Scottish Parliament, 19 March 2009

355 contributions from 82 members. The official report.

Official Report 19 March 2009

Forestry

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3727, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on forestry.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

We want to move on from the diversion of the past few months. There were sharply differing views, and the unanimous decision of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee was a vindication of the campaign by Forestry Commission Scotland staff, unions, members of the public and all those concerned about the future of our forests. I thank Roseanna Cunningham for accepting the inevitable, but I have a question for her. Last Thursday, when she was asked when she would announce the Government's response to the consultation, she said that she would take the decision in her own time. She announced her decision less than 24 hours later. When did she make her mind up? Would it not have been better to have announced her decision in the chamber on Thursday? However, I want to move on.

We have argued all along that the Rothschild proposals were ill thought out and did not have the benefit of a business plan. Having read the Forestry Commission's options paper, I believe that that view has been reinforced but, as I said, our intention today is to enable a debate that lets us move on and focus on the way forward.

The first issue that must be sorted out is the Scottish rural development programme. We have previously discussed the scheme's complexity and excessive bureaucracy, and it is clear that, in relation to forestry, it is not working on any level. The consultation responses demand an urgent streamlining of the process, but it is also clear that the level of support is not sufficient to persuade landowners, foresters, investors and farmers to plant trees.

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment has already set in train a review. It would be good if the minister confirmed today that she is committed to increasing the level of financial support to boost applications, as set out in the Forestry Commission's options paper, because there are opportunities that need to be seized. The common agricultural policy health check recognises woodland creation as a means of helping to tackle climate change. Land afforested under the SRDP is now eligible for single farm payments, which would offer farmers the chance to remain in farming but transfer some land into forestry.

The Forestry Commission's figures show that its intention is that 5,000 hectares are currently planted but that, if an extra £10 million were made available, the figure would rise to 8,000 hectares. We understand the worries about the loss of prime agricultural land or peatland areas, but enough land of a lesser quality should be available. The expansion needs to be managed properly, and we support the suggestion that a land use strategy be developed.

There is also the issue of CO2 absorption. The science is complex, and it is clear that forest planting can play a role—but only if it is done in a sustainable way. It is certainly not a get-out-of-jail-free card that means that the rest of us can avoid having to think about making carbon cuts in our use of energy and in our travel. Extra wood for sustainable buildings, for processing and for meeting the growing demand for biomass could play a part in a climate change strategy. Wood is also crucial for thousands of jobs, particularly in our fragile rural areas.

The other major contribution that the Forestry Commission can make to tackling climate change is to develop renewables on its own land. That was one of Labour's key policies at the previous election, and we believe that it is a vital part of the solution to the funding of new planting. Within five years, £10 million a year would be being generated to fund new planting and management—a virtuous circle of creating renewable energy and funding new forests to help tackle climate change. The £10 million would grow to £30 million a year, which would pay for a lot of tree planting and management. The challenge is how to address the crucial short-term period.

The SRDP is clearly important in attracting new planting and, with an uplift in grant funding, more people would be attracted to apply. Labour has consistently argued that we need to be spending Scottish Government money with the carbon implications clearly understood. The benefits that would come from properly managed new tree planting would score highly not only in value for money but in value for the planet. The financial gap is relatively small and short term.

The Scottish Government has choices. If ministers were to make a relatively small injection of investment to boost the value of grants, it would transform prospects. If they are serious about delivering on the target of an 80 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions, they have to put the financial investment into carbon-saving policies over the next decade.

Under Labour, we introduced the idea of repositioning, in which land is sold off and the income is recycled by the Forestry Commission, but the Confederation of Forest Industries—ConFor—makes the valid point that repositioning must not be the only source of new funding for planting. There is clearly some scope to increase the rate of repositioning in the first few years, but it would have to be done sensitively—there would be no point in knocking out the Rothschild proposal if our forests were to suffer death by a thousand smaller cuts. Repositioning could work on a short timescale—five rather than 75 years—and we would want a guarantee that, once the renewables funding kicked in, the Forestry Commission would buy new land and fund new tree planting to replace areas lost through repositioning for the public good.

In respect of the carbon contribution made by the Forestry Commission estate, there is also RSPB Scotland's point that the Forestry Commission's peatlands should be looked at as an option to lock in carbon.

There are options, and this is a matter of political will and support. Now that the leasing proposals are off the agenda, there is the space to look at better alternatives. It also means that there is confidence for the supply chain and continuity of supply, which means that the processing industry can move forward with greater confidence, and an opportunity to build the biomass industry and strengthen those supply chains.

The Forestry Commission is responsible for only a third of Scottish forests. Any strategy must therefore include the perspective of the forestry industry so that we gain maximum economic benefit from our forests. ConFor makes the point that the Scottish Government's target for planting was nowhere near being met last year. When the economy picks up, there must obviously be a role for the Scottish Government to encourage the building industry to use wood to ensure that our buildings are a much more sustainable product, but in the short term the challenge for the Government is to sort out the SRDP, increase the payment rates and get a move on with joint renewables projects. Given the clear parliamentary support that there is for the principle, ministers should accelerate the process so that, as soon as there is a legislative framework, schemes can be given the green light.

I welcome all the amendments.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the unanimous recommendation of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee that the Scottish Government drop proposals for leasing up to 25% of the Forestry Commission estate for a period of 75 years; welcomes the decision of the Scottish Government to amend the Climate Change Bill to remove the relevant clauses, and calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward its review of the operation of the Scotland Rural Development Programme urgently, including reviewing the level awarded for grants, and to pursue proposals for joint ventures to deliver renewables projects in the Forestry Commission estate.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Nothing that I have heard from Sarah Boyack this morning is new; it seems to me that this morning's debate is an exercise in wheel spinning. The fact is that this Government is showing leadership in addressing the urgent global problem of climate change.

It is clear that our forests can make an important contribution and that we must take full advantage of the opportunity that they offer. The technology report from the Atomic Energy Authority, which is not a reference that members will hear me use often, entitled "Mitigating Against Climate Change in Scotland: Identification and Initial Assessment of Policy Options", identified woodland creation as a high priority measure.

Forests and woodlands have the advantage of bringing a wide range of other benefits. In addition to their environmental and social value, Scotland's forests contribute about £670 million to the Scottish economy and support more than 30,000 jobs in forest management, timber production and processing, and forest-related tourism, which by all accounts will increase this year. The wood processing industry has invested more than £250 million in the sector over the past three years.

The 2006 Scottish forestry strategy included an aspiration to reach 25 per cent woodland cover in Scotland by the second half of the century, which means creating at least 10,000 hectares of new woodlands each year. Achieving that target would lock up an additional 4.4 million tonnes per year of CO2 by 2050—for comparison, in 2006 total net greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland were 59 million tonnes.

Woodland creation on that scale would therefore make a significant contribution to our target of reducing emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, but it needs additional funding to the order of £10 million to £15 million per year. Our consultation on the forestry provisions in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill was about identifying opportunities for that funding, and I remind the Parliament that the proposals in the consultation, which were brought forward in the bill, were a means to an end—not an end in themselves.

We are listening because that is what consultation is about. That is what it has been about throughout the Government's tenure in office, although that might not have been what it meant before 2007. The consultation was open, and throughout the process we said that we would listen to views before taking any decisions, which is precisely what we did.

It is clear that the status quo is not an option. At 4,000 hectares per year, our tree planting rates are well below the aim of 10,000 hectares per year. After five to 10 years, we can expect additional funding for woodland creation on such a scale to come from renewable energy projects on the national forest estate. The estate has considerable potential for renewable energy development, and the Forestry Commission Scotland is vigorously pursuing the opportunities. The power to enter joint ventures will provide greater commercial flexibility.

By dropping the leasing proposal, we face a short-term funding problem for woodland creation for up to five years. The SRDP offers about £23 million per year for woodland creation, but to achieve our ambition for woodland creation we must increase that amount. We cannot simply raid other parts of the SRDP pot or the Scottish Government budget, as some respondents to the consultation thought was possible. That is why we are asking the Forestry Commission Scotland to explore further use of well-established arrangements that were introduced in 2005 for selling areas that are of least public benefit to raise money for investment in new woodlands.

The Forestry Commission Scotland selects for sale land that delivers a low level of public benefits with—for example—relatively little public access and use, limited community involvement and no significant natural or cultural assets that would be put at risk by sale. Potential options to increase funding include bringing forward the programme of sales—we are actively considering that—and using the proceeds to support woodland creation through the SRDP. I will meet the commission's national committee for Scotland next week to hear its views on that option.

