial services industry. He stressed the necessity of understanding

"how our industry is perceived as we take work forward to promote it further."

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Please be brief, Ms MacDonald.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the cabinet secretary expand on where Scottish Development International comes into that? I am interested in what we are doing to promote ourselves outwith Scotland.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I assure Margo MacDonald that I have absolutely no intention of creating a task force that gets in the way of focused and constructive work of the type in which Glasgow City Council and the City of Edinburgh Council are already actively involved. Indeed, I stressed in my statement that the task force has the opportunity to build on the work of existing organisations, including PACE and Scottish Development International. By taking that approach, we will ensure that the task force has a focused work pattern.

On the member's second point, Scottish Development International is actively involved in promoting Scotland in countless markets around the world. As I pointed out to Mr Welsh, the characteristics of the industry that we must promote are those such as reliability, prudence, value and long-term investment. All those have been characteristics of significance for hundreds of years, but they have been damaged by a few years of poor judgment. We need to ensure that Mr Welsh's point about taking a long-term view prevails in our promotion of Scotland abroad.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will allow a final question from Jack McConnell.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I welcome the cabinet secretary's statement and his willingness to consider any measures that might help the financial services industry at this difficult time. First, will he reconsider the support that might be made available for direct flights in and out of Scotland, which was mentioned in FiSAB's first strategy that was agreed by the industry some years ago? Secondly, will he look again at the funding for Scotland's universities and colleges, which will be vital if we are to ensure that we have the talent in Scotland to keep the industry successful in the years to come? Thirdly, will he look again at how we promote Scotland internationally to ensure that we use the tools that are available to us to preserve and, if possible, to enhance the reputation of the industry in these difficult times?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

First, I acknowledge that FiSAB was established during Mr McConnell's period in office as First Minister. We have been pleased to take it forward and I compliment him on the initiative.

On the member's first question, over the past few years the position on direct flights to and from Scotland has improved significantly. The Government is anxious to encourage greater numbers of direct flights and to improve connectivity. We will consider different options and different approaches to the issue, but our aim is essentially to improve direct flights and to improve connectivity to London through high-speed rail links, on which we have active discussions with the United Kingdom Government.

On the question of universities and colleges, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council will be heavily involved in the work of the financial services sector task force. Universities Scotland is already represented on the task force. In the work that is being taken forward by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and me, we need all our agencies—including the Scottish funding council, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise—to be focused on ensuring that we provide the skills and support that are relevant to the circumstances that we face. That issue will dominate our discussions with the Scottish funding council in relation to the financial services sector.

On Mr McConnell's final question, I very much agree with his point about how we promote Scotland. As I said to Mr Welsh and Margo MacDonald, our financial services sector has hundreds of years of credibility, experience and expertise. We cannot allow that to be lost because of a few years in which errors have been made. The Government is determined to ensure that that does not happen. That will form an integral part of how we promote the industry abroad.

Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3128, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

It is with great pleasure that I open today's debate. I begin by paying tribute to my colleague Jackie Baillie, whose unstinting commitment to this cause has brought us to this stage. She has ensured that Parliament takes the needs of disabled people seriously. Members of all parties will no doubt want to echo those thanks in sending Jackie Baillie our best wishes at this difficult time for her and her family.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I take this opportunity to echo that support for Jackie Baillie at this difficult time. I hope that there is the best possible outcome to the circumstances in which she finds herself.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I thank the minister for that.

Scotland has more than 230,000 blue badge holders, all of whom I imagine have faced difficulty at one time or another in accessing a disabled parking space to carry out day-to-day activities. I make no apologies for using the words of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's Euan Page, who said:

"for the vast majority of disabled people, disability happens during the life process ... we live in a rapidly ageing society in Scotland."

The changes that the Parliament will make through the bill

"are of profound importance to everybody ... and their families."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 2 September 2008; c 1069.]

During the stage 1 debate, David McLetchie summed up what we can achieve today. He said that the legislation

"will improve quality of life for many disabled people in Scotland."—[Official Report, 26 November 2008; c 12750.]

As others have stated, the bill will bring about that improvement by

"removing a persistent barrier to disabled people's participation in society."

Throughout the passage of the bill, we have learnt many things, not least of which is the priority that we should give to the issue. Enforcing disabled parking places is the number 1 issue that is discussed when disabled people gather, and the issue is top of the list of what disabled people consider are barriers to their getting out and living a life in Scotland in the same way as everyone else. This short member's bill can, and will, have a profound effect on people's lives.

When scrutinising the bill, the Local Government and Communities Committee heard time and again that action is now needed:

"the age of just relying on politeness has ended and the age of enforcement has come."

Members from all parties have indicated that the issue continually appears in their postbags—I certainly agree—and Parliament can rightly congratulate itself on taking the issue forward by putting into law, as I trust will happen later today, a bill that will improve the lot of so many people.

The bill's main policy objective is to prevent disabled parking places from being used by those who are not entitled to use them by providing the means and encouragement to make those places enforceable. The bill will provide the means to make enforceable all disabled street parking places that are required for disabled residents. We need to do that not only to deter those who are not entitled to park in bays reserved for disabled persons from doing so but to impose financial penalties on persistent abusers. Only in that way will a strong message be sent and a fairer society emerge.

I have seen many reports and photographs of abuse. It is clear that disabled persons parking bays are fair game across the board, even for a prominent human rights lawyer—indeed, even a ministerial Mondeo and police Panda cars have been spotted in those parking bays. People clearly deem their needs to be greater and more urgent than those of a disabled person.

As the unanimous support for the bill at stage 1 demonstrated, few would disagree that the aim of the bill is worthy, but some have queried the cost of implementation. I will take a few minutes to set the record straight. Some disquiet was expressed at the figures in the financial memorandum, and I think that it is fair to say that the comments were made in the face of a number of uncosted and unsubstantiated submissions from local authorities.

As requested, Jackie Baillie engaged with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in an attempt to identify the actual costs. The Scottish Parliament information centre undertook research on the private sector and English local authorities. COSLA was extremely helpful, and through SCOTS—the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland—Jackie Baillie endeavoured to obtain the relevant information. Every local authority was surveyed to seek its costing of the component parts of the work that would be required to convert bays. Although few authorities could provide accurate figures, many produced estimates, most of which were based on the cost of converting a single bay. A few authorities did better and produced clear and precise figures.

I make it clear that the earlier costings and all the revised costings that were discussed with COSLA derived directly from information and costings produced by local authorities. The figures in the policy memorandum were provided to Jackie Baillie by Fife Council and West Dunbartonshire Council, but SCOTS advised that the figures were incorrect. Following the SCOTS survey, revised figures were produced, some of which were used to produce new costings. When faced with the figures, SCOTS indicated that the information that Jackie Baillie had selected—which it had supplied—was incorrect. SCOTS supplied further figures, which—as members may already have guessed—it went on to say were incorrect.

What SCOTS did not do at any stage, but what Jackie Baillie did consistently with all the figures that she produced, was to apply a Scotland-wide best-practice and best-value approach. For example, if an authority quotes the cost of line painting at £50 and the private sector quote is as low as £25, it is clear that the maximum cost cannot be anywhere near the average cost of £108 that SCOTS produced. Indeed, 13 authorities claimed that line painting would cost £130, which was—coincidently—the figure in the SCOTS survey.

A similar best-value approach was taken for all the component costs. Again based on figures that the local authorities provided, the unit cost was calculated to be £209. The figure covers the cost of promoting an order, removing existing lines, remarking, and erecting signs. The following example shows the variation in the cost of promoting an order that SCOTS produced, with the figure ranging from £19 in Fife to £1,342 in East Renfrewshire. SCOTS subsequently indicated that the Fife figure was incorrect—perhaps the East Renfrewshire figure also needs further work.

Given that 45 per cent of disabled persons parking bays are appropriately marked, COSLA agreed that only 55 per cent of bays require all such work to be done. Again, based on a best-value approach and using the best figures that the local authorities supplied, Jackie Baillie calculated the unit cost for conversion at £119. The private sector and authorities south of the border have verified the figure as achievable, but SCOTS maintains that the information that it received from the authorities down south that it contacted is incorrect.

Doubt remains over the total number of disabled persons parking bays. We accept that there will be a year-on-year increase on the original 14,000 estimate. The figure was obtained directly from local authorities using freedom of information inquiries, but SCOTS maintains that the information supplied as a result of those inquiries is incorrect.

Less clear is the situation for the number of redundant bays. Again, revised figures were produced, although only a few can be relied on. After they were compared with the figures that resulted from the FOI inquiries—which, under FOI, are required to be accurate—it was estimated that there are perhaps 15,000 bays. Cutting to the bottom line, on a best-value basis, Jackie Baillie calculated the likely cost at around £2.5 million. Allowing for a reasonable margin of error of 20 per cent, we expect the cost to be no more than £3 million, although we expect the figure to reduce further if economies can be made. COSLA has indicated that no additional costs will arise for enforcement.

The SCOTS approach of averaging costs that the local authorities supplied has produced a figure greatly in excess of our calculations. We maintain our position that the SCOTS approach is fundamentally incorrect, given that it takes absolutely no regard of best practice or best value. In addition, we understand that in Northern Ireland all spaces were converted using existing budgets and without the need for additional central funding.

The minister was closely involved in the discussions with COSLA, either directly or through his officials, and we are indebted to him and his officials for their support. If Parliament passes the bill today, it will have agreed a financial resolution that sets out the necessary expenditure, and it will then fall to the minister to agree who gets what.

Concern was expressed at stage 1 that the timetable for implementation would place an excessive burden on local authorities, but the bill is not highly prescriptive. It requires authorities to identify in the first year existing advisory disabled street parking places in their area and start, but not complete, the process. Councils therefore have 12 months to identify existing bays that they themselves have installed. In reality, and if they start promptly once the bill receives royal assent, councils will have 18 months to do that. The timetable also has the positive impact of enabling authorities to spread costs across three financial years. I welcome the commitment that the minister made at stage 2 to take forward a public information campaign to ensure that people are aware of the new legislation.

The bill goes as far as possible to cover private car parks such those at supermarkets, sports facilities and other shopping complexes. In such places, the local authority is required to offer its services to make disabled persons parking bays enforceable but not to enforce the bays itself. Today, Asda celebrates a year of voluntarily enforcing disabled persons parking places, which it did in response to a growing number of complaints from customers and having exhausted its efforts to effect change through information campaigns. Asda says that the new scheme has resulted in a 60 per cent increase in the availability of disabled persons parking places at its stores. Having issued 1,400 penalty notices, Asda has raised £70,000 for charities. The will to make the system work exists in the private sector; it is now up to local authorities to work with it.

I assure members that the bill need not cost local authorities a penny. We believe that we are pushing at an open door and, through negotiations with private owners, the costs of implementation and enforcement should be covered—the example of Asda is there for all to see. As long as the abuse of disabled persons parking places is enforced and abusers are dissuaded, it is largely irrelevant who undertakes the enforcement.

On behalf of Jackie Baillie, I give special thanks to her staff and to Jillian Merchant in particular for their work, including the processing of 17,000 postcards in support of the bill. We thank the staff in the Parliament's non-Executive bills unit and David Cullum in particular for his attention to detail. My personal thanks are due to them for the full briefing that they have given me over the past few days.

As Hugh O'Donnell reminded members in the stage 1 debate, in the main it is society that disables people. I urge all members to follow the minister's example in supporting the bill. We want the Scottish Parliament to be recognised for taking the lead in making it clear that attitudes must change. Success for the bill will be measured not in the number of penalties that are imposed but in increased access for those in need. By passing the bill, the Parliament will remove

"a persistent barrier to disabled people's participation in society".

The ultimate goal is no abuse. I say to those who take a disabled person's parking place that, if they want to do that, they must take their disability, too. I have much pleasure in moving the motion in Jackie Baillie's name.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) bill be passed.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Given that virtually no additional time is available in the debate, I ask members to stick strictly to the guidance that is given to them.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I thank Jackie Baillie for introducing the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill. Her member's bill is an important and much-needed piece of legislation. I regret that she cannot be in the chamber to see her bill passed by the Parliament, as I am confident that it will be. A bill that has reached stage 3 with no amendments is a significant indicator of the consensus across the Parliament on the need for it.

Of course, a member's bill does not reach this stage without significant effort on the part of the member and their staff. In her remarks, Karen Gillon gave proper recognition to the work that Jackie Baillie and her staff have undertaken.

We welcome the bill because, like Ms Baillie, we take the abuse of disabled parking bays extremely seriously. The Government shares Ms Baillie's commitment to helping disabled people throughout Scotland have access to parking, which should in turn improve the quality of their lives.

Some of my colleagues have stated in earlier debates on the bill that legislation is not always the answer. I agree, but unfortunately we have reached a stage at which the evidence suggests that we will provide a real deterrent only by moving from the use of advisory disabled parking places to ensuring that the appropriate parking places are enforceable. We hope that the bill will bring to an end the abuse of disabled parking spaces and will result in the general public seeing it as socially unacceptable to misuse those spaces.

At a time when changes in the social structure mean that people with disabilities are viewed as no different from anyone else in having to adapt to a more independent lifestyle, we want a system to be implemented that is fair and understood by all. Change will not happen overnight, as local authorities require to do quite a lot of work to implement the bill, but I expect that coverage of today's debate and of previous debates will raise awareness of the abuse of disabled parking places and may help to deter some of the thoughtless drivers who exploit the current lack of enforcement.

The bill covers on-street and off-street parking and requires local authorities to contact private car park owners with a view to their making arrangements for the provision of enforceable disabled parking places in their car parks. We very much welcome the work that Asda has done, which Ms Gillon mentioned. I am sure that the charities concerned will welcome the £70,000 that has been raised to serve their aims, although we hope that that figure will diminish because the higher it is the more abuse is taking place.

The bill will require local authorities to prepare annual reports on their performance in relation to their functions on parking places for disabled persons' vehicles. The reports will include details of the action that local authorities have taken in fulfilling their duties under the bill, and I will ask my officials to consult local authorities on the drafting of guidance on the completion of annual reports. The adoption of a consistent approach will assist my officials in drawing up the Government's annual report, which is another requirement of the bill.

As we said in the stage 1 debate, the Government's position has always been one of support for the bill on the understanding that implementation costs are required that are more robust than the estimates in Jackie Baillie's financial memorandum. During that debate, I informed Parliament that my officials would facilitate meetings between Jackie Baillie and COSLA. Those meetings have taken place over the past few months, and I have attended several of them. My intention in doing so was to enforce the view that is shared by the Government and the member in charge of the bill that it is important for local authorities to engage seriously and robustly in the process of working out the costs involved.

It is obvious that a large amount of work was required to obtain a robust figure. As has been expressed several times, there is a lack of raw data to provide an instant figure. On previous occasions, Ms Baillie has mentioned that there are varying costs for the different elements of the work that is required to turn an advisory disabled parking place into an enforceable space as set out in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.

Jackie Baillie agreed that her figure of £1.7 million was somewhat historical, and we have heard from Karen Gillon that the true figure is likely to be nearer £3 million. The local authorities still consider that to be on the low side and feel that, once geographic and regional variations are taken into account, the figure is more likely to be around £6 million. I am sure that Ms Gillon and Ms Baillie will agree that further work needs to be done to obtain an accurate figure for the number of spaces involved, including the number that will have to be removed. I am confident that further savings will be made through careful planning of the one-off national implementation programme.

To that effect, in the aftermath of today's debate and this evening's vote, in which I expect the bill to be passed, I will instruct my officials to continue to liaise with local authorities. They will ask the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland to address the issue of how to take account of economies of scale and best value as the implementation programme is progressed.

At stage 1, Parliament not only supported the general principles of the bill but agreed to the financial resolution that my colleague Mr Swinney laid. Given that that happened in the context of the numbers that were incorporated in Ms Baillie's financial memorandum, I would not expect the funding that the Government will make available in due course to depart radically from the numbers that the bill's sponsor has put forward, but I will not name a particular figure until further work has been done.

One of the first duties that the bill places on local authorities is to carry out an audit of all the advisory disabled parking places in their areas. The uncertainty that we have heard about justifies that action—indeed, it justifies the passing of the bill—and the bill gives local authorities a year to carry out the audit. Once it has been completed, we will have a better idea of the number of spaces that require to be made enforceable.

Some suggestion has been made that the bill does not go far enough in that it does not tackle the abuse of the blue badge scheme by amending the blue badge regulations. The tight scope of the bill would not allow it to cover such matters, but members will be aware that the Department for Transport recently reviewed the blue badge scheme in England. That review will result in the making of changes over the next five years that will radically improve the scheme and provide a better service for severely disabled people. I can reassure members that my officials are working closely with colleagues in the DFT and that, with colleagues from the National Assembly for Wales and other key stakeholders, they will take part in a steering committee that the DFT has set up.

I know that the sponsoring of the bill has taken Ms Baillie on a long and sometimes interesting journey, on which she has travelled to places that she probably did not imagine that she would reach. I believe that she will think that it was worth the effort and that the bill will get not just the Government's backing but the full support of Parliament in this evening's vote. That vote should bring an end to the beginning of the process, but a lot of work has still to be done. I ask members to inform their constituents that changes will come, but not overnight. I commend the motion to Parliament.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I state for the record that Labour fully supports Jackie Baillie's Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill and that we are grateful for the co-operation that Jackie Baillie has received from the minister and his civil servants. We are delighted that the bill has secured overwhelming support from all sides, which means that it will be passed this evening.