Meanwhile, we are actively engaged in strengthening the forestry measures in the Scotland rural development programme. At Mike Russell's request, George McRobbie prepared a comprehensive report on the forestry industry's behalf about improving the SRDP's operation. That work will feed into our wider review of the SRDP, which is considering the extent to which it can assist us in meeting the challenges of the economic downturn. The wider review will also consider necessary changes to the SRDP's priorities and objectives and to the delivery mechanisms, and we expect to take decisions on that in May. That information has been well known to Sarah Boyack all along.

We have already implemented George McRobbie's suggestion that we remove the 200-hectare constraint on annual compensation payments to farmers, and by this summer we hope to increase the grant rates for woodland creation. The necessary modification is with the European Commission and, if it is agreed by Brussels, it will increase grant rates by about 17 per cent.

Following recent reviews of standard costs, we plan to submit another request to Brussels for further increases in grants. To help the industry to plan, the Forestry Commission Scotland will shortly publish on its website information about the proposed increases to woodland creation grants.

The Government is committed to ensuring that forestry continues to make a major contribution to Scotland's economy and that it delivers social and environmental benefits, which include helping to meet our climate change targets. I do not think that there are any serious disagreements about our underlying aims. The challenge that we face is funding woodland creation in the next few years until renewables income comes on stream. I hope that we can look ahead and work together on that, but that means that people must be constructive and not simply negative.

I move amendment S3M-3727.3, to insert after "years":

"; notes that the Forestry Commission makes a major contribution to the economy of Scotland and can also make a major contribution towards helping Scotland meet its climate change targets".

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

All remaining speeches should be of about four minutes but we have a little flexibility, so members should feel free to take interventions if they wish to do so.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

As ever, as a farmer I begin by declaring an interest in the subject, which is particularly important in your constituency, Presiding Officer. I welcome the tone of Labour's motion, which is a deal more positive and reasonable than the views that Labour previously expressed. I also welcome the Government's decision to drop its controversial leasing proposals and its new focus on finding different ways of raising funds to increase planting throughout Scotland.

We all want to find ways of reducing carbon emissions and increasing carbon sequestration. To that end, all members support the principles of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. In principle, we all support expanding the forest estate and raising money to do so through joint ventures, such as appropriately sited wind farms and hydro schemes, in which the Forestry Commission is involved in South Ayrshire.

Diversification of our forest estate to create extra income is not a new concept, merely one that should be pursued more vigorously. Given the rising cost of energy and the returns that can be made now and in the future from wind farming, raising significant amounts of money should not be a problem in the long term. I appreciate that the Forestry Commission has a short-term gap in funding to start land acquisition for extra planting, but that shortfall could be met if the commission sold some of its non-core assets, such as its nurseries or holiday cabins, and concentrated on its core business of growing trees. However, deciding which assets to realise is a matter for the commission.

Security of supply is essential in the forestry industry, which contributes £1 billion a year to the Scottish economy. The abandonment of the policy of blanket afforestation of Sitka spruce was appropriate, but it means that timber production is reducing by about 1 million tonnes per year. That needs to be replaced, and we need to plant about another 7,000 hectares every year to maintain existing supply, but that is a different goal from the Government's target of increasing planting cover from 17 to 25 per cent by 2050. It is important that further planting on such a scale is undertaken in the framework of an integrated land use strategy, because more competing demands are being placed on the finite resources of Scottish land than our Scottish landmass can cope with.

My well-known view is that, in this recession and afterwards, we in Scotland and the United Kingdom must retain our strategic ability to feed ourselves in as much as we can. That is why the first public benefit of land must be food production; other priorities should follow. The necessary housing target of building 35,000 new homes annually must be met, but it will swallow huge tracts of good and productive agricultural land. A target of 25 per cent forest cover by 2050 might be valuable for carbon sequestration, but increasing cover from 17 to 25 per cent will represent a 50 per cent increase and will come at a cost to food production at a time when the amount of land for producing food is reducing worldwide because of climate change.

I merely pose a question that must be asked: does a further huge expansion of our forestry industry still make sense? We must ask whether huge further afforestation is the most effective way of reducing through absorption our carbon footprint, especially if that reduces our food-producing capability. Do more obvious ways of reducing carbon emissions exist? If we are serious about carbon sequestration and reduction, we must create an integrated carbon sequestration and reduction strategy as well as an integrated land use policy.

Scottish Conservatives want a strong, growing and sustainable forestry sector that maintains the 30,000 jobs that it provides in rural Scotland. However, further massive expansion must be delivered in the context of a thought-through and fully developed integrated land use strategy. More work needs to be done to establish beyond doubt the true value to carbon reduction and sequestration of growing trees for timber on Scotland's hills and uplands. The science must be better; at the moment, it is not good enough.

Our party will work positively in and around the subject, which we look forward to debating in the future and at greater length.

I move amendment S3M-3727.2, to insert at end:

"and considers that all forestry proposals in future must be part of an integrated land-use strategy."

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

Needless to say, I am delighted to participate in the debate, which highlights the success of the Lib Dem-led campaign to save our forests. Roseanna Cunningham showed excellent timing when she announced the U-turn on the morning of the upbeat Lib Dem conference, so I thank her for that.

As Sarah Boyack was correct to say, it is time to move on, and the Liberal Democrat amendment does so constructively. What we witnessed in the past few months was not about new inventive ideas to tackle climate change or being creative, although those terms were drummed into us; rather, a brazen and reckless attempt was made to undermine one of Scotland's most valuable assets by selling it off to the highest bidder.

Throughout the discussion, the Government resorted to petty personalised attacks on the Liberal Democrat campaign and treated industry, individuals and organisations—indeed, anyone who disagreed with its so-called great proposal—with contempt. Mike Russell even accused others of being theatrical. Such an attitude from a minister is shocking and, considering the potential impacts of leasing on Scotland and the scale of what was proposed, it was sheer arrogance to assume that the proposal could be pushed through Parliament by piggybacking on the simplistic idea that it would solve all our climate change problems.

Throughout the debate in January, Mr Russell accused the Liberal Democrat contribution and response to the consultation of being "fact free". He said:

"There is nothing so dishonourable as politicians who don't do their homework while confidently trotting out wildly inaccurate statements for political benefit."—[Official Report, 29 January 2009; c 14498.]

In fact, the Liberal Democrat response has proven to be entirely accurate and has reflected the views of land-based organisations, tourism providers, foresters and wood processors at every stage. Those businesses have been in serious limbo since last November and, in January, 19 of the main wood processors sent the minister a letter stating exactly that. That limbo was due to the Government's mad proposal and to the Tories, who did not stand up against it initially and made their U-turn only after their Scottish National Party masters. Mike Russell ignored everyone, decried their expertise and passed them off as scaremongers who did not do their homework—what arrogance and ignorance.

Throughout the debate, references were made to the Stern report, but nowhere in that document did Lord Stern conclude that 100,000 hectares of Scotland's most commercially viable forests should be sold to the Rothschild banking group for a notional sum of up to £200 million for 75 years. In that same debate, Mike Russell pronounced in prophetic fashion:

"Although leasing is not a new idea, I believe that its time has come."—[Official Report, 29 January 2009; c 14497.]

Its time had come—its time to be buried with all the SNP's other misguided flights of fancy.

Who would have thought that, within a month, Mr Russell would be removed from his minister's position, obviously for flogging that dead horse? I welcome the new minister's U-turn, even though Ms Cunningham had thought the leasing proposal a "cunning plan" in January. I am sincerely relieved that sense has prevailed: the decision has removed the guillotine of uncertainty that was hanging over rural communities, which can now invest for the future.

It is now time to move on. We have an opportunity to implement, under the Forestry Commission's stewardship, sensible measures that will generate income for renewables, access, tourism and new tree planting and will guarantee the wood supply for our businesses. The Government should now concentrate on doing its best for Scotland through real and tangible measures to tackle climate change.

I move amendment S3M-3727.4, to insert at end:

"and further calls on the Scottish Government to introduce a comprehensive sustainable land-use strategy, taking into account the strategic economic, social and environmental impacts and benefits of forestry, agriculture, recreation and other land uses and setting out, where appropriate, the contribution each can make in dealing with the consequences of climate change."

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. People might ask why the member for Dunfermline East, where coal mining has been highly important for many years, is speaking, but the reality is that my constituency is rural as well as having been highly industrial. In fact, Fife is now much greener than it has been for 200 years, thanks to previous Labour administrations in Fife Council that developed some outstanding green projects, helped by European funding. I am immensely proud of my Labour colleagues in Fife Council for the work that they have done on that.

I say to the Liberal Democrats—especially Jim Hume—that success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. My colleagues, led by Sarah Boyack, played a huge part in fighting the important campaign against the leasing proposals but, as we are always modest, we do not claim all the credit and recognise that it is shared.