The process of bringing a member's bill to fruition—which not many members have achieved—is arduous and requires a great deal of work by the member in charge of the bill and their staff, so it is entirely appropriate, as Karen Gillon did, to congratulate Jackie Baillie and her staff on their achievement. It is also appropriate to thank the non-Executive bills unit, the committee clerks and the many others who have helped during the passage of the bill.

The key people whom we must acknowledge are the disability groups and the individuals with disabilities who have campaigned over the years for something to be done about the difficulties that they and their families have faced in using disabled persons parking bays. They identified a series of problems that they had experienced at first hand: misuse of advisory parking bays outside residential property by people who have no right to use them; the lack of disabled persons bays in many locations, including shopping centres and workplaces; the unsuitability of the size of some bays for people who need equipment such as wheelchairs to allow them to get about; and the lack of enforcement, even in circumstances in which bays are statutory rather than advisory.

Jackie Baillie was able to marshal the information that was provided by groups and individuals, based on their direct experience, into an overwhelming case for change, which she was able to set out not just in the thorough consultation exercise before the bill was launched, but in her contributions at the various stages of its passage. Because the blue badge scheme and traffic regulation are reserved matters, the bill has had to focus on placing duties on local authorities rather than on the police, but the outcome is a package of measures that should make a significant difference in supporting the mobility of people with disabilities.

As a result of a successful postcard campaign—17,000 replies was not just a huge amount of work for Jackie Baillie's staff, but a significant achievement in carrying the campaign forward—every MSP has been made aware of the issues that are addressed by the bill, and of the strong support for it by their disabled constituents in particular. The number of postcards that I received may have been influenced by the facts that I represent the neighbouring constituency to Jackie Baillie's, and that there was considerable local publicity for her efforts, although the responses came from all over Scotland. Many colleagues in different parts of Scotland were contacted by constituents, who were keen to emphasise that the problems that the bill addresses require to be tackled and that thousands of disabled people throughout Scotland will be helped once the bill is passed.

At stage 1, David McLetchie said:

"If common courtesy, respect and sensitivity to people's needs were more prevalent in society we would not need laws to enforce disabled parking bays or spaces, and social norms and peer pressure would combine to ensure that disabled parking facilities were not abused."—[Official Report, 26 November 2008; c 12748.]

Regrettably, moral pressure to be a good citizen has not worked as well as it should, and we need to take steps on behalf of disabled people to ensure that their rights as citizens—the right of access to shops and workplaces and the right to conveniently drive to and from their own homes without undue inconvenience—are protected.

There are concerns about costs, which, as a former convener of the Finance Committee, I am clear should never be forgotten about. It is of concern that there was so much variation in the estimated costs. Although we have more information now than was available at stage 1, the range of estimates is still uncomfortably wide. We have already heard from Karen Gillon and the minister, as well as from local government, on that subject. I hope that the range of cost estimates will be significantly reduced as the provisions of the bill are implemented.

I am reminded, however, of a comment that was made to me by one of my constituents, Jackie Maciera. Jackie has been a wheelchair user for most of his life, but his determination to live a normal life despite his disability is deeply impressive. He said that dealing with his disability is partly a matter of overcoming the physical limitations with which he has to contend, but that it is also a matter of dealing with the behaviour of other people when they thoughtlessly, or sometimes deliberately, make things more difficult for him as a disabled person. He has learned to live with his disability and accepts that it is permanent, but it disappoints him when people make it more difficult for him to overcome the consequences of his disability, when it would be just as easy for them to be considerate.

A non-disabled person using a marked parking space outside the home of a disabled person, or the failure to provide for disabled people to go to the shops, the cinema or any other public facility by making enforced spaces available, is something that we need to address in order for us to be sure that we are being fully inclusive. People like Jackie Maciera have overcome many of the barriers that are consequent on their disability, but we in Parliament can help him and people like him by approving the legislation.

Ultimately, the test of the legislation will be whether we do the right thing by some of the most vulnerable people in society—whether we do something that will improve their lives and assist them in making their individual contributions in whatever spheres they choose. Restrictions on mobility exist because of the abuses that were referred to in the consultation and evidence to the committee, but those abuses can be reduced by more effective enforcement and a more responsible approach by non-disabled drivers and local authorities. There is a need for the legislation to secure those improvements. On that basis, Labour supports the bill and looks forward to its being passed at decision time.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

As I said at stage 1, it is a poor reflection on our society that legislation to deal with the problem of the abuse of parking bays should be considered necessary at all. Common courtesy and good manners should apply so that we treat people with disabilities with respect and consideration, and so that parking spaces that are designated for their exclusive use are not abused by the rest of us. Sadly, that is not the case, and the evidence that was presented to Parliament justifies legislative intervention. We have to conclude that if people will not behave in a considerate manner, the state—Parliament—has no option but to intervene to ensure that all our citizens are fairly treated and are not victims of the selfish or thoughtless behaviour of others.

That is why, like other members, I congratulate Jackie Baillie on championing this particular cause and on seeing the bill through to its final stage, at which it will have the support of Conservative members. As many members have noted, a lot of time and effort goes into a member's bill, so I commend Jackie Baillie and her team on their persistence and dedication in bringing the bill to this stage. I will, however, spare her further blushes, because a Conservative heaping praise on a Labour member is not the sort of testimonial that is highly sought after in her party.

There is one aspect of the bill of which I remain critical and that is its financial implications, which have already been discussed by members today. Members will recall the wide variation in the estimates of the costs that will fall on councils as a result of the measure. At one stage, the level of detailed scrutiny got down to the cost and colour of the paint that would be necessary to designate an enforceable parking bay. Ms Baillie and then the financial memorandum estimated that the cost throughout Scotland would be £1.7 million. That was based on estimates that Ms Baillie obtained from Fife and West Dunbartonshire councils. However, other councils, particularly Edinburgh and Glasgow, said that it would cost that much to do their cities alone, never mind the rest of the country. Highland Council seemed to think that it would take 12 person years of staff time to deal with the estimated 300 advisory bays in its area. That does not strike me as the greatest advertisement for the productivity of Labour in the Highland Council area, but there it is.

More seriously, however, those disparities were supposed to be resolved in discussions between the member in charge of the bill—Jackie Baillie—the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in the period since Parliament approved the bill at stage 1. Unfortunately, as far as I am concerned—I am not much more enlightened following the speeches so far—we are not a great deal further forward in that regard.

Those discussions took place against the backcloth of the minister's statement to the Local Government and Communities Committee that the Scottish Government did not intend to make a commitment to put financial resources into the start-up costs. Further, as the minister reminded us, he said in the stage 1 debate that it was up to Jackie Baillie to negotiate with COSLA on the financial impact. It may be up to Jackie Baillie, as the member in charge of the bill, to ascertain further information for the enlightenment of members at later stages of the bill's parliamentary progress—we heard from Karen Gillon about the considerable efforts that were made to find further information—but it is not up to Jackie Baillie to fund the bill's cost. That is the responsibility of the individual councils on which those duties are being placed, and of the Scottish Government as the major provider of finance to our councils. As Des McNulty correctly said, the range of estimates of the cost of implementation of the bill remains "uncomfortably wide".

In that context, I note that the historic concordat recognises that in some instances—whether through the development of policy initiatives or for other reasons—there may be exceptional funding pressures that local authorities are unable to meet. In the honeyed obfuscations of the concordat, such difficulties are supposed to be "addressed jointly" as part of a "developing mature relationship" and so on and so forth. However, beneath all the blandness, the reality is that Parliament is placing further obligations on our councils, and those obligations have financial implications. Over the past nine years, when there have been rising levels of grants to councils in real terms, such obligations would have been much easier to absorb. However, they arise now against a backcloth in which funding for councils is likely to fall in real terms or may, at best, plateau. The implementation of the bill will not be pain-free, but that is not a reason to reject the bill. Equity may demand that it be part of the matrix of obligations that our councils have to meet, but we should recognise that there is a cost.

Some years ago, I went with a parliamentary delegation to the United States, where we discussed relationships between Governments, states and municipalities. A key issue was unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate arises when the federal Government passes a law that has financial implications for the states but fails to provide the additional federal funding to the states so that they can meet the costs of implementation. That situation is analogous to our situation with our councils. On a point of principle, we have to be very chary of situations in which we will a particular end but do not provide the means of implementing it. Over the next few years, we will have to be careful about not placing additional burdens on our councils.

I will end on a positive, rather than gloomy, note: I reiterate our support for the bill. I regret that legislation is necessary, and I regret that uncertainties remain over the cost, but I very much welcome the contribution that the bill will make to building an inclusive Scotland by improving the quality of life for people with disabilities.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

I am pleased to open on behalf of the Liberal Democrat group in support of the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill. As a member of the Local Government and Communities committee, I have had the opportunity to look at the bill in detail over the past 20 months or so.

All our thoughts are with Jackie Baillie and her family at this most difficult of times. The Liberal Democrats congratulate her on bringing the bill forward, and we strongly agree with the principle behind it. The hard work that Ms Baillie and her staff have put in to bring the bill to fruition during this session of Parliament has been significant, as has been widely acknowledged throughout the chamber.

However, we have some concerns about the wildly varying estimates of the cost and administrative burden of the bill in terms both of on-street and off-street disabled persons parking bays. Others have expressed the same concern. The administrative burden on local authorities will prove to be significant, especially in the first year. All local authorities will be required to contact owners of private car parks, including supermarkets and out-of-town retail centres, to negotiate agreements to enable local authorities to promote orders that will make parking places for disabled persons enforceable. It is not clear from the evidence that was taken at committee whether that contact would simply be a couple of letters to each private company, or whether it would be a series of letters, visits and discussions.

Each local authority will be required to identify within its area every advisory off-street disabled persons parking space that exists on the date on which the provisions of the act come into force. Where such spaces are provided directly by the local authority, or are in car parks that are managed or provided for the local authority by a third party, the local authority will be required to begin the designation order process within 12 months of the act's coming into force. Given the large administrative burden, that seems to be a very ambitious deadline indeed. Urban and rural local authorities that gave evidence to the committee expressed concerns about the requirement.

Each local authority will also be required, within three months of planning permission being granted, to begin the designation order process for any disabled persons parking places that are to be created in new developments in its area. Where local authorities have failed to secure agreement to pursue designation orders for new and existing off-street parking places they must, at least every two years, make another attempt to secure agreement to create enforceable parking places for those sites. Although the administrative burden would be most significant in the first year of the act's coming into force, the on-going burden will not exactly be insignificant, either.

Another concern is about costs. It is estimated that the total national cost of implementing designation orders for all existing advisory on-street parking places is £1.75 million. That figure was based on an estimate of 14,000 advisory parking places with an average cost of £125. The Finance Committee concluded that the overall estimate of £1.75 million for promoting and implementing orders across Scotland is subject to significant doubt, which has been expressed this morning.

Glasgow City Council's written evidence indicated that it is

"extremely concerned at the substantial additional costs to the Council of setting up and enforcing the new arrangements envisaged by the Bill".

It estimates that there would be more than £2 million in set-up costs alone in the first year.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I understand Jim Tolson's concern about costs, but will he explain why his local authority—Fife Council—estimates that an enforced bay will cost £19, while East Renfrewshire Council estimates that it will cost £1,342? The member has experience of local authorities. Does he not feel that the gap seems to be wide and unreasonable?

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

I certainly agree with Karen Gillon that the gap is wide. I cannot speak for Fife Council, or for any other local authority, on how the figures have been arrived at, but the wide gap in estimates causes us all concern. We have to be concerned about taxpayers' money.

West Lothian Council said in its written evidence that the financial memorandum significantly underestimates the bill's cost implications for local authorities. It estimated that converting its 700 existing advisory places to enforceable ones would cost around £350,000. That is a unit cost of £500 for each place—not the £125 that I mentioned earlier. The council feels that such costs could not be met from within its existing resources.

On a more positive note, good practice was highlighted by Asda. For the past year, it has engaged private monitoring of its car parks and fines offenders £60 for misusing disabled persons parking spaces. Cynics may say that that is a money-making ploy by Asda, but according to David Paterson, its Scottish corporate affairs manager, Asda's policy has resulted in a 60 per cent increase in the availability of disabled persons parking spaces at its stores. After covering the running costs of its scheme, Asda has donated £70,000 to two United Kingdom charities. That is a good example—one that I hope other organisations will follow.

Although the Scottish Government has indicated that it will contribute to a public information campaign on the change in legislation, it must also clarify whether it will assist in funding the bill's implementation costs and, if so, to what extent. I will be grateful if the minister can give some reassurances that he will not leave local authorities in the lurch over either the cost or the administrative burden.

Despite some concerns, the Liberal Democrats look forward to successful implementation of the bill, which will make such a difference to the lives of nearly a quarter of a million Scots.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

After the opening speeches, we now move to the debate. Speakers will be allowed a very tight six minutes.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I add my congratulations to those that have already been offered to Jackie Baillie. Her hard work and determination have brought the bill to this point. I regret that she is, for understandable reasons, unable to be here to lead today's debate.

As we have heard, the bill is relatively small, but will make a significant difference to the lives of people with disabilities. Of course, the bill should not be necessary. Most people respect bays that are clearly marked as being intended for citizens with disabilities, but the actions of a small minority of drivers who, often wilfully, disregard such bays have meant that the time has come when protection in law is necessary.

I am sure that all members have been visited by constituents who have shared their experiences of these issues. A constituent of mine is often afraid to leave home, because he knows that a neighbour will park in the disabled bay if it is left empty. Another constituent challenged another driver at a supermarket, only to be told, "It's raining, so first come, first served." Such constituents are the people who need the protection that the bill will undoubtedly provide.

This debate is not really about disability; it is about the prevention of an abuse. In the stage 1 debate, I raised the issue of the size of parking bays, which is of real concern because many disabled people must transfer to a wheelchair when they leave their cars and so need that little bit of extra space to transfer safely. That is one reason why bays for disabled people need to be protected. A system that makes bays enforceable will help to ensure that the spaces are of adequate size and are located appropriately.

As we know, the bill will require local authorities to pursue the owners of private car parks and attempt to reach agreement with them about providing bays for disabled people. In case any private operator should think that that will present them with a major problem, let me outline the experience of one company: Asda, as we have heard, has had a scheme up and running for over a year now. The store in my constituency, like other Asda stores, has the system of enforcement in place. The manager at Asda in Maryhill tells me that, for the first few months, they had to spend extra time and effort explaining that the bays were designated and why, However, they now find that the scheme enforces itself. Many shoppers have complimented the store on its approach, and it has not yet had to enforce the bays with fines. Car park operators should follow Asda's approach and be proactive, rather than wait for their local authority to get in touch. That might even win them more customers.

At stage 1, I also mentioned the consultation exercise that I conducted with the disability forum in my constituency. It has since had a name change, but it continues to do excellent work in the north of Glasgow. I am indebted to the forum for the insight that it has given me on this and many other subjects. It pointed out that it was one thing for us to pass legislation, but it asked how people were to find out about what it means for them. As the minister knows, I raised the idea of an awareness-raising campaign by means of an amendment at stage 2. I was happy to withdraw the amendment, given the minister's assurance that a communication plan would be drawn up, so I would be grateful if, in closing, he would tell us what the Government is planning in that respect. I am sure he agrees that, as my local Asda store has shown, good information is key to making the legislation work.

Also in the stage 1 debate, my colleague Mary Mulligan made the point that Parliament has as one of its central purposes the power and, indeed, the duty to legislate, although it is fair to say that we have been slightly legislation light in the past two years. One of Parliament's strengths is that members have the opportunity to introduce legislation that directly reflects their constituents' problems and experiences. The bill had its genesis in the experiences of Jackie Baillie's constituents in Dumbarton, but it will offer protection to citizens throughout Scotland—to other members' constituents and mine. For that, we owe Jackie Baillie and her staff our support for the bill, along with our thanks for it and for all the hard work that was involved. As David McLetchie correctly said, the bill will help to make Scotland a more inclusive country, which is surely one of Parliament's aims.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

It is a pity that Jackie Baillie cannot be with us today, when all her hard work and that of her team will, we hope, come to fruition. I send my best wishes to Jackie and her family.

My part in the passage of the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill has been both formal and personal. I will return to the personal aspect a little later. My formal role was as a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, which was the lead committee for the bill—we have already heard from other members of the committee today—and as a speaker in the stage 1 debate. We hope that the bill will be passed into law following today's stage 3 debate.

Both in the Local Government and Communities Committee—which is known for robust exchanges at times—and in the debates in the chamber, we saw Parliament at its best, in our coming together across party divisions and providing effective and positive scrutiny. That is something that the new Parliament was established to do when it was reconvened in 1999, and I believe that today's passage of the bill into law is a part of achieving that. Looking back at the Official Report of stage 1, I am struck again by the amount of consensus on the issue.

At stage 1, I discussed the proposed fines for abusing bays and spoke of the light-touch rather than soft-touch enforcement by Asda stores and, hence, the 93 per cent approval rating from its customers. I wholeheartedly agree with Patricia Ferguson's comments on the Asda store in Maryhill. I, too, have visited that store—a remarkable job has been done there.

At stage 1, I also spoke of the need for routine enforcement in high streets throughout Scotland to ensure that there is equal access for people with special mobility needs. The aim of the enforcement measures in the bill is not just to levy fines but to achieve equality. Fines are needed as a tool, but let us not forget that the principle is not about charging motorists but about changing attitudes to achieve equality. The charge is merely a tool to be used to that end.

I said that I wanted to touch on a personal aspect in relation to the bill. My father is a blue badge holder and in the past couple of years his mobility has gone from bad to worse, quite frankly. Although he used to get out quite often using the blue badge, he now gets out maybe once or twice a month. His experience is that, if he cannot find a space when he goes to a store to go about his personal business, he has to park further away. He can use his walking stick to get into the store and spend five or 10 minutes there before returning to his car and his house, but people do not see the invisible side of such mobility issues. When someone sees a blue-badge holder going about their business, they might question whether that person needs a blue badge, but they do not see the person in pain the next day, and perhaps in bed, because they have pushed themselves to do more than they are physically capable of doing. If the bill is passed today, my father and others like him will benefit.

Let us hope that the bill will change attitudes and banish ignorance. I consistently hear about cases—we have heard examples today—in which someone has used a disabled persons parking bay when they have just popped into the shop for a pint of milk or a newspaper, or are visiting a neighbour for a short while. At the same time, it could be my father or someone like him who is popping in for a pint of milk, to pay a bill, or to visit a relative. Blue badge holders do not want to be prisoners in their houses, but having a Motability car and the blue-badge scheme could make them prisoners in their cars if they cannot get out. We must take that on board. I hope that, as well as the publicity campaign to ensure that people are aware of the new law, there will be a public information campaign to tackle ignorance of the mobility needs of blue badge holders and the unseen side of their disability.

Other members have spoken about the costs. I will not go into that in great detail as I mentioned it at stage 1, but I hope that the absurdity of some local authorities' costings will focus their minds and encourage them to give us some real figures. There are serious concerns that some local authorities have inflated the costs to avoid a statutory obligation to enforce bays. If that is the case, they should be ashamed of themselves. The Equality and Human Rights Commission said:

"there should be no additional administrative burdens on local authorities as a result of the Bill, because this should be part of their ongoing work under the Disability Equality Duty."

It is clear that that has not always been understood. It is time for local authorities to step up to the plate.

I finish by quoting the comments that I made at the beginning of my speech in the stage 1 debate, because they sum up how I feel about the bill.

"For me, the bill is about ensuring that everyone in Scottish society is treated with the same respect and dignity, no matter who they are. If a person found it more difficult to access or leave their home, to use local facilities, to visit local shops or to go and see their friends simply because of the colour of their skin, their sex or their religion, the Parliament would rightly be outraged. We should not stand for it."—[Official Report, 26 November 2008; c 12764.]

If the bill is passed today, we will ensure that people with special mobility needs are treated in the same way as others.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, having spoken in support of its general principles at stage 1. I congratulate Jackie Baillie on her diligence in developing the bill. Today should have been her day. It has turned out to be quite a different day for her, and our thoughts are with her.

Credit is also due to the parliamentary committees that scrutinised the bill, and to the Scottish Government for endorsing its general principles and—I hope and expect—agreeing to resource a public information campaign in the run-up to its implementation. The Scottish Government is right to recognise that the issue is not party political and that the improved quality of life that the bill will bring to families who cope with disabilities is strongly supported throughout the Parliament.

In the stage 1 debate, I said that, whatever the number of complaints local authorities receive about the abuse of existing advisory disabled parking bays, in my experience, such antisocial behaviour—to give it its proper name—can drive affected families to distraction. In that debate, I gave an example that bears repetition today of a constituent of mine with two disabled children whose neighbours park in her bay. It is time that the law of Scotland put an end to such rotten behaviour.

Within 18 months to two years of the bill's enactment, it is possible that such abuse will be extremely rare and will not go unpunished. Much of the focus in the debate has been on on-street parking in a residential context, but the bill's coverage of off-street parking has been welcomed as well, and not just by MSPs and disabled drivers but, rather gratifyingly, by private sector car park operators. Graeme Taylor of National Car Parks said:

"As an off-street car park operator, we support the bill 100 per cent because it would work in the environment in which we operate."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 1 October 2008; c 1192.]

Some local government officials have expressed concerns that the costs of implementing the bill might have been underestimated. I think that they are doing their job when they express such concerns, but they should see their job through to completion by coming up with some accurate estimates.

That is a tricky area because, although it is possible to benchmark the operational costs of physically signing and lining the new generation of enforceable parking bays, it is more difficult to estimate the emerging administrative costs of dealing with the objections that will be lodged to the traffic regulation orders that councils will use to create the new bays and make existing bays enforceable. Jackie Baillie's latest gross cost estimate is around £3 million. In the stage 1 debate, I suggested that the outturn cost in the first full year of operation, when there will be set-up costs and capital costs, might be as high as £5 million, but I still regard that as money well spent. A pound per head from every Scot to improve the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of disabled Scots—that is what I call best value.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I hope that members will forgive me if, like Bob Doris, I share with the chamber a family anecdote. My mother—who, sadly, died last year—was a keen driver for all her adult life. She was taught to drive by an early boyfriend—so long ago that the driving test had not yet been introduced. Her father drove her to the licensing authority when she reached the age of 17, and she drove the car back on the journey home. Fortunately, there were not many other road users in those days.

As my mother grew older and more physically disabled, the car became a more important part of her life. It kept her mobile, and she was able to fulfil the role of named driver for a group of her contemporaries in their 80s who met regularly for lunch in various local pubs. The car enabled her to go to bridge sessions, to shop and, occasionally, to travel further afield, such as when she made the journey from her home on Tyneside to visit me in Edinburgh.

It gradually became obvious to family members that mother's personal mobility was failing fast and we suggested that she apply for a blue badge. Like many folk of her generation, she was at first reluctant to accept that she required any form of help at all. However, a combination of pressure from her family and her general practitioner, as well as the pressure of circumstances, prevailed and she was accepted into the scheme. That was a godsend because it extended her liberty and sense of independence for several more years.

However, as mother's physical mobility deteriorated still further, another problem arose. By now she needed to park very near indeed to any intended destination, but it was often impossible to find an unoccupied disabled parking place, and many of the spaces that were already occupied contained cars that were driven by folk with no disability whatsoever. On one occasion, as she was parking at the supermarket, a car drew up in the next door space—the only one vacant—and her young next-door neighbour jumped out. "But you aren't disabled," said my mother. "Oh, don't be old fashioned, Marjory," the neighbour said, "It's everyone for themselves these days," and, with that, she strutted into the shop.

My mother's experiences illustrated graphically for me two important issues. The first is the extreme value of enabling someone who is disabled in any way to continue to live life as normally as possible. Had my mum not been able to get out and about as she did, I am sure that she would have become less fit, depressed and a burden on society, rather than being able to contribute to society as she did, and she would not have been able to support her peers. The possession of a blue badge contributed to that enablement.

The second issue is the way in which disabled parking places are regarded by some members of the fit community. I have been tempted myself, when car parking spaces have been in short supply, by that welcoming space by the door of the shop or theatre, and we know that many people do not resist that temptation.

Research that was commissioned by the previous Administration showed that many abusers are in denial about the fact that they are doing something wrong. They invent justifications, such as shortage of time or the fact that they have young children, or they have a temporary physical impairment. Persistent offenders or those who fraudulently use someone else's blue badge need to feel the full weight of the law, but the others I have just mentioned are likely to be deterred if they are brought face to face with reality by the presence of legislation, which will cause them to think twice before breaking the law. That is why I strongly support the bill. Disabled drivers need that protection.

I am aware that many potential supporters have some justifiable reservations. It is true that there is a cost implication, that the law will not apply to private parking areas, and that many local authorities do not even know how many disabled parking bays they have. However, those are obstacles that can and must be overcome. In the greater scheme of things, the cost is not likely to be huge, reluctant private companies can be cajoled or shamed, and a proper audit of disabled parking places is long overdue. The welfare of disabled people is easily worth that effort.

I cannot finish without congratulating Jackie Baillie on her tenacity in progressing the bill. I have a tongue-in-cheek nickname for her, and I am sorry that I am not able to tell her what it is to her face today—with her sense of humour, I am sure that she would have enjoyed hearing it. I call her the smiling assassin because of the charming way in which she smiles sweetly at her opponents, including me, as she skilfully plunges in the political stiletto. She is a most skilful operator—not that Karen Gillon is a novice in that respect. What a pleasure it is to be on the same side as Jackie Baillie for once, and how sad it is that family circumstances prevent her from being present at this most important point in the progress of her bill. I join others in the chamber in wishing her well.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I became convinced of the need for action on disabled persons parking places after a conversation with a constituent of mine, a young woman who is a full-time carer for her elderly mother. She described to me in graphic terms the amount of time, energy, physical effort and planning that was involved in taking her mother on her weekly outing to the local supermarket, and she told me of the anger and frustration that she felt when she was denied a parking space there by an inconsiderate able-bodied person. For someone with an impairment, that is not simply an inconvenience. Only a carer can truly know how difficult and undignified it is to manoeuvre someone into a wheelchair in a standard car-parking space. Even the most mundane but important task, such as going to the shops, the post office, the GP or the hospital, can be a real challenge.

Evidence that was presented to the Local Government and Communities Committee confirmed the scale of the problem. One in five disabled parking bays is used by drivers without a blue badge. More than a third of our car parks have no accessible bays free for disabled people because of the level of abuse. Some 85 per cent of disabled spaces are not enforceable in law. A survey in Dumfries and Galloway found that 50 per cent of bays in hospital car parks were taken by drivers who did not have a disabled badge.

Amidst the gloom, there are notable exceptions, as we have heard. Asda, which gave good evidence to the committee, is leading the way with an enforcement scheme that has increased the availability of disabled parking spaces at its stores by 60 per cent. That evidence gave us an insight into what the bill can achieve. Sadly, others stores have not followed Asda's example. It pains me to say it, but a scant inspection this week of supermarket car parks in my constituency that are not part of the Asda chain—whose inspection officer is in the public gallery today—found many disabled car parking spaces that were occupied by people who were not displaying a blue badge, apparently fearless of challenge. We accept that there will be an implementation stage, as the minister said, but I suggest that, once the bill is passed, stores that do not already reach the Asda mark should not hang around much longer. They should listen to the message and act to achieve what Asda has already achieved.

For too long, disabled people have had to rely on other drivers not to take reserved parking spaces out of courtesy and consideration. The committee heard evidence that, sadly, when disabled people complain to drivers who abuse disabled spaces, the complainers can receive abuse and even threats of violence. Therefore, as has been said today and in evidence to the committee, the age of relying on politeness has ended and the age of enforcement has come. That is welcome and long overdue.

Although the bill will in due course change the quality of life of many Scots, it is worth mentioning that the benefits may be wider than the mobility benefits for disabled people. Evidence to the committee confirmed that people who break rules in one part of their lives are likely to break rules in other illegal ways. Research shows that those who are careless and thoughtless enough to take up disabled parking bays are more likely to have a criminal record, and that 50 per cent of them have a history of traffic violations. One in 10 cars that are found abusing disabled parking spaces is in an illegal condition. The top criminologist Sylvia Chenery of University College London's Jill Dando institute of crime science supports the bill and says that a crackdown on the abuse of disabled parking spaces could nail some of our most wanted criminals. She has reminded us that the Yorkshire ripper was caught because he had a dodgy licence plate. Perhaps the minister can discuss that issue with his colleagues. Enforcement of disabled parking spaces might be an efficient way in which to target active criminals and offenders, as well as illegal vehicles.

Today is a day to celebrate all the efforts of disability campaigners over many years, including those involved in the eye-catching campaigns such as the space invaders and baywatch campaigns. A lot of work has gone on for a long time. My committee colleagues will take pleasure in the passage of the bill. Those campaigners have had their concerns listened to and, more important, acted on. There is no doubt that the change will improve the lives of many Scots. The campaigners are also to be congratulated on recognising that, in Jackie Baillie, they found a politician who shared their concerns and their determination to change things for the better. As has been acknowledged today, she is a politician with all the necessary skills to ensure the safe passage of the bill without amendment, with the support of the Government and, I hope, with the unanimous support of the Parliament. That is a commendation of her work and effort. We are all sad that she is not here to share today's events.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As members have said, in this stage 3 debate, it is important to acknowledge Jackie Baillie's contribution in championing the key principles of her member's bill. Members have already stated—but it is worth reinforcing—that Jackie Baillie and her staff deserve credit for their work on the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill. My role in the proposed legislation has been to examine the proposals as a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, particularly through the evidence-gathering sessions. I have taken an active interest in the bill.

I will touch on the committee's findings in its report on the proposed legislation. It is important that we examine carefully the context and background of the bill and the reasons for its introduction. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the issue knows about the on-going problems with the blue badge scheme and the abuse of disabled parking bays by non-blue badge holders. In essence, the scheme is about assisting disabled people to travel and live their lives independently. It is worth reinforcing the point that I made in the stage 1 debate that it is more than a pity that no in-depth research on the issue has been commissioned by any governmental agency. For far too long, not enough has been done to tackle what amounts to no less than a flagrant abuse of disabled people's rights.

Members have referred to the baywatch campaign, which found that at least one in five disabled parking spaces is abused by non-blue badge drivers. Supermarkets and private car park operators have not been opposed to the bill at any stage of its progress through the Parliament. In fact, as members have said, Asda has led the way by introducing a fine system for those who abuse disabled persons bays. Mr Guy Mason from Asda highlighted the fact that four out of five customers support the system of fines. However, as the Local Government and Communities Committee detailed clearly in its report, there is an on-going debate about advisory versus enforceable disabled persons parking bays, which in turn has followed through into a debate on the costs associated with the proposed legislation. The committee recognises the difficulty that local authorities throughout Scotland face in conducting an audit of existing advisory disabled persons parking bays, but it agrees that a period of a year after the act comes into force is a reasonable timeframe for completion of the exercise.

The evidence-gathering sessions were a more-than-useful exercise in fleshing out important points about the proposed legislation that need to be addressed. Today and in the stage 1 debate, we have had much discussion of the associated costs, particularly in relation to the figures that the Parliament's Finance Committee identified. I reinforce the assertion that I made in the stage 1 debate that we need more clarification of the matter from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities. As I have argued previously, local authority budgets should be prioritised better to take account of established best practice in relation to existing disability discrimination legislation. Bearing in mind that there are 32 local authorities in Scotland, it was not an especially helpful response rate for only 21 of them to respond to the member's consultation.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I declare an interest as a blue badge holder.

What comparison has been made with other European countries as regards compliance with the blue badge legislation? From personal experience, I believe that our compliance is probably greater than that in other countries, such as Portugal, where Jackie Baillie is just now.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I cannot possibly answer Margo MacDonald's question, but I am sure that she can take it up with others.

Although authorities responded on the issue of the costs associated with implementing the bill, there was significant variation in those costs. The Local Government and Communities Committee states clearly in its stage 1 report that the overall estimate of £1.7 million to implement the bill is

"subject to a significant degree of doubt".

The argument made by one local authority seemed to be more about the potential for more funding—in anticipation of a one-off cost—rather than service delivery for disabled people in the community.

As witnesses stated in the evidence-gathering sessions, which have had an impact on the wider debate inside and outside the Parliament, there is significant crossover between the committee's report and the research that has been conducted by other organisations in relation to the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and the disability equality duty on local authorities.

In its submission, Leonard Cheshire Disability noted that, in undertaking their functions, public bodies in Scotland should have due regard to promoting equality of opportunity for disabled persons and other persons. Under the existing legislation, there is a duty on public bodies to encourage participation by disabled persons in public life.

The bill underpins the concept of independent living in a practical sense, not just in the abstract. In getting to the heart of the matter, one has only to examine the Equality and Human Rights Commission's submission, which states that the bill will remove

"a persistent barrier to disabled people's participation in society."

I welcome the bill and support its general principles. When it is enacted, it will make a meaningful contribution to tackling social exclusion for disabled individuals who rely on the blue badge scheme to be active citizens.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member should really conclude now.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Sorry, Presiding Officer. I want to comment finally on the consensual manner in which members of all parties have dealt with the bill, despite some reservations. That highlights the work that we can do together to benefit vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in Scotland.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I am delighted to take part in the debate. On behalf of the many disabled people who will benefit from the bill, I thank Jackie Baillie for introducing it. I share others' sadness that she is not here today to see the bill being passed, given the hard work that she has put in. I am not sure that she would agree with Dr McKee's representation of her. I am confident that Karen Gillon, who is a fellow Lanarkshire politician, would not agree with the suggestion that a stiletto would be among the armoury that we would use on our political opponents—that is an insult! [Laughter.]

As the convener of the cross-party group on disability and the father of a disabled daughter, I know only too well the problems that disabled people experience when they try to find a suitable parking space. Not only do they often have a battle to get a car that suits them in the first place, but they then have to battle to park it—something that so many of us take for granted.

I have yet to meet a person who will admit to using a disabled parking bay to which they are not entitled, but the problem is widespread. As Duncan McNeil and John Wilson said, the baywatch campaign found that one in five disabled parking bays in Britain are used by drivers who do not have a blue badge.

I believe that people who misuse disabled parking bays know that they are doing something wrong but do not want others to think badly of them, which is why they are reluctant to confess to their inconsiderate behaviour. Passing the bill is the right thing to do for its own sake, but if the bill also makes people take note of the impact that their selfishness has on others, and on disabled people in particular, it will be a success in more ways than one.

We have all seen the selfish driver parking in a disabled spot outside the supermarket and jumping out of their car without putting a blue badge in the window. We all know that the space should be used for the benefit of the disabled, who are rightly entitled to park there. As others have said, it is regrettable that we have to legislate to enforce the necessary consideration that everyone else takes for granted.

There are more than 1 million disabled people in Scotland, of whom more than 225,000 are blue badge holders and 96,000 are wheelchair users. Nearly a quarter of the total population of Scotland are disabled and yet they have to fight their way into a parking space when carrying out a daily chore, such as visiting the supermarket.