As Sarah Boyack said, Scottish Labour welcomes the decision that the SNP made last week to ditch its plans to privatise a quarter of Scotland's forests. The decision follows a hard-fought campaign by Labour. Alex Salmond had to reshuffle his Cabinet because Michael Russell attracted so much criticism for the policy, and the SNP should apologise for attempting a hatchet job on Scotland's forest estate. It is shameless that, answering a supplementary to Wendy Alexander's oral parliamentary question last Thursday—which was submitted in writing a week in advance—Roseanna Cunningham said:

"I will make the decision when I make it"—[Official Report, 12 March 2009; c 15738.]

and then announced the following morning that she was ditching the policy.

We welcome the fact that the Forestry Commission can now get on with managing our forests effectively over the decades to come. We want there to be more renewable energy ventures—that is the key to tackling climate change—with the money that is generated being available to the Forestry Commission to invest in new planting.

The proposal to sell the forests is a typical example of the SNP rushing ahead with ill-thought-through plans and trying to bulldoze them through rather than set out detailed plans for proper consultation. For example, 133 written questions were submitted—mostly by Scottish Labour's rural and environment team—between the time that the Government made the proposal to sell the forests and Mike Russell's appearance in committee to answer questions on it. Fifty one of the answers to those questions—38 per cent—said in one way or another that a proper reply could not be given, as the answer would depend on the outcome of the forestry consultation. We all know the hostile responses to that consultation, but the SNP pressed ahead and included powers to sell the forest in its Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, which was published on 4 December.

The real impetus behind the leasing scheme was that timber demand is likely to exceed supply in a few years' time. We realise that more trees need to be planted, but that is nothing to do with climate change and, if that was the motive for the proposal, the bill was the wrong place for it.

I will point to one example in my constituency of actions that members across the Parliament can urge people in their localities to take. I persuaded Exxon, which is one of the big petrochemical firms in my constituency, to plant 5,000 trees, and I am proud that Exxon has taken that action, as it will help my area. If every MSP challenged their local firms to plant 5,000 trees each, we would give tree planting an enormous boost.

As we outlined in the debate in January, we want the Government to consider more alternatives for carbon sequestration. It could first consider protecting and, where necessary, reinstating soils rich in organic matter, such as peatland and blanket bog, which can sequester and store carbon.

The Government could encourage the use of wood for fuel and construction. We have heard much from the SNP about our Scandinavian partners. They use timber imaginatively to build homes for their people, and we should do much more of that in Scotland. The Government should encourage the use of local timber wherever possible to minimise carbon emissions from transport.

The Government could extend crop rotations to maximise carbon storage and promote the use of high-quality hardwoods. The SRDP could be reformed to maximise support for planting woodlands, timber protection and natural flood prevention schemes. Labour members have suggested such measures in the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee during its discussion of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill.

The Government could also develop a comprehensive land use policy that maximises the potential of the land to tackle climate change and its effects. That would best be achieved if the Scottish ministers retained direct control of the forest estate.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am glad that the minister made the point that the debate on the forestry provisions in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill was about considering means to achieve an end, the end being to have more money to help our forests to contribute to the fight against climate change. The Forestry Commission underlines how important that is when it points out that deforestation is estimated to account for 18 per cent—nearly a fifth—of global carbon emissions and that forest regeneration has taken place in Britain and other industrialised countries to the extent that forests in those countries are now absorbing CO2 again.

The debate on the forestry provisions was an attempt to get people's ideas about how we can achieve such regeneration, but it has begun to focus on one of the proposals in the consultation, which genuinely sought to get money that would allow us to kick-start at an early stage—as the Labour Party is always saying we should—our attempt to curb climate change through the Forestry Commission's work. Questions remain to be answered: as the minister has said, the gap in the money available for more planting has still to be filled.

When discussing the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill at the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee a week ago, I asked Stewart Stevenson whether any of the people who opposed the leasing proposals, which have been controversial, have made other proposals that might help us to raise funds for planting more forests to mitigate climate change. The minister said:

"The comments in the consultation have focused largely on what should not be done."—[Official Report, Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 10 March 2009; c 1697.]

He went on to make other points, but—

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will the member take an intervention?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Certainly.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I find it astounding that the member is hinting that no other suggestions were made whatsoever—that is not my reading of the responses to the consultation. The criticism was that the leasing proposals would undermine the strategic integrity of the Forestry Commission and would be damaging to its work. That was the problem that everybody had with the proposal.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The Forestry Commission's strategic role is in looking after a third of our forests. The Labour Party was in Government for eight years but is now saying to us that we need a positive policy on forestry. What was the Labour Party doing for all those years, when there was little planting? We are now trying to find the means of ensuring that planting takes place—although I think that Sarah Boyack and I agree that we have to speed up.

If we want to sell forestry land, we will have to find people to buy it. If Labour members want communities to buy it, they have to ask whether money will be available from the Big Lottery Fund. Much of that money has been sequestered in the east end of London. Communities are not being allowed to buy Government land with the help of the Big Lottery Fund, so Labour members have to tell us where the money will come from.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Not at the moment.

When we talk about how to use our forests, we have to be clear that we need a strategy for land use. The Tories have made that point, and it is also mentioned in the Liberal Democrat amendment. Within the forests, we have to decide what type of forestry to use. We require more than just the clear-fell Sitka spruce stuff; we require managed forestry from which we can get building materials and fuel, and where forest crofts can be set up. However, that will depend on the Forestry Commission having an income.

In the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, we will be looking for ideas. I read the Labour Party's press release this morning: it said that we have to have a positive policy. What does LP stand for? Labour Party or lacking policies? The SNP has presented policies and is asking others to engage with them.

As I have said, few realistic efforts have been made to get money into the Forestry Commission for early development. That is our argument, and we should all work to find the answers.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Before I come to my substantive points, I place on record my welcome for the Government's change of heart on its leasing proposals in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. It is regrettable that the proposals were ever made, because they have overshadowed the scrutiny of the bill. Had the ideas been introduced in the original consultation, they would never have seen the light of day in the bill. We have to learn from that. However, if there is a silver lining, it is that the importance of forestry with regard to climate change has been highlighted: forestry is not just a cash cow but a means of capturing carbon and providing sustainable materials for energy and manufacture.

We need to acknowledge and appreciate the work of the Forestry Commission. As the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee explored the options, it became clear that the commission worked closely with all its partners, whoever they were, in industry, government or communities. We need to build on those relationships.

Joint ventures have received overwhelming support. They can provide an income stream for new planting. They can also be used to fight climate change by providing renewable, low-carbon energy generation. Joint ventures can involve wind and hydro power developments, for which our forest estate is perfectly placed. Most forestry land is away from settlements, so the negative impact of any developments would not be great.

Communities could enter into joint ventures with the Forestry Commission. In the past, when a community has been keen to develop renewables on commission land, the community has had to purchase the land at market value. Joint ventures would remove the need for communities to raise funds to buy such land and would allow them to develop their own energy plans and to develop renewables with the commission. The Forestry Commission has a good track record in working with communities, and that expertise will help in developing projects.

The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee scrutinised the use of timber when we considered climate change. Much of the discussion was about timber for energy, but we also need to focus on other uses for timber, such as building. When the leasing proposals were on the table, I was alarmed to learn that many building developments that used timber had stalled because of uncertainty. I urge the minister and the Government to ensure that research and development is restarted. We are in a difficult economic climate, and it is important that the Government ensures that such work takes place. Using timber in building means using more sustainable materials and can also mean providing better insulation.

We are all agreed that there needs to be more planting. However, it has become clear that there cannot be a free-for-all. We need to plant the right trees in the right places. Real fears were expressed by NFU Scotland that quality farm land would be used to speed up planting. It is important that that does not happen. Although we have to increase planting, we will have to ensure that we do not store up problems for the future.

It is vital that we learn from past mistakes, such as the huge square blocks of unsuitable trees that have been planted in the wrong place and which impact on the environment and scenery with no obvious gain, other than possible tax breaks for the landowner.

The Government has already agreed to draw up a land use strategy. However, it appears to be taking a long time to develop. I am not suggesting that we delay planting until it is complete, but the Government needs to consider the key principles so that decisions can be made on where and what to plant.

I welcome the minister's comments on the SRDP, for which we have been calling for some time. The SRDP will speed up planting.