We know that the blue badge scheme can be abused. However, people who use a blue badge might not be the stereotypical disabled person that we would recognise. I am sure that we have all made a comment or two about the selfish driver who parks in a disabled parking bay, but I urge everyone not to be too quick to judge. We must always be careful to look at the disabled person. I concur with the personal perspective that Bob Doris outlined. I have lost count of the number of disabled people who have told me that they are often glared at if they park in a disabled bay because they can walk unaided.

Equally, the available figures tell us that not all disabled people use the blue badge scheme, but they do not tell us the reasons for that. Some disabled people say that they have not applied for the badge because they do not want to use it to take the space of someone more deserving. My daughter, who drives a Motability adapted car, does not have a blue badge, because she believes that the space that she could use should go to someone more in need. That does not make her any less disabled; it indicates her independent judgment on the issue.

For some disabled people, their car is their lifeline; it is not something that they use as a status symbol, as so many people do. Too often, public transport is not an effective option for disabled people. Leonard Cheshire Disability found that 70 per cent of disabled people state that they cannot rely on public transport. For them, the car is the only way that they can access what we take for granted. The Parliament must continue to address that issue, but, for now, we should support the only bill that promotes the rights of disabled drivers in Scotland. I commend Jackie Baillie, and all the disabled groups that have fought so hard, for making the bill possible.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

My thoughts are with Jackie Baillie and her family at this very sad time. I pay tribute to Jackie Baillie for her tenacity in pursuing the issue of parking bays for disabled people vigorously and I thank the many people from throughout Scotland who came to the Parliament to lobby for action. The passing of the bill today will be a victory for all the people in Scotland who have actively pursued the issue.

Disabled parking has always been close to my heart, having had an aunt who was disabled for many years and an elderly mother who could not get about in her later years. I would have liked the bill to look at the blue badge scheme as a whole and at extending it to deliver a range of other concessions, for example in relation to off-street parking. However, I realise that the scheme is a reserved issue. Perhaps we can look at it again at some other time, if we get the powers to do so. If the scheme was extended to cover off-street parking, it would be much more enforceable. Perhaps the minister will address that point in his summing up.

Parking for disabled people has been the subject of a parliamentary debate and numerous petitions to the Public Petitions Committee, of which I was a member when they were lodged. I remember when the committee met in Dunfermline in the middle of winter. People from disability action groups came all the way from Glasgow and Greenock in their cars to speak to their petition—that is how strongly they felt about the issue.

The subject was also discussed in the previous Equal Opportunities Committee. I see Cathy Peattie here, who was the convener of the committee when the subject was covered in our report "Removing Barriers and Creating Opportunities", which stated:

"The Committee also recommends that the Scottish Executive develop and promote suitable mechanisms for the effective enforcement of proper use of accessible parking for disabled people wherever it exists including encouraging local authorities to make full use of Traffic Regulation Orders."

The bill will confirm that statement. I am pleased to support the bill in its entirety.

Like other members, Karen Gillon mentioned the variation in costs, which go from the extremes of the sublime to the ridiculous. Glasgow's costs seem to be rocketing all the time. We must examine that and ask local authorities what their costs are. The costs that COSLA and local authorities have provided vary so much that it is not possible to say whether they are correct.

As Charlie Gordon said, financial costs should not take precedence over the human costs to people with disabilities. We cannot consider simply finance; we must look at the issue in the round and consider the human rights of disabled people. Financial costs are secondary to enabling people to live active lives.

What are the costs of being unable to park? Let us consider what we can do. Blue badge holders or members of other disability schemes who cannot park cannot, unlike us, get about and perform daily tasks such as going to the doctor, going shopping or attending appointments. They cannot get about socially to go to the theatre or the cinema, and they cannot participate in all the activities that we take for granted, because of the actions of selfish people. As David McLetchie said, if people will not behave considerately, we must, unfortunately, have enforceable legislation. It is unfortunate that, in this day and age, people do not treat others with humility and in the same manner in which they expect others to treat them.

I welcome the bill, which will be passed with the Parliament's full support. It will go some way towards ensuring that we strive to achieve a fully inclusive Scotland.

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

As the husband of a disabled person, I am pleased to participate in the debate. I am sure that Jackie Baillie and her family are in all our thoughts.

Karen Gillon said that the age of relying on politeness was over, which is a theme of the debate. I thank her for her full explanation and for her contribution to the debate. Other members have commented on the style of the debate: Bob Doris's speech caught the tone of it. Ten years on, if anyone asks us what the point of the Scottish Parliament is, we have the answer in today's debate, which reaches out to people who are in need.

The minister Stewart Stevenson and David McLetchie referred to costs, on which we have gone back and forth. However, the point is that the bill is a step in what we are united in saying is the right direction.

I compliment Patricia Ferguson on a very good speech. Like my colleague Jim Tolson, she referred to the Asda experience. As other members have said, the fact that Asda is making contributions to charity shows us what can be done. The onus is on other supermarkets, to which I shall refer in a minute or two, to follow that example.

Members have not touched on parking at hospitals. I have had lengthy discussions with people at Caithness general hospital in Wick, which is in my constituency, about parking, which is a big problem for the hospital. The parking spaces for disabled people are clearly marked and signposted, yet many other visitors use them, despite being urged not to. Hospital staff receive many complaints about that. An example of the impact is that the hospital has a disabled member of staff who often cannot find a space and must park her car on the lawn beside the hospital.

The hospital is making an effort to deal with the situation. For instance, it tried putting stickers on the windows of cars that were not entitled to be parked in disabled spaces, but people complained that the stickers would not come off the cars, so the hospital stopped that practice. Wee tickets that say, "These spaces are for disabled people. Please park at the back of the building," are now put under windscreen wipers. Staff have been told to keep an eye on the situation, but there is only so much that they can do. Is it right that their time should be diverted to such operations when they should be focusing on their main role—the delivery of health services to my constituents? Staff have told me that the bill will alleviate many struggles for them and for disabled people at the hospital, which is welcome.

I will give my experience from my area of Tain. I am the husband of a disabled person. Like Duncan McNeil and Michael McMahon, I have known the irritation of finding that all the disabled spaces are taken. What do we do? We have to park somewhere that is further away. Okay, that is fair enough, but if it is snowing or sleeting it is not funny for the disabled person. We choose our space carefully, because it must be wide enough—the width of spaces has been mentioned. We have all experienced coming back to our car with our messages to find that somebody has parked about a foot away from the passenger side of our car, which is no good, so the car must be reversed out before the passenger can enter. That is all extremely undignified for the person concerned.

Members all know what an angry Jamie Stone looks like. I have seen myself stalking up and down the disabled bays at Raigmore hospital noting that some of the cars displayed no blue badge. That is the case almost every time I am at Caithness general hospital and Raigmore hospital.

I will name check a man who will welcome the bill—Mr Herbie Giles. He is in charge of the car park at Tain Co-op. He told me this week that he will be absolutely delighted when the bill is passed. It is not his job to police the situation and, as we have heard, people can be quite unpleasant in the circumstances.

Stewart Stevenson, the minister, said that change is coming, but not overnight. The point is that change is coming, which is welcome to people such as me and my constituents. I think—in fact, I have no doubt and am perfectly certain—that the bill will be warmly welcomed the length and breadth of my constituency. As an MSP, an individual and a citizen of this country, I will do everything in my power to make the legislation work.

This is a great day for Jackie Baillie and it is an enormous shame that she cannot be with us. She can hold her head up high, because she has done something that will be hugely important to some of the most disadvantaged people in our society, whom we have a responsibility to look after. I warmly support the bill, as does my party.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The debate marks the culmination for Jackie Baillie of a hard-fought campaign, on which I congratulate her. I send her my best wishes. I congratulate Karen Gillon, too, on standing in Jackie Baillie's shoes adeptly in her opening speech.

I support the bill, but I will draw the Parliament's attention to a concern of mine that arose during my career with the Scottish retail motor industry. The issue is not so much the securing of dedicated parking places as the eligibility to use those places.

People who are entitled to use disabled persons parking spaces are registered blue badge drivers, the vast majority of whom benefit from the United Kingdom Motability car purchase scheme. The scheme's history is worth recalling. Most members of a certain age will remember—perhaps with some affection—the old rather lurid turquoise three-wheeled Reliant Robin motor vehicle that was made available to severely disabled people to give them essential mobility by car. As a teenager, I probably smirked at those cars as I drove about but, as an employer in my 20s, I most certainly did not smirk, because I had an employee for whom the car was a lifeline. [Interruption.] That might be my phone. The car gave him an opportunity to participate in the world of work and to engage. I recognised what an important aspect of his life that car became.

However, to be frank, the Robin outlived its usefulness, although its users treasured it to the end. It was determined during the tenure of a Conservative Government that, rather than create a replacement vehicle, a scheme should apply general discounts to and waive VAT on whatever motor vehicles manufacturers wished to make available through the scheme. Initially—and on the basis that those who were awarded and persevered with the Reliant Robin had shown a determined need—demand for the product remained stable. In the early days, most of the cars that we supplied under the scheme were entry-level models—the Ford Escort Popular was the most in demand.

It is crucial to note that a significant number of the vehicles that initially were supplied were adapted to reflect the driver's physical disability. However, something happened after then. Demand exploded as those who were eligible for the benefit but who had not fancied a Reliant Robin—many had been able to purchase an alternative—discovered that the benefit applied to any make or model of vehicle, subject to the manufacturer making it available under the scheme. At one point in the 1990s, before substantial European Union enlargement, and as a direct result of the substantial taxpayer-funded subsidy, the scheme had grown to the point that more people were registered on the UK Motability disabled driver scheme than were registered as disabled drivers in all the other EU countries put together. Perhaps that addresses in part the point that Margo MacDonald made.

Moreover, less than 2 per cent of the vehicles supplied were adapted in any way whatever. I am not suggesting that only people with a physical disability should be eligible for the Motability scheme, but it is right to ask why the figure for adaptations has gone from a substantial number to less than 2 per cent. When I left the industry, 10 per cent of the UK market—200,000 vehicles— was being supplied annually under the scheme, subsidised by the taxpayer. I regret to say that, in some instances, I was aware of deliberate abuse and the frankly ridiculous—the customer who was eligible for the benefit because he was diagnosed as clinically bald, or the man who freely admitted to my salesman—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order. The member should get back to the bill or relate his remarks to it.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

A man freely admitted to my salesman that he drove from Glasgow to Ayr on a cold day with his leg stuck out of the window before a doctor's appointment confirmed poor circulation, entitling him to the benefit.

I am concerned about the number of people who are using disabled spaces and the public subsidy that underpins the scheme, in relation to the essential need of the people who must use such spaces and may be denied the opportunity to do so. It is a serious matter, because taxpayers are now subsidising not just entry models but Mercedes, Audis and even more luxurious models. I contrast that situation with the injustice that is meted out to those who need an appropriate wheelchair—an issue that has concerned me since I was elected to the Parliament. By definition, every wheelchair user has a physical disability, so access to an appropriate chair is an even more essential lifeline. Although it is true that some also have access to a motor vehicle, only 2 per cent of cars are adapted. The amount of public money that is spent on wheelchair users is relatively pathetic. I am not making a party-political point, but I point to the contrast between spending on the essential transport and mobility needs of wheelchair users and the huge public subsidy that we provide for motor vehicles.

I do not wish to take away the incredible liberation and lifeline that is offered to people who rightly enjoy vehicles under the Motability scheme, or to detract from the screaming frustration that they can feel when they try to park and find that spaces have selfishly been blocked by others who are too lazy to park elsewhere. Des McNulty detailed the many and varied examples of that problem and the other difficulties that disabled drivers face. However, there are others who find on-street parking difficult but are not entitled to use reserved spaces. Ian McKee touched on the situation of elderly drivers whose joints are not as flexible as they once were and who appreciate the opportunity to park in end bays, as they find it difficult to negotiate the dimensions of mid-row parking bays. Some get blue badges, but others do not actively think of doing so and give up driving, because they think that it will be too difficult. Ian McKee reflected the sentiments of many of those people. Michael McMahon reflected the sentiments of many people who feel that, even though they have a disability, spaces should be reserved for other people to use.

David McLetchie dealt in detail with the substantive concerns that we and others have expressed about the continued uncertainty about the funding that will be necessary to implement the bill. In his conclusion that we are placing a further cost obligation on our councils, the funding of which remains uncertain and has wider margins than we would wish, he spoke a candid truth. Although that is regrettable, we will not allow it to prevent us from lending our support to the bill at decision time. This is an important bill that will make the lives of many people better. However, we all want to ensure that it will be available to those people who most desperately need to use it.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

After such a positive and consensual debate, it is difficult to know what one can add. I start by putting on record how pleased I am to have contributed to this small but perfectly formed bill. I join other MSPs in congratulating the bill's sponsor, Jackie Baillie. I am sorry that she cannot be with us today, but she has already demonstrated ably why we are here. She saw a problem, recognised that some of the most vulnerable people were being disadvantaged and set about changing that situation. Those of us who know Jackie Baillie know not to stand in her way, whether she is smiling or otherwise. On this occasion, we are all willing accomplices, but the fact that today we will have a piece of legislation that will do what many of us want to do—make life better for people—is down to her. Given all the warm words and compliments that have been offered—some from unusual places—it is probably just as well that she is not with us today.

As a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, I join others in thanking those who gave written and oral evidence on the bill. Although I joined the committee after it had started taking evidence, it was easy to identify the crucial issues. Like Des McNulty, I thank the disability groups and individuals who progressed the legislation.

Probably the most contentious aspect of the bill was the financial memorandum. Members such as David McLetchie, Jim Tolson and, in particular, Karen Gillon, in her opening speech, have mentioned it again today. The main difficulty that the proposer faced in producing a cost for the bill was that local authorities—which we might have thought were best placed to say how much it would cost them—made a variety of statements on cost. Some of the variation could be explained by the different ways in which local authorities processed applications, but that did not provide the whole answer. The unanswered part of the question caused concern in both the Local Government and Communities Committee and the Finance Committee.

Members can have more confidence in the reassessment that Karen Gillon has provided today, which puts the cost of the bill at around £3 million. It will be for the Scottish Government and COSLA to oversee costs. I am glad that the minister has indicated that meetings are taking place to resolve the issue, but more work needs to be done if local authorities are not to be left with what David McLetchie termed an "unfunded mandate". However, I agree with my colleague Charlie Gordon that the money will be well spent.

It is clear that responsibility for delivering the legislation will fall most heavily on local authorities. Given that they already have a disability equality duty, the added responsibility should not be too onerous. However, the intention to allow local authorities 12 months from the date of enactment of the legislation in which to conduct an audit of current spaces and to obtain orders to make enforceable those that are deemed necessary is reasonable. I sincerely hope that local authorities will avail themselves of best practice when carrying out their responsibilities. That will clearly make a difference not just to the cost but to the efficiency of establishing enforceable spaces.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

In terms of overall cost and cost benefit, would it be sensible for the Government to undertake an information and education campaign before the legislation comes into force? If people understand the legislation from all different points of view, the amount of work that local authorities will have to do when implementing it may be reduced.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Margo MacDonald makes an interesting point. I was about to say that local authorities and the Scottish Government need to recognise that publicity and education will be required if the legislation is to work. That point was strongly and ably put by my colleague Patricia Ferguson. Although I am sure that it will be taken forward in joint meetings, the minister may want to respond to Patricia Ferguson's invitation to say a little more about his intentions in that regard.

This has been a consensual debate. When that happens, it is sometimes easy to miss how important an issue is. The bill really has the potential to improve the quality of life of the almost 230,000 blue badge holders. They should not have to think twice about going out, either because they cannot find a vacant space at their destination or because they cannot find a space close to home when they return. The bill covers public space but places a duty on local authorities to make contact with private car park owners. I urge those businesses that operate car parks to follow many of the examples about which we have heard today, especially in relation to Asda, and to make their spaces enforceable. That is the right thing to do. As other members have said, I am sure that it will also benefit them commercially.

Today is one of those days in the Parliament when we can all feel good about what we have done.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I thank Jackie Baillie for introducing the bill and I thank her alter ego—or doppelgänger, as Dr McKee might say—Karen Gillon, for so ably filling the breach. I also thank Mary Mulligan for the support that she provided. Jackie Baillie and members of all parties are aware that the Scottish Government is committed to the principles behind the bill.

I take the opportunity to thank all the members who contributed to the debate, which has been interesting and indicative of the Parliament's engagement on supporting people with disabilities. I think that every member who spoke made a useful contribution, but I single out Patricia Ferguson, who made a particularly thoughtful and informative speech.

Thanks are also due to the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland, COSLA and the non-Executive bills unit for their work in trying to obtain robust implementation costs. The task is not yet complete, but there has been honest endeavour, and at official and ministerial level we will continue to work in partnership with COSLA and local authorities to ensure that best value is achieved in the one-off national implementation exercise. Estimates of the likely cost appear to be coalescing around £3 million. That figure does not unduly alarm me.

A tangible result of the process will be the annual reports that local authorities and the Government produce. The reports will provide openness and transparency on the processes that surround the provision and enforcement of disabled parking bays and will let the public know whether local authorities are carrying out their duties in relation to the bill. I thank the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland for its advice on the bill. I am sure that it is one of many organisations that will scrutinise the annual reports.

Patricia Ferguson said that the debate is not about disability, which was spot on. The reality is that the debate is about changing the attitudes and behaviour of the able bodied, because only when that happens will we deliver for the disabled. That should perhaps be our primary focus. At stage 2, Patricia Ferguson asked about an information campaign and I confirmed that we will mount such a campaign. We will liaise with local authorities and other stakeholders in early course, to ensure that people have the good information that is necessary if the bill is to be a success.

Patricia Ferguson also said that the Parliament has been rather "legislation light" during the past two years. The Government is always happy to work with other parties in the Parliament to build consensus for legislation. The bill, which was introduced from the Labour benches, provides a good model for the work that can be done to build consensus before debates take place in the Parliament. It is clear from today's debate that the consensus that has been built will endure beyond decision time tonight.

Many members drew on familial experience. Bob Doris described his father's experiences. Of course, a charge or fine—whatever we call it—will be a mark of the system's failure; a mark of its success will be the change of behaviour that we all seek.

Charlie Gordon talked about disabled drivers. We should remember that not just drivers but passengers might be disabled. There are many blue badge holders who have not learned to drive or are unable to do so. We are talking about a wider community.

Ian McKee said that his mother drove without having passed the driving test. I am familiar with that situation, because my father drove on the roads without having taken the test. On many occasions I rather wished that he had had to go through the rigour of a test. Indeed, when, in his later years, he worked as a driver for the Women's Royal Voluntary Services, his passengers occasionally wished that, too.

My mother, Helen Mary Berry MacGregor, walked on sticks almost all her adult life—she could walk only from her knees—but when she was in a car she was a different animal altogether. She had the 47th Mini Cooper S to be built in 1962. That was before Barbara Castle introduced the national speed limit, and I recall being with my mother as she drove along the Baiglie straight towards Bridge of Earn at 100mph, although when she reached the supermarket car park her speed was down to about half a mile per hour. For disabled people, the mobility that cars deliver is a significant part of their lives.

Duncan McNeil said that stores need not wait to follow Asda's example. I am not entirely sure whether it was Abraham Lincoln who said, "The early bird gets the worm; the late bird eats the dirt." People who play catch-up play a dangerous game; people who show leadership often achieve commercial success, while supporting corporate social responsibility aims.

Duncan McNeil also talked about criminality in the context of the abuse of parking spaces. A chief constable told me that in his experience a person who abuses a disabled parking space is four times as likely to have a criminal conviction as a person who does not abuse such a space. A general pattern of disobeying society's rules and laws can often be illuminated by a person's willingness to break the rules about disabled parking spaces. Police forces have told me about the success that they have had in relation to criminal justice in general when they have focused on people who abuse parking spaces. To people who think of abusing disabled parking spaces, I say, "Think on this: you will be thought to be a criminal from the outset." Michael McMahon's speech reminded me that cars can be status symbols, and Jackson Carlaw said that Mercedes and Audis are being converted under the Motability scheme. One of my aunts—she was called Stewart, too—had one of the three-wheelers that Jackson Carlaw mentioned. On one occasion she drove it into a ditch, and because it was so light helpful passing motorists were able to lift it out and put it back on the road for her. That would not have been possible if she had been driving a Mercedes ML55, so there were significant advantages to the three-wheelers—I do not think that my aunt Stewart would have been able to afford a Mercedes anyway.

Over the years, successive Administrations have sought to support people who have difficulty with mobility. The bill takes us further forward. Sandra White suggested that we consider extending the options for blue badge holders. We are working with the UK Government on the issue and we will continue to engage actively on it. In Scotland we are responsible for some of the regulations to do with the basic structure of the blue badge system, which was introduced to follow the orange badge system—my mother had an orange badge on her Mini Cooper S more than 40 years ago.

The bill will give dignity to people who have restricted mobility. It will give opportunity to disabled people. It is an earnest mark of the Parliament's commitment to people who suffer a degree of disadvantage in our society. I will take great pleasure in pressing the "yes" button when I am invited to vote for the bill at decision time at 5 o'clock.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

It falls to me to speak for 10 minutes in a consensual debate.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is not compulsory.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

It is challenging for me to speak consensually for more than two minutes, but I shall do my best.

I pay tribute to Jackie Baillie. I hope that other members will allow the Labour Party a little pride in our sister who has brought the bill to this stage. It is a regret that she is not with us today. We have long known her charms and persuasive abilities. She has shown in equal measure two qualities that were critical to taking the bill through: passion and persistence. That is why we have a bill that works and an underpinning policy and political commitment that have created supported across the Parliament.

I thank Jackie Baillie's staff, NEBU, SPICe, Stewart Stevenson and his officials. They have all contributed to ensuring that we were happily able to get to this stage. I also commend the campaigning groups that identified the problem, shared their experiences and captured the challenge that faced us as legislators in solving it. As Duncan McNeil said, the impact of constituents coming to individual MSPs' surgeries to describe their experience and demand that we take action was probably as powerful as the campaigning groups' work. That connection is a measure of the important work that the Parliament can do.

The bill is a practical measure on an issue that requires a practical approach. It addresses a specific problem. It does not do everything, but it ought not to be judged as if it should. I have long taken the view that it is correct to win hearts and minds but that, while we wait for hearts and minds to be won, we can take enforcement action. We must take that approach to equality because the bill is created and shaped by attitudes of hostility and discrimination the eradication of which will require more than a practical approach.

We should remind ourselves of the appalling context: disabled people are berated and insulted by able-bodied drivers; their carers are threatened; and they are denied access to the parking spaces they need simply because there are drivers who are so selfish or indolent that they treat disabled people as if they are swindling them to create a benefit for themselves. That is why we need action. Some drivers are so unembarrassable and display attitudes that are so blatant that we can feel overwhelmed and that it is not possible to address the problem. We cannot allow ourselves to be overwhelmed, because we are dealing with basic rights. It is necessary to confront the attitudes that are driven by such hostility and discrimination.

We should think of the bill as a mark of two things. First, it is a mark of the failure to change attitudes; it is evidence of real discrimination—it is not just theoretical and in politicians' heads—that is lived daily. Secondly, it is an acknowledgement of the need to drive further down into equality and equal opportunity and understand properly how discrimination operates. That is not an indulgence; it must be central to our work because it defines life chances. Understanding how people's life chances are shaped by their disabilities and the discrimination of the communities in which they live is not a party-political issue, but it is a deeply political issue.

Margo MacDonald made a point about the level of blue badge holding and compliance abroad. NEBU understands that the blue badge is recognised internationally and that a badge that is issued in another EU country is valid for use in Scotland and vice versa. I hope that that responds to that point.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I have a point of information on compliance with the regulations. Some European countries—I instanced Portugal because of Jackie Baillie's connection with the country—have reserved blue-badge parking not only for people with disabilities, but for expectant mothers and people who walk with sticks. They grade the disabilities and, therefore, the use to which the parking might be put. That was part of Michael McMahon's point.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The debate provides an opportunity to explore those further issues. There is always opportunity to develop understanding of how people with disabilities are affected and what rights and entitlements they should have. That does not take anything away from what we are attempting to do with the bill.

We must reflect on the cost of inhibiting people with disabilities from working, participating in society and being involved in their communities. Excluding people in that way involves a huge cost not only to those individuals and their families, but to broader society. I concur with the point, which Charlie Gordon made forcibly, that even if the bill costs £1 per Scot to implement it will be good value and the mark of a decent society.

I also concur with John Wilson's point that the bill is about the core business of local authorities in fulfilling their duties to people with disabilities. If people are not able to participate in society because the parking bay system is not working, it is part of local government's core business to address that and it represents a necessary cost, not an additional one.

Jim Tolson mentioned the gap in the figures. The fact that a gap exists calls into question the seriousness with which the figures were established. I would not define as a robust assessment figures that show such a difference between two local authorities. If there is an issue, local authorities and the minister must address it seriously together by understanding the real cost.

Local authorities should not create the impression that implementing the bill is a luxury, a bonus or an imposition; it is a necessary part of the individual rights of people who live in their areas and pay council tax, as others do. I urge the minister to commit to continuing dialogue on that. The bill must not fail because we have been unable to agree an absolute cost. The cost must follow the political commitment to disabled individuals.

No battle against discrimination or inequality was ever won easily. There will always be doubters and easy opportunities to knock down individual cases, but we would never have secured any entitlements for disabled people—no rights to employment or access to mainstream education—if we had started from the point of view that it was too difficult. Winning the battle against discrimination is about taking practical measures and being optimistic about our capacity to deliver rights for people in our communities. A good example of that is blue badge abuse. I have been amazed at the extent to which normal, rational human beings would justify using disabled parking spaces, even though they were not themselves disabled, because they think that some people might be abusing the system; they discriminate against the people who are legally entitled to blue badges on the basis that somebody else is playing the system.

How come the person with a disadvantage suffers because somebody somewhere else is abusing the system? We must challenge that attitude. The matter is simple: a driver should not use a disabled space if they do not have a disability and they should demand that the authorities deal with the people who hold blue badges illegally. We will always find reasons for doing things for our own convenience. The challenge is to create legislation and an enforcement process that allow that attitude to be tackled.

I congratulate and thank all the members who have spoken in the debate and everyone who created the political context for the bill by understanding the need for particular measures. The fact that we take an individual experience from a local community, understand the general causes of it and address it politically is an expression of a key role of the Parliament. We do not often get the opportunity to feel proud of our Parliament, but the debate is rooted in an understanding that we work best when we give priority to the challenge of people's life experiences as they describe them rather than as we imagine them to be.

I commend everyone who has brought us to this point. I thank Karen Gillon for opening the debate on Jackie Baillie's behalf. It is a privilege for me to play my small part. The next test is to ensure that this little bit of legislation delivers the things that we aspire to deliver through it.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government how many projects were removed by ministers from the recommendations of the strategic transport projects review prior to publication. (S3O-6044)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

None. Ministers considered the recommendations from the strategic transport projects review following the completion of the detailed appraisal.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

In view of the importance that completion of the Inverness trunk link route has for the city, is the minister willing to facilitate the establishment of an independent stakeholder group to explore the transport and development issues affecting the Caledonian canal and its relationship to the west of the city at Tomnahurich and Muirton, with particular regard to ensuring the free flow of traffic over the canal.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It is clear that partnership working will be an important part of delivering the trunk link route. I visited Tomnahurich on Monday and saw the circumstances of the western part of the connection. The British Waterways Board, for which I am responsible in Scotland, has to be a key partner, as does the council, which, when the Scottish National Party was part of the administration, provided the financial cover to allow the project to move forward.

The approach that the member has asked me about worked very effectively on the A96 and is one that I intend to explore as being likely to be the most effective way of drawing everyone together in common purpose to build on the investments that we are making in the north for Inverness through the TLR.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

If the minister is saying that no projects were removed by ministers, how many were added? If none was added, does that mean that the minister took what the civil servants gave him hook, line and sinker?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The important point about the strategic transport projects review is that it comes in two parts. The first and fundamentally more important part is the setting of a framework from which one can derive the projects that will be undertaken over a couple of decades. That is the point at which ministers were most involved. By setting that framework with political involvement and the involvement of wider stakeholders, we depoliticised the choice of projects and made it an analytical process, which ministers reviewed and participated in. The process will endure and continue, and I hope that members will recognise that the three priorities for roads—safety, maximising the use of the network and making sure that we support economic development as funds become available—provide a way that commends itself not only to the Government but to members right across the chamber.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

National health service boards continue to make steady progress on making insulin pumps available. There are now 407 people with type 1 diabetes who are being supported in their use of a pump. The Scottish Government is committed to making sure that people in Scotland with type 1 diabetes who meet the criteria have access to insulin pump therapy.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister will be well aware of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines that were issued last year, which recommended insulin pump therapy as a treatment option for adults and children over the age of 12 who have type 1 diabetes. As the minister is aware, there are major differences in health board performance on the provision of insulin pumps. What plans does the minister have to monitor health boards' progress to avoid a postcode lottery for patients with insulin-dependent diabetes?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I recognise the member's long-standing interest in the matter. NICE's technology appraisal 151 of July 2008 has been approved by NHS Quality Improvement Scotland. The member asked about the monitoring of health boards' implementation of the recommendation. We continue to monitor progress on making insulin pumps available on a board-by-board basis and to encourage boards to maintain the current momentum. I will take a close interest in that. We will also continue to emphasise the importance of the issue in revising our diabetes action plan. I suggest to the member that there is potential for him and others to get involved in taking forward that revision.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

That information is published on the General Register Office for Scotland website. Once published, it cannot be amended. Data for 2007 confirm that there were 19 Clostridium difficile-related deaths at the Royal Alexandra hospital. Data for 2008 will be published by the GROS in August.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I thank the minister for that but, in addition to cases in which Clostridium difficile was recorded as the reason for death, there are cases in which it was a factor in the cause of death but something else was listed as the main cause of death. A number of my constituents have approached me because they are concerned that their relatives were affected by Clostridium difficile but it was not listed as the cause of death. There is concern that the problem is wider than is recorded and admitted. Will the minister accept that there needs to be full publication of cases in which C diff was a contributory factor, and an investigation into just how serious the problem is at the RAH?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I agree with Hugh Henry that wherever Clostridium difficile or any other hospital infection is either the underlying principal cause of death or a contributory cause of death, that should be recorded on the death certificate, and that will be done routinely. Obviously, as members appreciate, the completion of death certificates is a matter for the clinical judgment of the clinicians responsible. However, there is no doubt that accuracy and consistency in recording causes of death are of the utmost importance, which is why the chief medical officer in Scotland will shortly issue guidance to medical practitioners about the completion of death certificates. Once information is recorded on a death certificate, the GROS is responsible for collating it nationally and ensuring that it is published.

I hope that that reassures Hugh Henry about the seriousness with which we take these issues. Obviously, I cannot comment on individual cases, particularly when I do not know the details. If the member cares to write to me about his constituency cases, I am more than happy to give the issue due consideration.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Mary Scanlon.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Thank you Presiding Officer, but my question has been answered.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am pleased to hear it.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Our international trade and investment arm, Scottish Development International, provides a range of guidance and assistance for Scottish businesses that are looking to grow by entering new international markets through exporting or other internationalisation routes. That includes helping companies as they prepare to enter new markets; assisting companies to develop international strategies; assisting companies to discover and take advantage of new opportunities overseas; providing country and industry market information; and encouraging companies to participate in international exhibitions and outward missions.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The minister will be aware of the recently published Scottish Council for Development and Industry Scottish manufactured exports survey, which recorded a 2.4 per cent drop in export sales by Scottish companies. However, looking to the future, the survey highlighted Asia, identifying China and India as the top areas for potential new market growth. Is there a need to review the China plan and consider whether it should be altered as a result of the economic downturn? When the minister brings forward the India plan, will he ensure that it takes full account of the economic downturn, so that it can maximise the potential of our export market there?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I appreciate that question. The SDI report reflects the global downturn but pinpoints reasons to be optimistic by showing that key sectors are holding up, such as food and drink, energy and transport. The non-electronic element is actually up by 8 per cent. That said, I take on board what the member says. The China plan has been refreshed to reflect Scottish priority industries such as the life sciences and renewable energy, which reflects what our customers in China want. Similarly, the Government is considering its role in strengthening links with India. We are working closely with SDI and, next week, Michael Russell and I will sit down to ensure that we take the India plan to the next level.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The current settlement was agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities as part of the concordat and COSLA has agreed that the review will feed into the next three-year settlement, which starts in 2011-12. Decisions on that will be taken well before the 2011 elections.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Can we be sure not only that decisions are taken before the 2011 elections but that they are published, implemented and processed before then? The minister will know that Aberdeenshire Council gets 13 per cent less funding than the average for local authorities in Scotland, which works out at about £64 million less a year. We desperately need change in Aberdeenshire. Until now, we were getting 10 per cent less, but we are now getting 13 per cent less. We are looking forward to early implementation of the findings of the review, as we are sure that that will be helpful.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As I said in my original answer, the implications and decisions arising from the review of the distribution formula, which we expect to receive by the end of October 2009, will be applied to the financial settlement in 2011-12. That will commence before the 2011 elections—unless Mr Rumbles plans to push for an early election. That might be part of his reckless plan, but it is certainly not part of the Government's plan.

Aberdeenshire Council received an increase in revenue funding of 5.6 per cent in 2009-10, which is higher than the average increase in Scotland. I am fully aware of the concerns that have been expressed by Mr Rumbles on the application of the current distribution formula in Aberdeenshire, which we inherited from the previous Administration.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Is the cabinet secretary aware of the feasibility study that is under way on proposals for city centre regeneration in Aberdeen, which focus on Union Terrace Gardens? If the study produces recommendations for action before 2011, will the Scottish Government provide funding to assist with that regeneration project?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Government remains in contact with all local authorities on relevant issues, and we would consider any proposal emanating from Aberdeen. Nevertheless, I say two things to Lewis Macdonald. First, the Government has already set out the spending settlement for 2009-10 and that has been communicated to Aberdeen City Council, which has taken its decisions accordingly. Secondly, there is considerable uncertainty over the financial provision for 2010-11 because of the swingeing cuts in our budget that are proposed by the United Kingdom Government. Those cuts will be a major factor with which we will have to wrestle in 2010-11.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As this is my maiden answer, I take the opportunity to thank members from all sides of the chamber for their kindness and congratulations on my appointment.