I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to have this debate. During the previous debate on forestry, the Labour Party put across good, sound suggestions on the use and development of forestry. At the time, the suggestions appeared to go largely unheeded; the then minister was more interested in retaining a discredited policy. However, now that the policy has been ditched, I hope that the positive ideas that we put forward then, are putting forward again today, and will continue to put forward, will be heeded and acted on.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The Government's welcome and sensible change of heart over the leasing of our woodland has given us time to debate alternative funding sources, about which we have heard already. It has also given us a huge opportunity to continue debating a comprehensive policy on forestry—a policy that could do a great deal to maximise the potential for using home-grown timber in construction. Rhoda Grant has already mentioned that potential.

We have the opportunity to explore the possibilities that are opened up by a construction technique that, for each house built, could offer carbon savings that are equivalent to the normal total greenhouse gas emissions of a standard house—including the emissions from its construction and from its heating throughout its lifetime. Massive timber construction has been developed in Switzerland and is already being investigated in Scotland. The construction technique allows even timber of quite poor quality, such as that from the lowly Sitka spruce, to be fixed together with hardwood dowels to provide solid beams that can span distances of 30ft and are capable of supporting even concrete floors. The wood can be made into slabs of between 4in and 1ft thick, and can be carved and shaped to millimetre accuracy. In relation to the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, the argument for the development of that construction technique in Scotland is overwhelmingly persuasive.

I will use the example of Acharacle primary school in the Highlands, which will be handed over to Highland Council in the next few weeks. With walls, floors and roofs made almost entirely of massive timber, the school will not only sequester more than a million kilograms of carbon dioxide over its 100-year lifespan, which is acceptable under the Kyoto agreement, but displace several million more kilograms of CO2 that would have been produced had the school been constructed from steel, concrete and brick.

However, even if we were not facing climate change chaos, there are other strong arguments for using massive timber, the first of which is cost. If home-grown timber is used, the costs will be comparable to any other form of construction. A great advantage of accurate prefabrication is that buildings perform to expected standards when completed, so there are no hold-ups as a result of mistakes and faults in construction and therefore no ensuing expenses.

The high energy efficiency standard that has already been set for passive houses is met comfortably by Acharacle, with room to spare, in terms of airtightness and heat loss. Acharacle will use 15W per square metre, while an average house uses well over 10 times that. Particularly important for children and schools is the fact that massive timber buildings have excellent acoustics and, indeed, air quality. Because no glues are used in the assembly of Brettstapel massive timber, there is no off-gassing of the kind of chemicals that many paints, finishes and glues give off and which, according to increasing evidence, exacerbate the problems of children who suffer from asthma and allergies.

I should also point out that Gaia Architects had to import all of the massive timber for Acharacle school from Austria, not only at an environmental cost of 50,000 kilograms of CO2 as a result of transporting the material but at extra financial cost because of currency fluctuations.

Wood is still the best building material that we know for Scotland. It is durable and can be easily cut, formed, steamed, shaped and now dowelled together to provide an all-purpose building material. Counterintuitively, as the necessary tests have demonstrated, it even resists fire better than standard buildings. We have the land, the trees and the expertise to take full advantage of a golden opportunity to build to the very highest ecological standards, save money and the planet, and create hundreds and even thousands of permanent new jobs in a flourishing wood materials industry. All that we need is a forestry policy—and, of course, a research and development policy—to take that vision forward.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am paraphrasing, but I believe that it was Prime Minister Harold Macmillan who, when advising a young, up-and-coming Tory MP on his political career, warned him, "Beware events, young man, events." Since our previous forestry debate, a number of things have happened in the wider world outside the Parliament. Two space satellites collided in orbit, a new Minister for Environment was appointed, and the Government dumped plans to lease nearly a quarter of the Scottish forest estate. As I am neither young nor up-and-coming, I will leave it to other members to weigh up the relative significance of each event.

Since the previous debate, Mike Russell, who is seen as a rising star in ministerial ranks, has moved on to greater things and Roseanna Cunningham has been handed the poisoned chalice of the leasing scheme. That said, I have not yet had the chance to congratulate Ms Cunningham on her promotion, but I do so now. In my speech, I will focus briefly on the scheme, as other members have rightly done, and will also consider some of the more positive aspects of the forestry agenda, including joint ventures, which have already been mentioned, and tackling climate change.

Where did the idea of leasing a quarter of the forest estate for 75 years come from? As others have pointed out, the scale is breathtaking. We are talking about around 100,000 hectares, which is roughly the size of Fife, with, of course, the knock-on effect of the loss of around 35 per cent of Forestry Commission income. In response to a parliamentary question, Mike Russell made it clear to me that

"Rothschild approached the Scottish Government with ideas about the national forest estate."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 9 February 2009; S3W-20106]

Subsequent answers have provided evidence that Rothschild, ministers and officials met six times between October 2007 and July 2008. However, I have not received within the time limits a response to my freedom of information request to see the minutes and record of the discussions. Perhaps the minister can speak to her officials to see whether we can move things along.

However, to be fair, I received at the eleventh hour an analysis of the consultation responses on the leasing scheme. As members have pointed out, almost 75 per cent of them were negative. For example, one respondent said:

"Offering long leases is tantamount to privatisation",

while on page 5 of the document we read:

"This land is owned by the people of Scotland and should remain firmly in the control and management of the Forestry Commission."

Respondents also expressed concern about Forestry Enterprise jobs, with at least 3,500 people signing the Forestry Commission trade union petition; the creation of a less predictable wood supply for processors; and experience from abroad of leasing forest estates. In New Zealand, for example, lessees went bankrupt and jobs were lost. Also, when the Swedish Government sold off much of its national forest estate to a company, the company raised log prices, which caused sawmills to go bankrupt.

Edward Shepherd, the Forestry Commission's trade union secretary, predicted in The Scotsman of 4 December 2008 that the whole 25 per cent would be given out in "one whopping great lease" to an international investment company. He went on to say that

"Although the minister"—

Mr Russell—

"is not attempting to privatise the land, he would be privatising its management and control."

Now that the leasing liability is behind us, I welcome the fact that the Forestry Commission will be able to get on with managing our forests effectively in the decades to come. For example, joint ventures in renewables will provide a win-win by raising funding, developing renewable capacity and helping to mitigate climate change.

As we all know, timber demand is likely to exceed supply in a few years' time, which means, of course, that more trees will need to be planted. In my few remaining seconds, I ask the minister to confirm in her winding-up speech that all new planting, including planting that is not in receipt of grant, and work under planning consent should meet United Kingdom forestry standards.

We have a high-value product with strong export potential. Indeed, I will finish with a snapshot from history: pulp from Irvine was once exported to Manhattan for the production of Time magazine. Through skilful management of the economic, environmental and social dimensions, we can preserve and develop Scotland's rich, natural assets.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

It is important that we remember why the Government proposed the leasing of some of our forestry in the first place and ensure that forestry's climate change benefits are not overlooked as the Opposition gloats over its apparent success in being listened to in a consultation. What a novelty—the Government listened. Obviously, the concept is alien to the Opposition.

Our Scottish Government is committed to tackling climate change and is preparing to deliver the challenging target of reducing Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. It also wants 50 per cent of Scotland's electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2020. In 2006, the Stern review highlighted forestry's potential role in dealing with climate change and the benefits of strong, early action, and the consultation on the forestry provisions in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill was part of that approach.

As everyone will agree, there is absolutely no doubt that woodland creation can contribute cost effectively to net emissions reduction and that there is great potential to increase Scotland's woodland and forest area to take more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Indeed, one aspiration in the Scottish forestry strategy is to achieve 25 per cent woodland cover in Scotland by the second half of the century, which would lock up an additional 0.2 million tonnes of carbon per year by 2020 and an additional 1.2 million tonnes by 2050.

Those are great ambitions, and they are exactly the kinds of actions that we need to take to counter the dangers of climate change. However, as soon as our visionary Government puts its head above the parapet and makes a new and exciting suggestion, the moaning Minnies appear with a hundred thousand reasons why it will not work. Those people oppose everything but propose nothing.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

By "the moaning Minnies" does the member mean the Scottish Wildlife Trust, the wood processing industry or the 9,000 people who contributed to my survey on the issue, 97 per cent of whom stated that they were against the leasing proposal?

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The Opposition parties—the majority of them, anyway—misled the public and misrepresented the situation.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Those moaning Minnies, who never come up with anything positive, oppose everything but propose nothing. We have heard nothing new from any of them today. In addition, they resort to distorting the truth to mislead the public. Indeed, we have heard more of that during this debate. Honest debate is not helped by misrepresentation.

I will give members an example of what I mean. The proposals to lease part of our forests were thoroughly worked out and a decision was made to include an area of 115,000 hectares of productive forest in the south and west of Scotland. If my geography is correct, Inverness is not in the south or west of Scotland, which would have meant that forests in the Inverness area, such as Culloden wood and Craig Phadraig wood, would not have been affected by the proposals. How silly of me! I had completely forgotten that the truth is a stranger to the Liberal Democrats, who contrived to conjure up headlines in the local press that said that Culloden and Craig Phadraig woods were in grave danger.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I say to Mr Hume that that was misrepresentation. According to the Lib Dems, the popular forest walks would be cordoned off, never to be available for public use again. They either did not understand or did not care about the truth.

Our London-based Lib Dem MP, Danny Alexander, said:

"The Government is using 'slash and burn' tactics, when some of the Highlands' most iconic and well-used outdoor attractions are at stake."

John Farquhar Munro MSP joined Danny Alexander and a local Lib Dem councillor for a photograph in Craig Phadraig wood, and waded in with his false predictions of doom, saying:

"The potential impact on key Forestry Commission sites for public access and for wildlife—from Culloden and Craig Phadraig to Glen Affric and Glenmore—is only half the story."

What complete and utter tripe. They misrepresented the truth and misled the public. Such dishonest and disreputable politics disillusions people and gives us all a bad name. The perpetrators of deceit may gain some short-term political advantage, but we all lose out in the long run and democracy suffers.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We now move to the wind-up speeches.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I did not participate in the debate on forestry in January. My constituency can lay claim to many wondrous attributes, but a tree-covered landscape and a vibrant timber industry are not among them. It was more appropriate, therefore, that my Highland and South of Scotland colleagues took the lead in giving voice to the serious concerns that constituents were expressing. However, I did sit through the debate and, like many, I was staggered by Mike Russell's approach. Like David Stewart, I make no apology for taking the opportunity to spend a little time looking back, but I probably will not go back as far as the Macmillan era. The self-styled listening minister refused to take interventions and lectured members in the chamber on what he called "the facts". That was a dangerous tactic, as he was later required to return to the chamber to apologise for misleading MSPs, albeit inadvertently.

The contrition shown on that occasion was commendable, but I believe that a further apology is due to my colleague Jim Hume, who successfully led the broad-based campaign in opposition to Mr Russell's ill-conceived proposal.

Notwithstanding Helen Eadie's claim about the parenthood of success and failure, a measure of Mr Hume's effectiveness was surely the extent to which he discomforted the former Minister for Environment, whose response was highly personalised and insulting. An apology is perhaps owed, too, to Mr Russell's colleague Rob Gibson, who was left as the last man in the trench defending a proposal that was hatched in the Rothschild boardroom in New York. However, an apology is certainly owed to all those individuals, businesses, organisations and communities—dare I say, an historic coalition and not "moaning Minnies"—that raised their voice in opposition to the Government's plans.

For Dave Thompson's benefit, I say that those plans came from nowhere, lacked any real detail and were rushed through a consultation that spanned Christmas and new year. Stuart Goodall of the Confederation of Forest Industries told the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, but obviously not Mr Thompson, that they

"would have preferred more time, or perhaps an opportunity prior to the consultation, to focus on alternative ways of ... delivering an increase in new planting and finding funding for that."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 11 February 2009; c 1422.]

With a mixture of assertion, bombast and hubris, however, Mr Russell declared his proposals a "win-win for Scotland" with "no downsides". That was frankly ludicrous, and it was made clear in evidence to the committee, despite Mr Gibson's touching confidence in Stewart Stevenson's assurances, that the afforestation objectives could be achieved through joint ventures.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The Liberal Democrat amendment suggests that we require a land use strategy. When are we going to hear how we will raise the money to plant more trees?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Well, we certainly will not necessarily go to Rothschild for advice.

We will never know whether Mr Russell would have had the good grace or sense to ditch his plans, but I welcome the speed with which his successor moved to deal with what ConFor rightly described as an unnecessary "distraction". Welcome, too, was the Tories' belated recognition that even they could not find a way to back the Government on this issue. It was at times painful to watch the intellectual contortions that Tory MSPs performed to avoid agreeing with Liberal Democrats that the leasing plans were unworkable.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Will the member take an intervention?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am sorry, but I do not have the time.

It is imperative that there is no slippage in the timetable for ministers bringing forward a comprehensive and integrated land use strategy. Ideally, such a strategy—and, indeed, the national waste plan—should have preceded Parliament's consideration of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, given the range and extent of the enabling powers that ministers seek in it. I hope that the minister can reassure members that that will remain at the top of her to-do list over the coming weeks.

Vital though forestry is, for the reasons suggested in Roseanna Cunningham's amendment, it is nonetheless part of a wider debate about land use. That is the essence of our amendment and of John Scott's, which we support, and it is also a point that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds made. The debate about forestry really cannot be seen in isolation and, as the RSPB suggests, we need to consider more broadly

"how sustainable land management can help address some of the impacts of climate change."

For example, Sarah Boyack suggested that the role of peatland is considerable and perhaps underestimated.

Beyond climate change, we need to consider the economic impacts. Forestry and wood-using businesses contribute £700 million to the Scottish economy, often sustaining some of our more fragile communities. However, ConFor estimates that tree planting fell last year to a low of 3,000 hectares, which presents real challenges economically as well as environmentally. ConFor has made constructive suggestions, including on short leases and changes to the SRDP. I welcome the minister's commitment to produce conclusions in May from the review of the SRDP. However, as John Scott made clear, as we consider food security and the dramatic loss of livestock in some parts of our country, there are no easy solutions to managing competing demands for land use.

Our amendment looks ahead, but the minister and her SNP colleagues cannot complain about the tone of the debate. The tone was set by Mike Russell, and dismissing criticism as scaremongering is simply not good enough. I hope that lessons have been learned by the Government. I urge Parliament to support the motion and all three amendments at decision time.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Although I wondered about the wisdom of Labour's decision to debate forestry for the second time in seven weeks, we have had a worthwhile debate that has moved our thinking on significantly from the debate that we had in January. However, as usual, the tone of the Lib Dem speeches was somewhat discordant with the mood in the chamber.

There is clear consensus that, in view of the uniformly hostile response to the Government's proposals to lease 25 per cent of the forestry estate, the Government was right to drop them. We were pleased by the minister's statement last Friday in that regard. There is no doubt that forestry is important to the Scottish economy in terms of tourism, recreational and sporting activity, and, of course, as a source of the timber that is increasingly being used by the construction industry as a substitute for concrete and steel, and as a fuel source, with the potential to make a serious contribution towards meeting Scotland's renewable energy targets. Forestry is also important for our biodiversity, because it provides a habitat for many species of wildlife and vegetation. It has a significant contribution to make, too, in locking up carbon, although how much is debatable. We welcome the Forestry Commission's on-going review of carbon science, which is perhaps much more complex than was hitherto realised.

Commercial forestry's 39 per cent growth in the past decade is indicative of its economic potential. However, we are still far from achieving the 25 per cent forest cover to which the Government aspires and which would mean expansion of our woodland by 10,000 hectares per annum, as several members have said. That could have serious implications for biodiversity and agriculture. Like the RSPB and NFU Scotland, we hope that the Government's forthcoming land use review will enable a strategic approach to be taken to managing Scotland's land in relation to food production, wildlife adaptation and climate change mitigation. Forestry must not be looked at in isolation. It must be considered alongside other, competing land uses, not least because an increase in afforestation from 17 to 25 per cent could have a significant impact on agricultural land, much of which has already been lost to housing and industrial development.

Food security is increasingly important in a hungry world, and careful thought must be given to any significant diversion of land from primary food production. On the other hand, sensitive and well-thought-out woodland expansion, involving the sustainable maintenance of forests alongside other land uses, will help to safeguard biodiversity. It will also allow us to address some of the impacts of climate change and help us to meet our climate change targets.

We have heard about some of the opportunities that could come from the pursuit of joint ventures between the Forestry Commission and other interested parties and which would help to generate the huge financial investment that will be needed if planting targets are to be met. There are exciting possibilities for renewable energy and other projects, and we agree that the Government should pursue them.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Would the Conservatives consider helping us to urge the Treasury to examine how tax incentives can be used to generate more planting? Is that a good idea?

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

That is debatable. The use of tax incentives has brought bad as well as good results, so I would need to give the idea careful thought.

We agree that with appropriate and well-directed resourcing, the SRDP could make a more significant contribution to sustainable and carefully targeted woodland expansion. The issue should be addressed with some urgency. The Government's other fundraising proposals, such as the sale of surplus Forestry Commission land, are also worthy of consideration.