The Scottish Government's £60 million town centre regeneration fund will be available in 2009-10 to support our town centres and local high streets. We are currently working on the details of the fund, which will be announced by the end of March 2009.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister will be aware of the high expectations for the fund, with a number of towns in Fife, such as Glenrothes and Leven, already starting to make a case. I appreciate that he plans to make an announcement in March, but can he say when the fund will be available and when it will start to be spent on town centres?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As I have said, the fund will be available during the next financial year. I expect that we will receive requests from members of all parties and from all parts of Scotland who have pet projects for the fund. It is quite right that members should promote the areas that they represent. Nevertheless, we must first make strategic decisions about where in Scotland the fund can have the greatest impact. One of our endeavours will be to ensure that we adopt a fair approach to the distribution of the fund and maximise the economic and social impact that it can have.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

The minister may be aware that Glenrothes town centre is wholly privately owned, which means that we do not have a high street as such. When the minister draws up the criteria for the funding, will he consider the situation of town centres, especially in our new towns, that were sold to private companies by both the Tory Government and Labour local authorities? Will he consider what areas such as Glenrothes town centre can do to benefit from the regeneration fund?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As part of our consideration of the criteria, I am prepared to listen to representations from all members on what they think those criteria should be. At this stage, I can make no commitment on any individual town or city or on any individual application. However, I have an open mind on the criteria that we should apply.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Does the minister agree that local communities in urban areas such as Maryhill, Possilpark and Milton would also benefit from such investment? Will he ensure that the criteria that he sets reflect the ambition that those areas have for regeneration? Also, in the fullness of time, will he commit to making funds available to Glasgow to allow such schemes to go ahead?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

One of the first decisions that we will have to make concerns the definition of "town" for the purposes of the town centre regeneration fund. We will also have to define what is meant by "town centre". My colleague Bob Doris, from Glasgow, has already made the point to me privately that Patricia Ferguson makes to me publicly. We are in the early stages of working up our proposals, but I am prepared to listen to representations from members on the criteria without, at this stage, making any commitments on either the criteria or the final recipients.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We are currently updating the 2012 modelling work in conjunction with local authorities, and we will work with local authorities over the course of this year to assess progress in meeting the 2009 interim targets. That will include a qualitative analysis of factors affecting progress as well as statistical information.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

In welcoming Alex Neil to his new post, I tell him that he has an opportunity to make a name for himself by ensuring that we are on course to meet the 2012 target by the end of the current session. However, the City of Edinburgh Council has no chance whatever of meeting that target with its current level of resources. As his first good deed, will he ensure that sufficient additional resources are given to the City of Edinburgh Council to make it possible for Edinburgh to meet that historic and internationally acclaimed target?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I say to Malcolm Chisholm that I am already making a name for myself because, in the budget for affordable housing next year, I will spend 15 per cent more than he did when he was the housing minister.

I am conscious of the pressures in Edinburgh and in other areas. On the phasing out of priority need, against a baseline of 75 per cent, the target for March 2009 was 87 per cent and the outturn looks like being 82 per cent, which is 5 per cent short. I am aware that we must make more progress in Edinburgh to achieve the 2012 target. I have asked my officials to arrange an early meeting with those who are involved in housing development in Edinburgh, so that we can discuss that issue among other matters. I am keen for us to do whatever we need to do to ensure that we meet the 2012 target.

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-1472)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

With your permission, Presiding Officer. Members of the Westminster Parliament united yesterday in sympathy with David and Samantha Cameron on the loss of their young son Ivan. I know that everyone in the chamber will wish to express their deep condolences to the whole family and the many people who have been touched by this tragic bereavement. The loss of a child is the worst thing that can happen to any parent and we can only hope that the expressions of support and solidarity for David and Samantha Cameron from across the political spectrum are of some comfort in this time of extremity.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Thank you. Members might wish to know that I have written this morning, on behalf of the Parliament, to David and Samantha Cameron.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Indeed; probably no words can express a parent's pain on the loss of a child, but the thoughts and prayers of Labour members are certainly with David Cameron and his family today.

This morning, the Royal Bank of Scotland announced the largest loss in Scottish and, indeed, British corporate history. We also discovered today that the outgoing chief executive of RBS is already, at 50 years old, drawing a pension of £650,000 per year. Does the First Minister think that that is right?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

No, I do not and I do not think that the small shareholders, the bank's customers and the general public think that it is appropriate either. However, Iain Gray should note this morning's comments by the new chief executive of RBS, Stephen Hester, on that matter. When he was asked about it, he said:

"The arrangements for my predecessor's departure are part of a legal agreement that the Government—"

that is, the Westminster Government—

"was fully involved with at the time."

That is, last October.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

It is, indeed, the case that Fred Goodwin's contract probably entitles him legally to that bumper pay-off, although morally surely it does not. However, the person who appointed him and who presumably put those contractual arrangements in place in the first place is Sir George Mathewson, the man whom the First Minister appointed as his key economic adviser. Is the First Minister still happy with that appointment?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

First, when Sir George Mathewson was chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland it was, indeed, a highly profitable and successful institution. Iain Gray, or anyone else on the Labour seats, would be extremely unwise to attack Sir George Mathewson's reputation. However, let me turn to the complete misunderstanding of Fred Goodwin's departure from the post of chief executive of RBS. Stephen Hester dealt with that issue, too, this morning, saying:

"The arrangements negotiated for my predecessor with the Government on his departure are not something that I should be spending time on."

In other words, according to the new chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland the leaving, the arrangements for it and, presumably, the pension arrangements were part of negotiations in which the Westminster Government was directly involved. Now that Iain Gray has those facts at his disposal, would he care to rephrase his question or revise his opinions?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I do not seek to examine George Mathewson's reputation, but I think that the views that he has recently expressed bear some examination. George Mathewson is the First Minister's adviser on the economy and it was he who defended short selling—he said that the First Minister's views were "ignorant". It was he whose hedge fund made millions out of the disastrous RBS-ABN Amro deal. It was he who said that bankers should not apologise and

"I don't believe in all this sorry bit."

It was he who said that his £2.5 million bonus would

"not give you bragging rights in a Soho wine bar."

It is he who still draws a large salary from RBS. Is the First Minister really still happy with his appointment of that adviser with those views?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Iain Gray is the Opposition leader in the Parliament, so let me give him some advice. He is meant to be attacking, criticising and examining me on my record, not on Sir George Mathewson's. The names of the people who regulated the banking and financial system are Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. If it is the case—as Stephen Hester, the new chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, said this morning—that the arrangements for Sir Fred Goodwin's departure from the bank fully involved the Westminster Government, at what stage in this line of questioning will Iain Gray revisit the premise of his first question?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Let us examine the First Minister's views. The regulatory system that he criticises is the one that he previously criticised for gold plating, which he said he would replace with light-touch regulation. However, the First Minister has changed his mind. At the weekend, the First Minister's spokesman said of banking:

"The first minister believes that ... a different set of values is required."

I think that the people of Scotland agree with that, but the First Minister's key economic adviser does not. George Mathewson is still defending short selling, big bonuses and obscene pay-offs. The First Minister should decide which side he is on. Is he with Sir George and the bonus bankers or the people of Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As it happens, Sir George Mathewson, to my personal knowledge, was the foremost opponent of the investment banking bonus culture spreading into retail banking.

Iain Gray should have had a mind to look at the evidence that the Financial Services Authority gave to the House of Commons committee this week. The FSA argued—admittedly, this might be self-serving—that the reason that it did not go in for the sort of regulation that would have uncovered the malpractices taking place throughout the financial sector was political direction from above. Who on earth might have been responsible for that political direction if not the long-standing chancellor who is now Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?

I know that it is difficult for the Opposition leader to respond to information that comes up during questions, but I take it that, despite his refusal to say so at any point, Iain Gray's initial premise that Sir George Mathewson was somehow responsible for Sir Fred Goodwin's pay-off has been revised in light of the information from the new RBS chief executive, who has said that Alistair Darling and the Westminster Government were fully involved in the process. When we on this side of chamber say that we do not think that Sir Fred Goodwin's pension level is justified, we are entitled to say that. It seems passing strange that the Labour Party is adopting that position now, given that last October it was fully implicated in making the arrangements.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I had a meeting with the Prime Minister yesterday on the dominating and vital subject of the proposed cuts in the budgets of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the year after next. Those cuts entail serious consequences for public services, investment and jobs in this country.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am discouraged by the First Minister's failure to answer my question, which was on when he will next meet the Prime Minister. We cannot have an endurance of the Arctic silence that prevailed for 10 months. I think that Scotland expects the First Minister to schedule another meeting as quickly as possible.

On yesterday's meeting, there is considerable confusion about what actually happened. Whitehall claims that the Scottish Government agreed to find more efficiency savings in Scotland; the First Minister's spokesman described that claim as "nonsense". Will the First Minister confirm whether the Scottish Government will, or will not, find more efficiency savings?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The point is that the Scottish Government, in common with our Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues, has efficiency savings programmes. We have a 2 per cent a year efficiency savings programme that reinvests the proceeds in local government, the health service and other front-line public services.

The Westminster Government is proposing not a series of efficiency savings, but a top-line cut in the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish budgets. The devolved Administrations are keen to discuss these matters and to compare notes. That is because of the view that Rhodri Morgan, the Welsh First Minister—someone who seems able to speak for Wales, despite the Labour Party's inability to speak for Scotland—has articulated on the cash balances that are lying in English foundation hospitals. He has said that there is a severe danger that the so-called efficiency savings south of the border could result in accumulated underspends in foundation hospitals. At some point, Annabel Goldie and the Conservative party will have to choose which side they are on in the debate. Will they back the Labour Party's proposed cut of £500 million in Scottish public spending or stand on the side of Scottish public services, jobs and the Scottish people?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The First Minister has been vociferous in what he has said on the impact of Labour's recession on the Scottish budget. We know that Labour's misconceived VAT cut has cost Britain £12.5 billion. By the First Minister's rule of thumb, that equates to a £1.25 billion cost for Scotland—which, by definition, is £1.25 billion that is not available to spend in Scotland. Why did the First Minister order his Westminster SNP colleagues—naturally, he was not there himself—to vote for that cut and land Scotland with a billion pound bombshell?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We have made it quite clear that we argued that a capital investment programme would have yielded twice as many jobs in the economy as the misconceived VAT cut has done. Incidentally, our calculations are not rule of thumb. We have put the prospect of a £500 million cut in Scottish public spending through the Scottish input-output model. The results are very clear and absolutely staggering: the cut would mean potential job losses in Scotland of 8,600. That outcome would be disastrous and regrettable at any time, but to do such a thing in the teeth of a recession would be not only an act of economic vandalism but totally misplaced in terms of timing and intent.

Now that the information has been conveyed to the Prime Minister and the public at large, I hope that we can have some unity across the Parliament that such a cut in Scottish public spending at this moment, as we move through a difficult and deep recession, would be misplaced and utterly disastrous.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1474)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the letter that you have written on our behalf to Mr and Mrs Cameron. Indeed, I echo the sentiments of the First Minister and other party leaders this morning.

Stephen Hester, the new RBS boss, said this morning that the United Kingdom Government—the UK Labour Government—had agreed the details of Sir Fred Goodwin's departure from RBS. Sir Fred Goodwin is getting a pension of £650,000 every year that is paid for by the taxpayer. The figure is 140 times the size of the normal state pension. On the day when RBS announces that thousands of Scottish jobs—in which people earn a fraction of that pension money—are at risk and posts the worst losses in corporate history, and when billions more of taxpayers' money is being used to bail out Fred Goodwin's mistakes, does the First Minister think that Fred Goodwin should touch a penny of that pension?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As I have already made clear, the pension arrangements cannot be justified. I think that that is a generally held view. I am grateful to Tavish Scott for reiterating and confirming the point on the UK Government's involvement that I attempted to make to Iain Gray.

I have met Stephen Hester on two occasions to discuss the impact of the Royal Bank of Scotland's plans on the Scottish economy. No one should underrate the seriousness of the situation. Equally, it should be remembered that the core businesses of the bank that are concentrated domestically are doing well, when compared with the general financial climate. Stephen Hester made public this morning an indication that he gave me in our meetings: that the bank will stay headquartered in Scotland and that, therefore, as we anticipate and believe in the recovery, the benefits of that decision, regardless of the seriousness of the current situation, will be impacted on the Scottish economy.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

People find it truly shocking that the first instinct of banking fat cats has been to arrange their bonuses and their pensions, and that a Labour Government can sign off such a scandalously sweet deal behind closed doors and then attack it in public.

Yesterday's report by the Fraser of Allander institute says that the Scottish economy will shrink by 2.6 per cent this year, that 159,000 Scottish jobs could be lost and that the overall effect of the Scottish Government's six-point plan is "negligible". There are big, clear challenges ahead, so why has the First Minister spent this week creating a new argument with London? Why do people see in the papers this morning only spin and counter-spin, when the Governments should be adopting a united front to tackling the recession? When will our First Minister change how we go about doing business?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Tavish Scott should support our articulation directly to the Prime Minister of the serious implications of a £500 million cut in the Scottish budget and the cost of 8,600 jobs. That is an issue on which he should support the Scottish Government's arguments.

Yesterday, I was not alone in pointing out the dangers of the United Kingdom Government's approach. The same position was taken by the First Minister of Northern Ireland and the First Minister for Wales, even though we all belong to different political parties. If a First Minister who represents the Democratic Unionist Party, a First Minister who represents the Labour Party and a First Minister who represents the Scottish National Party can unite to say to the UK Government that cutting public spending in the teeth of a recession is exactly the wrong thing to do, is it too much to expect the support of the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a constituency question from Margaret Curran.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Does the First Minister agree that urgent action is required to tackle the appalling level of rape convictions in Scotland, and that efforts to encourage women who have been raped to come forward have been seriously undermined by the actions of a temporary judge who, when faced with a woman who broke down because of the trauma of giving evidence and fled the court, sent her to the cells for a night? Will the First Minister join me in condemning that judge's behaviour? What action is his Government taking to tackle the level of rape convictions in Scotland and to counter the dreadful signal that has been sent to the people of Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

On the first point, as the member knows, we must be extremely careful about commenting on judicial matters. However, I read about the case and was extremely concerned by what I read.

As far as the Government's approach to crimes of violence against women and to rape is concerned, the Lord Advocate has spelled out to Parliament exactly what the Government is doing in approaching the judicial system to improve Scotland's record on such matters, which is not good and so must be improved. That is what this Government intends, and is determined, to do.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the Royal Bank of Scotland in light of its announcement that it plans to sell off around a fifth of its business. (S3F-1481)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

RBS published its results at 7 o'clock this morning and made announcements about its restructuring plan. We are now analysing the details.

Our regular and continuing contact with RBS will be of assistance to all those in Scotland who may be affected by the restructuring announcement. As I said, I have already met the new chief executive, Stephen Hester, twice to discuss those matters. Those contacts will inform the full range of Scottish Government responses. We are ready to help everyone who is affected. Our responses include the partnership action for continuing employment initiative and the setting up of a financial services task force under the Financial Services Advisory Board, the details of which the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth announced this morning.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

As the First Minister is aware, the massive losses that have been announced today are due, in particular, to the poor judgment of senior management in foreign acquisitions, which has overshadowed the good work that RBS workers across Scotland have done for decades.

What is the Government doing to ensure that the good reputation not just of RBS but of the Scottish financial sector in general is protected against the folly of previous RBS senior management? Given the sector's importance to the Edinburgh economy, what reassurances has he had that the staff who are based in the city will gain from what is happening and that no losses will be suffered here?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

It would be wrong to underestimate the seriousness of the job situation. There are 18,000 RBS employees in Scotland. However, as the new chief executive has said, it should be remembered that the core businesses remain the best-performing areas of the group. As I have said, the chief executive confirmed this morning that the group's headquarters will continue to be in Scotland. Every one of us has an interest in the recovery of RBS. There is no doubt that that recovery process will be protracted, but I am confident that it will happen.

The financial sector in Scotland does not consist only of our clearing banks, important though they are. More than half of it is in insurance, long-term investment, investment trusts and life offices. Members will note that last week, I had the pleasure of announcing 500 new jobs in insurance as a result of esure's investment in the great city of Glasgow.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

As the First Minister is aware, the Royal Bank of Scotland headquarters at Gogarburn is in my constituency. I very much welcome the comments today about retention of the headquarters functions in Scotland. Many of my constituents work for the bank, and there is real concern that despite today's announcement, those individuals and their families are still in the dark about the future of their jobs.

Does the First Minister agree that our main focus must be on retaining as many Scottish jobs as possible? Does he accept that the Scottish Government and the Royal Bank must be proactive in working with the City of Edinburgh Council and the relevant agencies to ensure that the right support and job opportunities are in place in advance of the announcement of any further job losses in Scotland by the Royal Bank?

I associate myself with the First Minister's comments about the importance of the banking sector. There are some positives in what has been announced today, such as the news about the headquarters, core business and increased lending to businesses.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am grateful to Margaret Smith for those comments. The work of FiSAB is proactive, as is the financial services task force that we agreed to and which is being implemented. Proactive, also, is the series of meetings that we have had with the Royal Bank of Scotland, in anticipation of the jobs implications of today's announcement.

I want to be clear that no one should underestimate the serious threat to a substantial number of Scottish jobs. Equally, the core businesses—the ones that are centred domestically—are the best performing areas of the Royal Bank of Scotland. I welcome Margaret Smith's understanding, given her constituency interest, of the critical importance that the assurance that Gogarburn will continue to be the group headquarters of the bank has for the future of the Scottish economy.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to tackle alcohol abuse. (S3F-1483)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We have taken considerable steps to tackle alcohol misuse. We have rolled out test purchasing across Scotland, we have regulated to restrict alcohol displays within stores and we have tripled the investment to £120 million over the course of the spending review. We have consulted on a package of further measures to address the issue. We will announce our next steps shortly.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

On 29 August 2007, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice said:

"The effects of alcohol on our city and town centres is not cost-free and those who profit from it must contribute to addressing it."

Despite recent media reports suggesting another U-turn on Government policy, will the First Minister confirm that he will continue to implement the policy announced by his cabinet secretary, which is the principle that the polluter should pay?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As I just indicated to Paul Martin, we will publish the consultation document and our proposals shortly. Every member, I think, agrees about the serious question that alcohol abuse represents for Scotland—for our health record and indeed for all Scottish communities. The difficulty for some members is that while they agree in broad and general terms that it is a huge issue to be confronted by Scottish society, they manage to find a way of opposing virtually every proposal in the consultation document.

I have been looking carefully at the Labour Party's proposals. It proposes to make challenge 21 mandatory. That is currently a voluntary scheme, but it will become mandatory this September. Labour proposes that alcohol and treatment testing orders should be made available to courts. Under the current procedures, they are already available to courts; indeed, 989 such conditions were imposed in 2006-07.

I do not doubt Paul Martin's seriousness and commitment to the issue but perhaps he can prevail on some of his colleagues. If we, as a Parliament and a society, are jointly to address Scotland's battle with alcohol, for goodness' sake, will they start supporting the measures that are being put forward instead of finding any reason to oppose them?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The First Minister will be aware that Scotland's problem with alcohol has been allowed to develop over decades. The most recent figures demonstrate that previous Government policy on the issue has failed to tackle the problem effectively. Given the scale of the problem, will the First Minister outline the annual cost of alcohol misuse in financial terms to our national health service and justice system?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

This issue has to be considered in terms that are much broader than just financial terms. The financial cost can be estimated at £2.25 billion a year in the extra services required, but the problems for society go well beyond any financial estimate.

I am proud of measures that the Government has been trying—in particular, the expenditure in the financial review, in these difficult times, to confront this problem. I am sure that our measures will be supported in the chamber.

I hope that people will acknowledge the evidence from trials in, for example, Michael Matheson's constituency. The trials indicate that agreed restrictions on the sale of alcohol to people under the age of 21 have produced substantial and sustained effects on criminality and disorderly behaviour. There is substantial evidence that such measures can make a contribution. However, many people in the chamber found themselves unable even to support the measures.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The First Minister is perfectly correct to highlight the difficulties that are caused by Scotland's relationship with alcohol. However, does not the First Minister agree that, before bringing in any further ideas—many of which, I say frankly, have been unworkable—it would be much preferable to ensure that the existing law is exercised to its fullest extent, ensuring that prosecutions are brought against those who sell drink to underage people, those who enter licensed premises when drunk, and those who are on licensed premises when drunk? The present levels of prosecution and conviction are derisory.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Bill Aitken should have listened to my first answer to Paul Martin, when I pointed out the significant steps that have been taken to enforce the law on underage purchase through the rolling out of test purchasing. In fact, 1,134 off-sales were tested between February 2008 and January of this year. That was a substantial effort, which I am sure that even Bill Aitken will find it in his heart to support.

No amount of flannel can disguise the fact that the Conservative party, in its approach to the consultation—although it made a submission, unlike some others—has somehow contrived to oppose a range of measures that would undoubtedly make a substantial contribution to tackling what we all agree is a question for Scottish society.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government remains opposed to the UK Government's ID card scheme. The Scottish Parliament debated this issue on 19 November 2008, and we indicated our opinion by voting for the UK Government to cancel its ID card scheme. The result was:

"For 69, Against 0, Abstentions 38."—[Official Report, 19 November 2008; c 12544.]

The costs are currently estimated as more than £5 billion. In my opinion, the UK Government would be better advised to use that money to protect vital public services instead of cutting £5 billion from public sector budgets in 2010-11.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am extremely grateful for the First Minister's reassurance, but actions speak louder than words. Will the First Minister explain to the chamber why the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is asking Parliament to cede to Westminster the power to legislate for data sharing by Scottish Government bodies with Westminster Government bodies; why that substantial power will be at the discretion of UK Government ministers, without the involvement of this Parliament; and whether his ministers have yet sought guarantees from the UK Government that such orders under the Coroners and Justice Bill cannot be used for the ID card scheme?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As has been indicated to Robert Brown a number of times, the provision would give UK ministers the power to enable, but not enforce, the sharing of information by bodies, by laying an order that the relevant Parliament must approve. As the cabinet secretary said in his letter to the convener of the Justice Committee on 21 February, ministers would be in a position to decline to participate in any proposed information gateway.

I would say two things to Robert Brown. The sharing of information is not, in itself, a bad thing. In plenty of ways, the sharing of information in the public sector can bring about better outcomes in society. Nor should it be thought that the Coroners and Justice Bill, in itself, is a bad thing. After all, one of its provisions is to allow fatal accident inquiries to hear the causes and investigate the deaths of Scottish servicemen on active service overseas—something that is supported throughout the chamber.

I assure Robert Brown that we absolutely oppose the introduction of an identity card scheme. We believe that the expenditure on it is misapplied and that the questions for civil liberty remain unanswered. We are therefore examining every provision in the Coroners and Justice Bill, and if it provides any loopholes by which the UK Government could implement by the back door, he can be assured that the justice secretary will take the required action.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Justice and Law Officers

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 1 was lodged by Mike Pringle, whom I do not see in the chamber. I will inform him accordingly.

George (Labour, Lothians)

May I ask the question?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

No, I am afraid that you cannot.

Question 2 has not been lodged.

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

We know how much damage alcohol-fuelled crime can do to communities, particularly over the festive period. That is why we announced in October 2008 that a third year of safer streets funding would be provided to community safety partnerships to conduct high-visibility and high-impact initiatives to reduce alcohol-related violence and disorder over the festive period. Total safer streets investment since 2006-07 now stands at £2.2 million.

There were significant successes in 2007-08, including in the member's constituency. There was a 45.8 per cent reduction in breach of the peace offences in South Lanarkshire and a 37 per cent reduction in violence and disorder incidents in hotspot areas of Midlothian compared with the same period in the previous year. We are currently evaluating the outcome of the 2008-09 initiative, and the initial indications are very encouraging.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The extra funding is welcome, but Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary has reported what it described as a shocking rise in arrests over the festive period for incidents in which alcohol abuse was a significant factor. Will the cabinet secretary undertake to consider what additional actions could be taken to encourage sensible drinking over the festive period and, indeed, throughout the rest of the year?

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

Absolutely. It is clear that local authorities use the money that we provide to them in a variety of ways. Some local authorities have used it for taxi marshal initiatives to reduce disorder, and others have been successful in the ways that I mentioned.

The member is correct: there have been shocking incidents involving alcohol abuse. As the Government has said, the problem is not the drink but how some people are drinking. It is clear that those who are responsible for law and order require to deal with the matter, but alcohol-related crime is equally a health and education issue. The member is well aware of the Government's commitment to ensuring that Scotland gets its relationship with alcohol back on to an even kilter and that we enable our communities to enjoy the festive period without its being blighted by the abuse of alcohol.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

The formal legal remedies that are available to a public authority when it is pursuing a debt are diligence and bankruptcy. The diligences that can be used are inhibition, arrestment, earnings arrestment or attachment.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

It has come to my attention as a result of representations from Citizens Advice Scotland that consumer debt can be pursued for something like five years. However, I have received representations from within my region that indicate that debts as old as 20 years are being pursued against people, many of whom do not have records. Many debts are being pursued using the summary warrant procedure, which denies people the opportunity to appear in court. Will the minister comment on that process and say whether the prescriptive period for community charges will be reviewed?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I think that Hugh O'Donnell's description is accurate. The law of prescription of debt for ordinary debts between individual private contracting parties covers five years, but there is not the same period for the recovery process for Government debts in all their forms. Local authorities can apply for a summary warrant to collect outstanding council tax and community charge moneys up to 20 years after the amount becomes due, and they then have up to a further 20 years to collect it.

Anyone can see that there are obvious difficulties in proving what occurred after such a long period—a person does not need to have had any involvement with the legal profession to see those difficulties. It is perfectly legitimate that Citizens Advice Scotland has indicated that it seeks a member's bill on the issue, and I would be happy to explore further with Hugh O'Donnell, other members and CAS the complex issues involved.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

That 207 figure should be added to the equally shocking figure of 521 between April and September 2008. The fact that so many people who commit assaults to injury are being given get-out-of-court-free cards is becoming a national scandal. Will the Government finally review the guidance and make it clear that a direct measure is wholly inappropriate for assault to injury?

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

We are determined to maximise the benefits of the proceeds of crime legislation. It has already helped to secure more than £23.5 million from major underworld figures, but we are not complacent.

We will shortly consult on improvements that we can make in the Scottish Parliament through secondary legislation. The serious organised crime task force has commissioned a review of the asset recovery process to see whether improvements can be made to its effectiveness. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland and the inspectorate of prosecution in Scotland are conducting a joint review of asset recovery performance. Both those reviews will assist us in making even more effective use of what is a powerful tool in the fight against serious and organised crime.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of a recent article in The Herald that suggested that the recovery of proceeds of crime is much better in the Republic of Ireland compared with our system. Does he agree? Even if he does not, will he consider that in his review?

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

The member may rest assured that we will look wherever there is good practice that we can build on. There are some aspects in which Ireland does well, although we must recognise that the Irish model is different. The Irish use the criminal assets bureau, which is a division of the Irish police, and they have a multi-agency approach, which includes taxation.

In Scotland, we have the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. We deal with breaking up criminal activity but also try to ensure that we take assets and use financial measures both to ensure that people do not make money out of criminal offending and to drive home the message that ultimately they will be proceeded against and prosecuted and will lose their assets. If we can learn lessons from the Irish, we will be happy to do so. We can consider the system in the Irish Republic, but we should realise that our system is remarkably good in many respects, even if it is formulated in a significantly different way.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

The issue may not fall within the cabinet secretary's specific remit but, in considering the disbursement of such funds, will he consider my representations about the Scottish football museum's access to funding for a social inclusion scheme that it has in mind to help young people from deprived communities? Will he consider giving some of those funds to the museum for that scheme?

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

I do not know the precise details of the Scottish football museum's scheme, but I visited the museum not that long ago with various friends and enjoyed it immensely. We have put in a significant amount of money along with partners such as the Scottish Football Association, and we work with individual clubs on their initiatives to tackle drugs. If there is a viable and appropriate scheme, we will be more than happy to look at what the museum has to offer and establish how we can put money made from damaging our communities back in to improve and benefit those communities.

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

The legal aid system already provides free or subsidised legal assistance for those who cannot afford to pay for it themselves, including those seeking financial compensation through the civil courts.

We laid regulations last week that will increase the disposable income limit for civil legal aid to £25,000 from this April. That should bring more than a million Scots into potential eligibility. Our forthcoming criminal justice and licensing bill will also introduce greater flexibility for criminal courts to award compensation against offenders.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am very pleased by that reply. Does the cabinet secretary agree that in certain cases, as well as a prison sentence, the awarding of costs against a perpetrator of domestic violence goes some way to change the culture and tackle that despicable crime?

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

Absolutely. That applies to all offences, and it clearly applies to the heinous offence of domestic violence, which is a significant problem in Scotland. One difficulty with always providing a compensation order for some elements of domestic violence is that, rightly or wrongly, families sometimes get back together and any compensation order or fine would affect the family budget and any children.

We must ensure that the sheriff or judge has the appropriate tools, but whether a compensation order or financial penalty should be used—in addition to or as an alternative to a period of imprisonment—is a decision for them. I agree that in many instances it is appropriate to ensure that a compensation order should be made available to the victims, but we must take cognisance of the fact that some cases of domestic violence are very complicated. We must ensure that the legislative framework is in place and encourage our sheriffs to use it imaginatively.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 8 is withdrawn.

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

Young offenders should have access to the same opportunities as all other young people to ensure that they develop the communications skills that enable them to grow, live and work in the contemporary world. Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide those educational services to all young people of school age, including young offenders.

When in custody, young offenders have access to a community speech and language therapy service, following referral from prison health care services, as well as a wide variety of learning opportunities that aid the development of communication skills. As the independent Scottish Prisons Commission found, we need better outcomes for offenders and communities. We took account of that in "Protecting Scotland's Communities: Fair, Fast and Flexible Justice", which is our plan for a coherent and comprehensive management strategy to reduce reoffending and tackle the underlying causes of crime.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

Given that speech and language therapy provision is available for only 16 hours per week in Polmont and cannot be accessed at all by offenders in Cornton Vale, does the minister share my concern for the success of rehabilitation measures when there is a mismatch between the skills levels of offenders and the literacy and communication requirements for important programmes, including anger management and drug rehabilitation courses? How will that mismatch be reduced?

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

The Scottish Prison Service is consistently on that case. Some services are provided by local authorities, some are provided by health boards, and some are required to be provided by the Scottish Prison Service. At my meeting with the Prison Reform Trust next Tuesday, one of the matters under discussion will be how we care for and deal with young offenders who have such difficulties. Clearly, many young offenders are in custody because they have committed serious offences—that goes with the turf—but we should also recognise that many have problems, whether with drug or alcohol addiction, learning or other difficulties.

Our hard-pressed Scottish Prison Service cannot possibly provide such youngsters with the skills and assistance that they need when it is overburdened with the continual churn in and out of prisoners on short-term sentences. The service tells us that assessment of such youngsters usually takes something like eight weeks. If a youngster is in prison for only a short period, the service cannot possibly carry out the literacy and numeracy analysis that is necessary. That is why, if we are to allow the service to do what is necessary, we need to provide it with headroom by ensuring that prisons are only for serious and dangerous offenders. Those who commit less serious offences should be dealt with either under the summary justice reforms or through tough community sentences.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I want to press the cabinet secretary a little further on that. He did not really deal with Marlyn Glen's point, which was about the low level of support that young offenders institutions such as Polmont provide for dealing with speech and language communication problems. Does he appreciate the significance of the problems that are faced by some young people who end up in prison? Will he undertake to look at the provision of such services that are available in young offenders institutions? Notwithstanding the wider context of the reforms to which he rightly referred, will he review the issue, perhaps by asking an outside body to consider whether current provision could be improved?

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

As I said, we as a Government are continually on the case. We recognise that youngsters coming into the system can have severe educational and learning difficulties. Not that long ago, issues such as dyslexia were not even identified or considered, but we now know that a significant element of the prison population not only has learning difficulties but suffers from conditions such as dyslexia. Clearly, we require to deal with that.

I have seen for myself how HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont tries to address the specific problem of the culture of violence that we face in Scotland. I can assure the member that the Scottish Prison Service is continually looking to beef up provision to ensure that we deal with offenders' needs and wants, which may involve not simply drug or alcohol addiction but the learning difficulties or disadvantages that they have when they come into prison. Equally, we need to deal with challenging behaviour, which can sometimes be due to personality disorders or other matters.

On Marlyn Glen's point, the position at Cornton Vale is frankly quite shameful. We know that many of the women come in with a mental health problem or a drug or alcohol addiction. Many of them have been victims of abuse in their own lives and have suffered a lack of educational attainment for a variety of reasons. Such matters are not simply a criminal justice problem but a social problem. We need to recognise that prison should be for those who commit serious offences or who are a danger to our communities. We should not continue to lock up people who would be better dealt with by having their alcohol or drug addiction treated in the community or by paying back the harm that they have done through the sweat of their brow.

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

I understand from the Scottish Prison Service's chief executive, Mike Ewart, that the redevelopment of HMYOI Polmont includes the provision of a new residential unit, which is currently under construction and is due for completion in September 2009. Once opened, the new unit will provide an additional 137 prisoner places, which will increase the design capacity of that establishment to 760 prisoner places.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

That is welcome news, but is the cabinet secretary aware that 83 per cent of inmates in Polmont have been there before? Against that background, does he accept that the continued overcrowding, even under the new arrangements, handicaps the attempts to deal with the reasons why young men end up in Polmont in the first place? Will he make every effort to ensure that resource is put in place in Polmont to tackle the wider issues that the previous question touched on?

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

Absolutely—that is a valid point. There has been a substantial rise in numbers in Polmont, and the member is correct to say that that is due in many instances to the same offenders repeatedly going in and out of the institution. Some go in for a long time and then move on to the adult establishment, but far too many other youngsters go in for short sentences, after which they come out probably having learned more about criminality than they knew before they went in. That is why we have to make changes.

We face a specific problem with regard to the numbers of young men who are remanded. First, we know that almost 50 per cent of those who are remanded pending trial—it might be slightly more—do not get a custodial sentence. That is not to say that remand is not appropriate in some instances, but it is clear that there is some dislocation. We need to ensure that, for example, we have supervised bail facilities to ensure that, in the main, only those who need be remanded are remanded and that those who are remanded are there because they will in all likelihood face a custodial sentence.

As members know, we still face a problem in Scotland in the possession and use of knives, and we must remain vigilant on that. Tackling the knife culture does not come cost free. As the Solicitor General for Scotland has made clear, young men who carry weapons will not be dealt with under the summary justice reforms and through accelerated procedure. Because of that specific problem, we will ensure that the problems that there are in Polmont and elsewhere are faced. Prisons should be for those who need to be there, and not to give people free bed and board for three weeks or three months.

Rural Affairs and the Environment

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will guarantee funding for local authorities to carry out flood prevention work in line with recommendation 36 of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's stage 1 report on the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill. (S3O-6021)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Government are together reviewing the distribution of resources to local government. The review will include former ring-fenced capital funding for flood prevention and coast protection, which is now rolled up as part of the local government finance settlement. It will inform the next three-year local government finance settlement in 2011 to 2012.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I am pleased to ask my question first, as it offers me the chance to congratulate Roseanna Cunningham on her elevation to whatever it is that she has been elevated to—ministerial office.