If Parliament accepts what has been proposed and debated this morning, I hope that we will look to forestry playing an increasingly important role, but if we are to achieve a successful and sustainable future for the people of Scotland, forestry must be integrated with agriculture, housing development and all the other activities and industries that must coexist in our relatively small land mass.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I would like to say that the debate has been useful and constructive, but as I am not allowed to lie to the Parliament, I will not. I kept waiting for the positive stuff, but with one or two honourable exceptions, most Opposition members appeared to run out of time before they got to that bit of their speech.

When I saw the Press Association coverage of what the Labour Party had put out, I was highly amused. Apparently, the Scottish Government faces calls for a programme of tree planting across the country's forests. Well, duh! What have we been talking about for the past two years? Labour talks about joint ventures, even though it is obvious that such ventures are being actively pursued. We have in front of us a motion that starts with a restatement of the obvious, calls on us to do something that we are already doing, asks us to pursue proposals on joint ventures that we are already pursuing and mentions the need for the SRDP to be reviewed, when a review is weeks away from completion.

Although the amendments are perfectly acceptable, one of them asks us to consider forestry proposals as part of a land use strategy, when that is already happening. I remind all members that land use issues are key to almost all the areas that are covered by the rural affairs and environment portfolio, so we are fully conscious of the competing demands and priorities.

Interestingly, the motion says absolutely nothing about climate change.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The minister mentioned joint ventures. I ask her to re-examine the joint venture in the Carron valley forest that was scuppered by her predecessor. That venture, which involved the voluntary and private sectors, was scuppered to suit her Government's policy.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I will undertake to do that, if the member is so desirous of pursuing the matter further. We know that joint ventures are under way. Sarah Boyack mentioned the challenges of the next five years, but she offered no ideas on what could plug that gap, which is the one that needs to be filled.

We then heard from the Liberal Democrats. Jim Hume and Liam McArthur need not congratulate themselves too fulsomely because their campaign was one of disgraceful misrepresentation and scaremongering. We saw that again today—the Liberal Democrat speeches were negative and backward looking, and they contributed nothing.

The leasing proposal is, of course, the one that created all the controversy and argument, but we forget what its purpose was. I remind members that it was a means to an end. The end was helping us to meet the challenge of climate change. We must think out of the box when we deal with climate change. The leasing proposal was an example of that approach, to be sure. As someone who lived abroad for many years, I think that one of the most depressing things about Scotland is that when anyone does any out-of-the-box thinking, there is a queue down the road and round the block of 100 folk who can give thousands of reasons why what has been proposed cannot be done. Ninety-nine of the people in that queue will be members of the Labour Party. On today's evidence, the other person will be a member of the Liberal Democrats.

One of the most depressing aspects of our society is that too many people say what cannot be done, but they do not follow that up with what can be done. Helen Eadie exemplified that attitude. She called on us to do what we are already doing, quoted chunks of the Labour Party's briefing and gave us nothing by way of a positive response. Rob Gibson and Dave Thompson made excellent points about the negativity that has been evident in the debate.

I acknowledge that Robin Harper, at least, had a positive suggestion to make. He raised the issue of massive timber with me on a previous occasion, so I raised it with the Forestry Commission. I can advise that the Forestry Commission is aware of the potential of massive timber and that at least one Scottish company is already investigating the technology. That is a positive contribution, but it still does not deal with the next five years. I think that even Robin Harper would accept that the use of massive timber does not offer an immediate, short-term answer, because we must get the technology in place.

Frankly, I am disappointed by the ridiculous response to a consultation that put out ideas for consideration. That response was all about what we could not do and had very little to say about what we could do. This Government is about what we can do, and we will continue to take that approach.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

When the motion was lodged, we had not had the announcement that the Scottish Government was to abandon its plans to lease out 25 per cent of the Forestry Commission's estate, even though, as Helen Eadie pointed out, the Government had the opportunity to make the announcement in Parliament last Thursday.

Roseanna Cunningham said nothing new and was remarkably churlish, given that the motion congratulates her. We have argued for the alternatives to the SNP's proposal all along, and I am pleased that the Government is now pursuing them. An extraordinary grumpiness pervaded all the speeches of SNP members, and they made little in the way of positive suggestions. The expression "sore losers" comes to mind.

Most members of the Parliament were genuinely pleased by last Friday's announcement, which meant that today's debate has given us an opportunity to explore alternative ways of increasing forest cover and to examine the role of forestry in mitigating climate change. As Rhoda Grant said, it is heartening to learn how highly the Forestry Commission's work is regarded. Congratulations are due to the Forestry Commission trade unions, the timber industry representatives, such as ConFor and the UK Forest Products Association, the environmental non-governmental organisations, the tourism and leisure interests, and the political parties—the Labour Party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Green party and, latterly, even the Tory party. We welcome their campaign and last Friday's decision.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I am sorry—my time is limited.

I am not sure that Roseanna Cunningham's predecessor would have been as able to make the sensible decision, give the sometimes arrogant way in which he dismissed genuine concerns as "scaremongering". The spirit of Mr Russell seems to live on in his colleagues. In December, in answer to an oral question, Mr Russell stated:

"Labour members will be judged on their inability to engage with forestry and climate change or to think constructively."—[Official Report, 11 December 2008; c 13367.]

In January, in response to another oral question on the issue, he said:

"There are members in the chamber whose behaviour has been disgraceful."—[Official Report, 22 January 2009; c 14321.]

On that occasion, I think that he was referring to Jim Hume and me.

In February, Mr Russell told the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee:

"I believe that the leasing proposal is worthy of the committee's support ... and ... needs to proceed."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 11 February 2009; c 1449.]

Time has told whether it was Labour members or Mr Russell who engaged most effectively with the forestry sector. David Stewart described the problems that Mr Russell's pet project would have caused. Let us all be grateful for a fresh pair of eyes at the ministerial desk, however ill-natured those eyes seem to be this morning.

Contributions to the debate have brought positive, thoughtful suggestions for alternatives to leasing out the forestry estate and have reflected on the wider issues of land use, and other action that can be taken to reduce carbon emissions and to sequestrate carbon. There has been strong support among members for joint ventures, and for renewable energy projects such as small-scale hydro, biomass and wind generation. However, I sound a note of caution with regard to some of the major large-scale wind turbine developments in forests, which require the felling of trees on a large scale. Sometimes, those trees cannot be used by the timber industry because they have not been certified. In addition, there is major soil disturbance when the concrete bases are inserted. The projects that take place on the forest estate must be the right ones.

The Scottish Government could provide a budget for the purpose of forestry planting, should it wish to do so. After all, £70 million has been allocated every year to freezing the council tax, and the small business bonus scheme cost £73 million in 2008-09. If the Scottish Government really wanted to allocate a budget, it could do so. However, in the absence of additional Government funding, a recent review of options suggested that increased funding could be generated by the repositioning of the estate. I am pleased to learn that ministers are pursuing that. Whatever Rob Gibson thinks, such a policy was brought in by the previous Labour Administration.

Woodland creation on private land is supported through the rural development programme, which is another area that Labour believes needs to be considered. I welcome the fact that the minister is talking to Brussels about increasing the amount of funding that is available for forestry planting.

However, an element of caution needs to be applied. As other members have said, planting woodland is not a magic wand for mitigating climate change. Although 33 per cent of the land of Scotland is considered appropriate for woodlands, there are other competing demands; as John Scott said, agriculture and food production is one such demand. As he also said, the science of carbon sequestration is very complex, and woodland expansion must be environmentally sensitive. We need to avoid the mistakes of the past.

The land use review is an opportunity for a strategic examination of the competing requirements for land. We believe that plans for increasing woodland cover must be balanced with the demands for food production, flood prevention and nature conservation.

As others have said, afforestation is not the only answer. Several alternatives are proposed in the consultation responses. I have mentioned them previously, but since the SNP seemed unable to listen, I will mention them again. First, restoration of conservation of peatlands and wetlands to maintain and increase carbon sequestered in soil is vital. Secondly, longer crop rotation cycles would allow trees to reach maturity and maximise their role in sequestration. The third option is the appropriate use of native woodlands and broadleaved trees, and the fourth is the use of wood for construction instead of concrete. I was interested in Robin Harper's contribution regarding the way in which wood construction techniques can produce energy-efficient buildings. That is well worth considering.

The slogan, "the right tree in the right place at the right time" has been repeated during our consideration of the forestry proposals in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. The decision to drop the leasing proposals may not have been made at the right time, and it may not have been made in the right place, but it was the right decision. I give the minister that, despite the rather grumpy nature of her contribution.