It is clear that she has been busy, because there is a torrent of amendments to the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill in today's Business Bulletin. However, a key amendment is missing—specifically, the one that I asked about. She will recall that the committee said that it wants the Scottish Government to reconsider the committee's inquiry recommendation that targeted funding be provided to local authorities. I take it from her answer that she has not forgotten her principles in favour of a ministerial Mondeo. It is down to her influence that the Government is now reconsidering its position. Can she confirm that?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

As David Whitton knows, there is a deal of difference between the role of committees and the role of Government. I do not want to subject him to a politics 101 lecture about the requirements of parliamentary scrutiny. In my previous role, I carried out my function regardless of Government; I am now in a different role, and I am looking at the issue with fresh eyes. The spending review will examine the funding for local government flood defences, and I have every confidence that the money that is needed will be there.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I congratulate the minister on her promotion.

On 19 December last year, Inverclyde was severely affected by flooding and, as a consequence, a local councillor and I met representatives from Scottish Water and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to try to find out who was responsible for the waterways in the area and to find solutions to resolve the matter.

What discussions have taken place between the minister's officials and Inverclyde Council about flooding, and in particular about the implications of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill? Will she accept my invitation, as per my earlier correspondence, to come to Inverclyde and see for herself some of the areas that are regularly devastated when there is inclement weather?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I feel the pressures on the diary already, but I am happy to give that commitment to Stuart McMillan if I am able to find the time to get to Inverclyde.

Inverclyde Council does not have a current flood prevention scheme and it is therefore not included in current spending. The council produced a report in 2007 and copied it to the Scottish ministers for information, but the last funding that it received was for a small scheme in 2001. If councils find themselves in situations similar to Inverclyde's and they intend to try to develop schemes, I urge them to do so in early course. I hope that Stuart McMillan will transmit that to Inverclyde Council.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 2 was not lodged.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Livestock farming in the hills is supported by single farm payments worth over £200 million annually, by less favoured area payments worth £61 million annually, and by other measures, such as the Scottish beef calf scheme, which is worth £18 million annually. We do, of course, recognise the challenges presented by the current decline in livestock recorded on Scotland's hills and in remote areas.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In the past 10 years, the national sheep flock has reduced by 23 per cent and the beef breeding herd by 12 per cent. Last week, the Crofters Commission stated that there is a real risk that the whole industry could collapse in certain parts of Scotland, namely north-west Sutherland, the western isles, Skye and, more recently, Argyll.

Given that insufficient numbers of people are entering farming in Scotland's hill and upland areas—notwithstanding the new entrants—what other plans does the minister have to encourage younger generations not only to come into farming but to stay in it?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I largely agree with the member's analysis of the situation on Scotland's hills. The best way to attract new people into agriculture is to ensure that we have a sustainable and profitable industry in Scotland. I hope that the vision for agriculture outlined by the Scottish Government will help to deliver that in the years ahead.

As regards the immediate action that we are taking on this serious issue, 2009 is an important year for reviewing some of the support mechanisms for agriculture in Scotland, particularly direct support, large chunks of which come from Europe. We will be reviewing less favoured area payments, how we implement the common agricultural policy health check in Scotland and how we use the flexibility within it. I assure the member and Parliament that the future of our hills will be central to those reviews as well as to the on-going review of the Scottish rural development programme.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Falling stock levels means additional stress on the infrastructure of industries such as hauliers and marts. Once it reaches a tipping point, it will be difficult to restart that infrastructure and, without it, the industry cannot survive. What work has the cabinet secretary carried out to gauge how close we are to that tipping point and what action is being taken to support that infrastructure?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I hope that 2009 will offer an opportunity to stabilise livestock numbers on our hills. We have seen a steady decline over the previous 10 years, as I think Mary Scanlon said, and even beyond that. That decline was accelerated when direct support was decoupled from production in 2003.

I refer the member to my previous answer, in which I mentioned reviews of some of the schemes and how we can use them to look at how we make hill farming more sustainable. The member makes a very important point about the wider infrastructure that depends on livestock farming on hills and in our more remote areas. It is not just about the farmers rearing livestock; it is about the hauliers, the abattoirs and the wider infrastructure. I am confident that we can put in place measures to begin to stabilise the situation this year and beyond. It might not be easy, but it must be our aim.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

That information is not held by the Scottish Government.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I hope that the minister is aware of concerns that a massive amount of that environmentally damaging material is being disposed of illegally and is therefore contributing adversely to climate change.

In view of that, and her willingness to bring fresh eyes to the issues for which she now has responsibility, will she consider alterations to the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill to recognise CFCs and HFCs as greenhouse gases or will she use the bill to place duties on the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to better monitor and enforce European Union regulations in this field?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

We are aware of the problem. A considerable problem was identified at the Chunghwa demolition, where work was stopped by SEPA. We can at least have confidence that SEPA is on top of the problem when it arises, which is on demolition. Throughout the decades we have built buildings that are full of ozone-depleting substances, but it is only on demolition that the problem becomes manifest.

Ozone-depleting substances are not currently included in the climate change targets because they are covered by international agreement, through the Montreal protocol. In addition, considerable European and domestic regulations apply throughout the United Kingdom.

SEPA has published a briefing note that has been made available to the demolition industry. As I said, SEPA is already playing a direct part in the issues that are raised by the kind of thing that has happened with the demolition of Chunghwa.

If the member wishes to speak to me on the issue in more detail, I would be glad to have a conversation with her.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The First Minister and I hosted a summit with supermarket leaders last autumn, when we encouraged urgent action to reduce unnecessary packaging. That work is being carried forward by the zero waste retailers group, with my officials in attendance. The group last met on 27 January and will meet again at least twice in 2009. At its next meeting, I expect it to focus on carrier bag use—where we are looking for a 50 per cent reduction by next year—and on reducing the amount of unrecycled packaging.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

What initiatives does the Scottish Government have to encourage people to do more to recycle packaging?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scottish Government funds the delivery body Waste Aware Scotland, which has various campaigns to engage the public on that issue.

Engaging the retailers is an important dimension of the debate, and the zero waste retailers group is now up and running. We are developing a new relationship with retailers in Scotland to try to ensure that such issues are at the top of their agenda. One of the provisions on waste in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill is the proposal to set targets for reducing and addressing packaging in Scotland.

I know that there is widespread desire both in the Parliament and outwith it to put the issue of packaging much higher up the recycling and environmental agenda. We are determined to do that and we will ensure that the resources are made available for the relevant campaigns.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Are ministers aware of the consequences in Ireland of the introduction of its plastic carrier bag tax? It has resulted in significant increases in the use of other packaging, especially for food, and an increase in sales of plastic bags of other types, such as bin liners, nappy sacks and dog excrement bags. I apologise for bringing such items to the attention of members.

Will the minister bear that in mind when considering whether to proceed with the section of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill that would enable ministers to introduce a similar tax in Scotland?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Yes, we certainly shall bear those points in mind when we are considering whether to use that provision, should Parliament endorse it.

One of the key reasons why the provision was included in the bill is because a similar provision was included in the UK Climate Change Bill. I am sure that members would agree that it is much more appropriate for the Scottish Government to decide when, if at all, such a provision should be exercised.

As we have said time and again, our preference is to go down the voluntary route. The initial indication is that the retailers are achieving some of the targets that have been agreed with Government. For instance, members may be aware that retailers achieved the 2008 target of stopping the overall growth in packaging. They have also achieved the target of reducing the use of carrier bags. Voluntary action is our preferred route, and we will see how it goes.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Under our Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill, SEPA will be required to take the impacts of climate change into account in preparing the flood risk assessments. At this stage, it is too early to say that the flood hazard maps would be based on modelling of sea level changes. This is a very complex technical issue and there is a degree of scientific uncertainty. The need for further specific flood risk research on this issue will be informed by the latest UK climate impacts projections, due to be published later this year. We will be consulting closely with SEPA on this matter.

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I thank the minister for her answer and, while I am on my feet, I congratulate her on her appointment.

Yesterday in Geneva, a report based on two years of research by scientists from 60 countries was released. It stated that the melting ice in Antarctica is much more widespread than previously thought, and that the rise in sea levels may be as much as 3ft to 5ft by the end of this century. In light of that, will the Scottish Government consider taking further action, either through the legislation presently being considered on flooding, or through planning legislation, to discourage significant developments below, say, 1m above sea level in coastal areas?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I congratulate Bill Wilson on his assiduous following-up of this issue. From my previous incarnation on the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee I know that the issue is of particular concern to him. I see that I will not be allowed to escape it in my new role.

Current projections are based on figures from 2002, which came from the UK climate impacts programme. However, those data did not include information on storm surges, wave action or tidal range, and that is the basis of the scientific uncertainty. Recent research suggests that the current projections may be minimum estimates. Clearly, Governments around the world will have to consider how that will impact on their plans.

I guarantee Bill Wilson that we will continue to engage at UK level to consider the impact of new projections that may become available towards the end of this year. At that time, we will be in a better position to decide whether or not we should ban building below a certain level around our coasts.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Access authorities throughout Scotland have been provided with powers under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 to do whatever they consider appropriate for the purposes of supporting or maintaining paths in their areas. Each authority must develop access opportunities and make funds available as it sees fit and in accordance with the terms of their single outcome agreements.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

Fife's coastal paths are vital to our tourism industry—particularly so in the present economic climate. To maintain the areas in my constituency and across Fife that are susceptible to coastal erosion, on-going funding is crucial. Will the minister assure me that the problem will be considered and that funding will be available to local government so that it can continue the work and monitoring that have been taking place?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

The member may be aware of my keen interest in long-distance footpaths. I am familiar with the Fife coastal path and its development; and I am familiar with a number of Scotland's other long-distance footpaths, existing and proposed. I hope that all local authorities are considering carefully the funding that they can make available to ensure that such developments proceed apace. Quite apart from any other considerations, that will be vital for the future of tourism in Scotland.

I intend to holiday in Scotland this year, and walking the Fife coastal path is one plan that I am considering. Perhaps Marilyn Livingstone and I can have a conversation about that later.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 9. I call Richard Baker. [ Interruption. ] This is the second time today that a member has not been present in the chamber to ask their question. That constitutes a discourtesy to other members, because members who want to ask supplementaries are unable to do so if the member is not here to ask the original question.

I apologise to Jim Hume, but I must move on to the next item of business, which is heavily oversubscribed.

Skills Strategy

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is a statement by Fiona Hyslop providing an update on the skills strategy. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interruptions during it.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

When I launched the skills strategy in 2007, I set out three major areas in which the Government wanted to effect change: a focus on individual development, a response to the needs of the economy and the demands of employers, and the creation of cohesive structures. Significant progress has been made in all three areas during the past 18 months. The updated skills strategy, which provides more detail, is now available online, and its web address was circulated to all MSPs this morning.

It is important to note that the updated skills strategy sits alongside the Government's economic recovery plan in providing support to individuals and businesses in response to the economic downturn and in ensuring that we as a nation are best placed to take advantage of the upturn when it comes.

For individuals, we have set about implementing a programme of systematic reforms to the ways in which learning is promoted, delivered and funded. For the youngest Scots, we have launched an early years framework that recognises the need for every child to have the best start in life. The framework has been developed and launched in full partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

For our young people, we are pushing forward implementation of the curriculum for excellence and focusing on better learning and teaching for individual pupils. Our new model for guaranteeing that all young people have an appropriate offer of post-16 learning is the 16+ learning choices programme, through which we will provide young people for whom school is not the right setting with a set of tailored and positive options, the aim of which is to guarantee that all young people have the opportunity to access employment or training as an alternative to compulsory schooling until the age of 18. We believe that staying in learning is the best way to ensure long-term employability.

For people with literacy and numeracy needs, we are conducting the first major survey of literacy and numeracy in Scotland since 1996. The result will be vastly improved baseline information that will ensure that our future policies better suit individual needs.

The Scottish Government has also worked hard to improve how learning is funded. For example, the individual learning account offer has been refocused so that it is more relevant to learners in the workforce: for the first time, it can be used for workplace learning. We have also opened up higher education to a broader range of learners through ILA 500, under which grants replace loans for part-time students. The fact that 15,000 applications have already been made shows that we are meeting a clear demand from individuals.

Overall, we have about 40,000 people in training. The majority are undertaking modern apprenticeships, but the figure also includes those who are training under the skillseekers, get ready for work and training for work programmes. We intend to have 50,000 people in training by 2011.

Our second area of focus is the need to effect change to ensure that Scotland's skills policies can respond to the needs of employers and the economy. Within the changed economic climate, that is now even more important. Listening to employers and acting on their advice has been a top priority for the Government during the past 18 months. I have met the chief executives of all 25 sector skills councils to identify what employers need, what the councils can offer, and how the Government can respond. As a result, the colleges and the sector skills councils have for the first time signed up to a collaboration agreement, which will ensure that the parties continue to have a close working relationship as they deliver for employers and the wider economy.

Since 2007, I have engaged with hundreds of employers of all sizes to establish how best we can work together to meet Scotland's skills needs. I have established the skills utilisation leadership group, which aims to make better use of Scotland's skills in order drive up productivity and growth. The group comprises employers—Microsoft, First Scotrail and BT—along with Skills Development Scotland, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. It is a unique partnership.

All that activity with employers has resulted in a strong evidence base on which to build our policies. Employers understand that we are a Government that listens and acts. We listened to the tourism sector, and so are now funding a study into the possibility of creating a centre of excellence in hospitality and tourism. We listened to the food and drink sector, and are funding the development of a business case for a Scottish hub of the National Skills Academy for Food and Drink Manufacturing, and we have introduced adult modern apprenticeships in professional cookery.

We listened to the financial sector, and have helped to fund the establishment of an industry-led financial services skills gateway. We listened to the creative industries, and I am pleased to announce that, within the increased number of apprenticeship places for 2009 and as part of the Government's aim to develop new high-value sectors in the economy, 50 apprenticeship places will be set aside specifically for the creative industries sector in the coming year. That is in addition to the extra £5.8 million investment in Skillset's screen and media academies in Scotland, which was announced earlier this month and which will help to boost our country's position as a world leader in the creative industries.

We will continue to work closely with employers to ensure that we supply what they need. That is the purpose of the apprenticeship summit that will be held in spring, which will give us the opportunity for a frank discussion about the skills interventions and support that employers really want.

We have also been listening to employees. We have forged a strong relationship with the STUC as the communiqué on skills, which the First Minister and the STUC signed last year, demonstrates.

We need to promote development and innovation in cohesive structures: that is what we have done. At United Kingdom level, we play a central role in the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, and I have made sure that the commission recognises the importance of better use of skills in the workplace to improve productivity.

Major progress has been made by our partners in relation to the calls to action that were made in "Skills for Scotland: A Lifelong Skills Strategy". I am pleased that they have all addressed those challenges with enthusiasm and imagination. We have, for example, established a new set of relationships between the Government, the funding council and the universities. In particular, activity that is supported through the funding council's horizon fund is demonstrating how Government-funded higher education activity will respond better to the needs of students and the economy.

Scottish colleges have long had a reputation for responsiveness and flexibility. The way in which colleges such as Reid Kerr College have acted swiftly to ensure that redundant apprentices have access to alternative relevant training has been welcomed across the board, as has the £7 million that the funding council has set aside to ensure that training and support is available to redundant workers and for activities relating to partnership action on continuing employment.

The Scottish Qualifications Authority has played a hugely important role in working with the Scottish credit and qualifications framework and the sector skills councils to place an increasing number of Scottish vocational qualifications onto the framework, which will provide progression routes for individuals who choose to take a vocational path.

Skills Development Scotland has been established. In my guidance letter to the body, which I placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre this morning, I have made it clear that I expect it to be a catalyst for improved performance and better joint working on skills. It is already working effectively with the funding council and Jobcentre Plus on issues that support the economic recovery plan. To further support the plan, we need to be adaptable and flexible in order to meet the changing skills needs of the current economic climate. We have refreshed the PACE programme by increasing its scope and ensuring that it is well placed to address the rapidly changing needs of the workforce in the coming months.

The strategy update, which is now online at the Scottish Government website, focuses on adaptability and flexibility. We know that the ability to be agile and responsive is one of the most important attributes in difficult economic times. The strategy will continue to support that approach and we will focus effort and resources where they are most needed to support individuals and the Scottish economy in these difficult and challenging times of recession.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on issues that were raised in her statement. I intend to allow 20 minutes for questions, after which we have to move on to the next item of business. I remind members that we are extremely tight for time, and that questions should therefore be short and to the point.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I shall be quick, Presiding Officer.

I thank the cabinet secretary for providing us with early sight of her statement and for the earlier correspondence to members on the strategy. I have not yet had the opportunity to welcome Keith Brown to his front-bench role, so I do that now.

In September 2007, Labour members set out their concerns that the strategy had been rushed out and that an opportunity had been missed. We are now in a reactive situation, rather than a proactive one. However, we welcome the announcement of extra apprenticeships in the budget and in today's statement, the guarantee to apprentices who face unemployment—which was also in the budget and the statement—and the improvements to PACE, which will help people who face redundancy.

The apprenticeship summit will consider the expansion of apprenticeship opportunities in the next financial year. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the aim is to expand apprenticeship places not just in the next financial year, but in subsequent years, as we discussed as part of the budget discussions? I hope that the cabinet secretary will agree with that.

On the apprenticeship guarantee, I understand that some members have been contacted regarding apprentices who are facing redundancy and who want to know where to get help and support. How will the guarantee be highlighted and promoted through the apprenticeship system? If that work has started, will the cabinet secretary give a little more detail on it?

I am sure that the cabinet secretary accepts that, particularly in the financial services sector, we must tie employers into the work of PACE as early as possible. It is not only the public sector that must help people who face redundancy; all employers who make people redundant must consider what contribution they can make to helping those people into other employment, rather than their going on the dole.