Police Numbers

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3726, in the name of Richard Baker, on police numbers.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Ever since the Scottish National Party came to power, the Parliament has sought to hold it to its manifesto commitment for 1,000 more police officers in Scotland. This is not simply a debate about numbers; it is about a clear promise to communities in Scotland that that commitment on extra police would be kept when so many of the Government's manifesto commitments have been jettisoned. However, trying to get clarity from ministers on the commitment has been like trying to nail blancmange to a wall. By September 2007, the SNP had moved away from the pledge of 1,000 more police to

"the deployment of the equivalent of 1,000 additional police officers".

When the cabinet secretary was asked, on "The Politics Show", how many police officers there would be, he said:

"I find that, actually, a rather silly question. The number will, you know, be whatever that will be."

The Parliament, and others without, has ensured that the Scottish Government returned to a commitment of 1,000 more police officers. Alas, though, even now it has been necessary to seek further clarity from ministers on that pledge. Yesterday, they published a police force projection study that they said showed that the target would be met. The cabinet secretary attacked what he called doom-mongers—unlikely as it may seem, the phrase "doom-monger" may have been aimed in my direction. All I can say in response to the cabinet secretary is "Physician, heal thyself", because it was not me but the cabinet secretary who, when asked by Colin MacKay,

"Will there be 17,265 officers by 2011?"

said no.

At a recent First Minister's question time, the First Minister, in his best Tony Soprano impersonation, issued me with a dire warning that I would have to apologise to Parliament on the issue. I am afraid to say that no such apology will be forthcoming—not because I seek to follow his example in failing to apologise for the Government's litany of broken promises, but because we had to raise our concerns about the fact that the cabinet secretary said in the interview that the target of 1,000 more police than in May 2007 would not be met.

In the SNP amendment, Mr MacAskill returns once again to the issue of 1,000 extra recruits, but 1,000 recruits 1,000 more police officers does not make. Between 1999 and 2007, the previous Scottish Executive delivered 1,500 more police officers to create a record number of police in Scotland. When the cabinet secretary talks of record numbers, that is nothing new—we achieved that and we are proud of it. However, to do that over eight years, nearly 7,000 new officers were recruited.

It is still not clear to us from the projection study that the level of planned recruitment will result in 1,000 extra police officers. If the cabinet secretary is so confident that it will, why does he not simply sign up to our motion? His projection study predicts that the lowest possible number of new officers that there will be is 10 more than we refer to in the motion, so it should have been easy for him to sign up.

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

Perhaps I could put it on the record. Will there be 1,000 more officers? Yes.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has made that clear commitment, but it raises the question why he could not sign up to the motion, which would have made that absolutely clear.

Labour councillors in Strathclyde, through the good offices of the Strathclyde police board, are investing the funds of their own councils to put more police on the beat there—nearly 200 extra officers. We have not even said in the motion that the extra 1,000 funded by the Scottish Government should be above and beyond that.

The extra recruitment in Strathclyde shows that a postcode lottery on police recruitment is opening up, with recruitment forging ahead in Strathclyde, while in Grampian, recruitment targets are having to be scaled back by some 60 officers—the First Minister may care to reflect on that. I am sure that it will become clear that Grampian is not the only force to be affected in that way.

It is important that those who come forward to join the police now receive exactly the same level, length and high quality of training that have been the hallmark of the Scottish police. Reports in two newspapers in November raised serious concerns about pressures on training provision.

On this crucial issue, it is time to have a clear strategy for delivery. Today, the cabinet secretary said yes but three weeks ago he said no. For too long, with the mibbes aye, mibbes naw approach that has been taken, it has seemed as though Kenny Dalglish rather than Kenny MacAskill has been in charge of the pledge. That is why we wish to see new, independent scrutiny, not simply of the reporting of the figures but of the projection study and the plans to make the pledge a reality. Despite all the statements about the projection study, and despite the comment that Kenny MacAskill has just made, the amendment in the name of the cabinet secretary still does not bind the Government to a clear target. It simply refers to the projection study. If the cabinet secretary has moved on from that, we welcome that.

However, on that basis we cannot support the Scottish Government's amendment; nor can we support the Conservative amendment, which is merely an addition to that. The Liberal Democrat amendment is not only a more accurate reflection of the history of the issue; it is far more productive in looking forward, and we are happy to support it.

If the SNP cannot accept independent scrutiny of its progress on the issue and cannot make a clear commitment, doubts will remain. In any event, it will still be the job of the Parliament to hold the Government to account on this key pledge—it is clear that the pledge will not be kept unless we do so. We are gratified that, on this occasion, our debate has resulted in further information and, hopefully, the clarity that we seek from the Scottish Government. Nevertheless, we will continue to press the Government to keep its pledge on police numbers. That is why we have brought this debate to the chamber today.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the Scottish Government must ensure that there are 17,265 full-time equivalent police officers by March 2011, calculated on the basis currently used by the Chief Statistician in the reporting of the official Police Officer Quarterly Strength Statistics, for the SNP's stated manifesto pledge for 1,000 more police officers to be met.

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

I welcome this debate on police numbers. I am extremely grateful to Richard Baker for bringing it to Parliament, particularly as it gives me the opportunity to set out the good news about how the Government is delivering on its promise to put more police officers on our streets and in our communities.

Following the publication yesterday of the police force projection study, we can say not only that recorded crime is at a 25-year low and police numbers at an all-time high, but that the SNP Government will deliver 1,000 additional recruits; that the total number of police officers will be 1,000 higher than in 2007; and that we will go further by using the three Rs of recruitment, retention and redeployment to maximise the number of officers on our streets and in our communities. We will do all that despite our inheriting a spike in retirals and the lowest level of police recruitment since devolution.

Therefore, although I welcome the debate, I am a bit surprised that Richard Baker wanted a debate celebrating the Government's success on police numbers. Over and over, he told anyone who would listen that we would never recruit 1,000 additional officers. He was a doomsayer and a Jeremiah, but that argument is bust. Over and over, he told anyone who would listen that the head count would never go up by 1,000 officers. Now, that argument is bust, too. He needs to learn that saying something over and over does not make it so. In four quarters, we have seen four increases and we now have record numbers of police officers in Scotland.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The cabinet secretary earlier gave a definition regarding the way in which police numbers will be worked out. That was a different definition from the one that he has repeated several times before. Can we take the latest definition as the final definition of the Government's position on the matter?

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

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We inherited from the Liberal Democrat-Labour Administration the lowest level of police recruitment since devolution. We also inherited a record number of retirals. Despite that, we are delivering 1,000 additional recruits and are committing to in excess of 1,000 additional police officers come 2011 than we inherited in 2007. That is a good news story. However, doubtless, Richard Baker will wish to continue with his doomsaying.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I simply pose a question. We certainly want the Scottish Government to put those additional police officers on the beat. If the cabinet secretary is so confident about that today, why did he say just three weeks ago that the total figure would not reach 17,265 officers? Is he saying that the figure will be at least 17,275, which is the bottom of the range that is set out in the projection study?

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

We inherited a frankly dreadful situation—the lowest level of recruitment since devolution and a record number of retirals, with more than 2,300 officers projected to go. Despite that, the Government is committing, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and our additional officers will be on the streets.

Richard Baker continues to plough on, but the fact of the matter is that we are delivering. Looking at the faces of Richard Baker's colleagues, I do not think that they are too admiring of his having brought the issue for debate this morning. I suspect that they feel that, a little like the grand old Duke of York, he has marched his Labour colleagues up to the top of the hill only to find 1,000 police officers waiting for them at the top.

As members know, on 31 March 2007 there were 16,234 full-time equivalent police officers in Scotland. In our first budget, the Scottish Government funded our pledge to recruit an additional 1,000 police officers over this session of Parliament. We have also provided police authorities with sufficient resources to maintain the numbers with which they started, including £20 million in 2009-10 to cope with the bulge in retirals that we inherited and £55 million in 2008-09 to 2010-11 for police and fire pensions, which were dropped on us by Westminster.

Now that we are at around the midway point in our first term in office, we can project what the impact of that investment will be. The police force projection study uses published statistics, together with forecasts from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. There is always some uncertainty in making projections about the future; therefore, we have modelled variations in the number of officers retiring and leaving the service. As a result, the report cites a range of figures. However, the study clearly shows that the number of police officers in March 2011 will likely be at least 17,275 and possibly as high as 17,484.

Because of the Government's investment and the work that it has undertaken in partnership with the chief constables, I can say with confidence that we will see the number of police officers rising by 1,000 or more. The Jeremiahs and the doomsayers will just have to accept that. I can also say with some confidence that Richard Baker now needs to march his weary troops back down the police numbers hill. I suggest that, the next time that he is tempted to march them up it, he should remember that saying something over and over again does not make it so.

I take pleasure in moving the amendment in my name and confirm to Mr Baker that we will recruit 1,000 additional officers. There will be 1,000 additional officers in 2011. The Government is delivering on its commitment to the three Rs and is providing a visible police presence in our communities.

I move amendment S3M-3726.1, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:

"notes that police officer numbers are at a record high; welcomes the findings of the Police Force Projection Study that show that by March 2011 police officer numbers will have increased by more than 1,000 over the March 2007 level and will reach between 17,275 and 17,484 officers; commends the Scottish Government for its investment in funding 1,000 additional recruits; further commends the eight Scottish police forces for delivering additional police officers, and calls on the Scottish Government to continue to maximise the total number of police officers through a combination of recruitment, retention and redeployment."

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

At least we now know where we are. I like to think that I am regarded as a fair man and a person who will adopt a reasonable approach to all the difficulties that we run up against. However, I am slightly impatient that this matter is before the chamber again, although I can see the justification behind the Labour Party's raising the matter following a far-from-clear statement from the cabinet secretary some three weeks ago that caused doubts to arise in all our minds. Nevertheless, I pay credit where it is due. The situation has been clarified today beyond peradventure. I congratulate the cabinet secretary and, at the same time, encourage him to be as forthright and as clear on other subjects in the days ahead.

We were promised the projection study, which duly arrived and which has clarified events to an extent. People who are less cynical than me might regard it as a passing coincidence that the document arrived on our desks yesterday morning, after Mr Baker's motion had been lodged. However, I appreciate the fact that, at times, I can be a little cynical.

Let us return to the history of the matter. As I say, Labour was perfectly justified in raising the issue today. However, its record with regard to the 1,000 additional police officers is perhaps not so praiseworthy, bearing in mind the fact that, in last year's budget deliberations, it did not come up with any constructive suggestions in that regard. I pay tribute to the fact that the Liberals acknowledged the point at that stage.

The projection study stands up to reasonably robust scrutiny. Nonetheless, I take the point that there seems to be an imbalance in the recruitment numbers throughout Scotland. That is something that Mr MacAskill and others may have to address, but it can be sorted out. Another issue of concern is that—despite the arguments about the changing financial climate, which I accept—the figures under the retention heading of the three Rs might not be as comfortable as we might think. However, that issue will take its course.

Certainly, the recruitment element of the equation is highly satisfactory. Tulliallan seems almost to have set up a production line that is turning out new, effective police officers. On the streets, there is a positive improvement in the visibility of police officers—Glasgow city centre is a classic example. That is not just my view, but has been put to me by members of the public.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Is the member aware of the situation with Grampian Police? Its projected figure of 98 additional officers is welcome, but that does not compare well with the 138 extra policemen that the force received over the period of the previous parliamentary session. Does the member agree that, although the figures are welcome, they should be kept in perspective?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I have already underlined the point that an imbalance exists in the recruitment figures around the country. The Grampian Police figure is less than satisfactory. I hope that the cabinet secretary, along with the force's police board and chief constable, will take measures to resolve that situation. I accept that that is an issue.

We need to consider where the credit is due for the increased figures. Frankly, I think that credit is due to members on the Conservative benches. With all due modesty, I point out that, if we had not put pressure on the Scottish Government last year, we would not be in the position today of knowing that we will have a minimum number of 1,000 additional officers.

This is a serious issue because the primary duty of Government is to ensure the protection of its citizens. It has been proved beyond peradventure that safety and security are provided by having police officers actively patrolling the streets. As a result of the input of my colleagues on the Conservative benches and as a result of the Scottish Government's recognition of the realities of the situation, we are on course to achieve that increase. That can surely only be a satisfactory situation.

I move amendment S3M-3726.1.1, to leave out from first "commends" to "further" and insert:

"notes that this figure has been achieved as a result of the funding secured by the Scottish Conservatives in the 2008-09 budget negotiations;".

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I will begin, if I may, with Mr Aitken's second-last point, which was about the seriousness of the issue. The debate is not just a numbers argument: it is about holding the Government to account on an issue that is very important to the public. Today's debate should never have been necessary, but the blame for it lies entirely with the Government and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.

We all know that the SNP's reputation as a party that made manifesto promises that it never intended to keep was first established in the debate on police numbers—an issue that was first raised by our then leader, Nicol Stephen—and has become entrenched with its breaching of other key pledges on student debt, local income tax and class sizes.

Let me remind members of the sorry history of the SNP Government's obfuscation on police numbers. The SNP's 2007 manifesto said:

"we will set out plans in our first Budget for Scotland for 1000 more police".

That was very clear. However, the manifesto pledge that was put before the nation was recalibrated shortly after the election. In the famous phrase, Kenny MacAskill said:

"our commitment is to deliver ... the equivalent of an extra 1,000 officers".—[Official Report, 6 June 2007; c 406.]

As a consequence, the word "equivalent" might acquire a new meaning in the "Oxford English Dictionary". However, the phrase was repeated on various occasions, notably by the First Minister on 5 September and 4 October 2007. As Richard Baker has already mentioned, Mr MacAskill also said, in his "silly question" comment, that

"The number will ... be whatever that will be. Whether the number will be 16,201 or 16,222, I don't know."

As a result of its embarrassment on the issue, the SNP Government was forced to increase police funding to support 1,000 police officers above the established number. However, two further questions need to be asked, which echo points that other members have already made. First, does the cabinet secretary's pledge—I am grateful to him for redefining it once again this morning—exclude the increased officer numbers that are being paid for by redeployment within forces such as Strathclyde Police? Does the pledge go above increases that are being paid for by other people, or is it a simple comparison with the 2007 figures? Secondly, in the retention figures—which Bill Aitken rightly raised—is there any progress or improvement in the 30-plus scheme?

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

The answer to Mr Brown's question is quite clear. We are committed to recruiting 1,000 officers and we are committed to there being 1,000 more than the figure in March 2007. It is straightforward and simple.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The answer to the question is obviously that the number does not take account of any additions. To be precise, the additions that Strathclyde Police have made are part of that 1,000 figure; they are not over and above the Government's commitment, as some of us might have thought.

In any event, the position should have been pretty straightforward. If the cabinet secretary had earlier defined the matter as he did this morning, there would have been no problem. The pledge should have meant that we would have 17,265 officers by the end of the session, but no—that was not the case. On 3 March this year, Kenny MacAskill said that there would not, after all, be an extra 1,000 police by 2011. He said that that was not the target that the SNP had set itself, which was to have 1,000 additional recruits. Apparently, the promise did not account for the 2,000 officers who are due to retire by 2011. Once again, the cabinet secretary could not say what police numbers would be in 2011. Even in the cabinet secretary's amendment today, the matter is not as clear as it was in his speech.

I genuinely welcome the police force projection study, which—as Bill Aitken rightly said—was carried out rather hastily after a rather confusing interview. I welcome the news that 450 extra recruits have come out of Tullliallan this year. I have recently visited the Scottish Police College and I much admire its work. Until March I had though, to be frank, that we had moved on from the issue. Let there be no mistake that achievement of the 1,000 police officers pledge—in the precise terms that are laid out in the motion—is the job of the SNP Government and no one else. Richard Baker was quite right to lay down the challenge. If the SNP Government has no concerns about the issue, why does it not agree to the motion in the terms that the Labour Party has laid out? There is no real reason why the Government should not do so, given that the motion matches exactly what the cabinet secretary has said today.

The Government has the tool of workforce planning to deal with the problems, which are exactly those that have confronted us in recruiting more social workers, nurses and—when I was a minister—teachers. The SNP should stop redefining, qualifying and recalibrating its pledge. The SNP is in Government and Parliament has given it the tools, so it should not need any excuses or circumlocutions. The police do not want this distracting and rather boring issue and the public want to continue to see more police in their communities. It is time for the SNP to stop messing about and to deliver.

I move amendment S3M-3726.2, to insert at end:

"; notes the Police Force Projection Study carried out by the Scottish Government estimating that police officer numbers are likely to be between 17,275 and 17,484 by 31 March 2011; notes that the SNP's attempt to alter its commitment to the delivery of the equivalent of 1,000 officers would not have achieved this result; welcomes the fact that the Scottish Government was forced by opposition parties and public opinion to firm up its commitment; regrets the Scottish Government's repeated efforts to confuse and obfuscate the figures, noting that, as recently as 3 March 2009, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice cast further doubt on the Scottish Government's intention and ability to achieve the target, and calls on the Scottish Government to work with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland to retain skills and expertise in the police force through appropriate workforce planning and ensure that police officers are working effectively and visibly in Scotland's local communities."

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We now move to the open debate.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I welcome the opportunity to support the Labour motion in this morning's debate.

There is no doubt that crime and antisocial behaviour are issues that dominate many of our constituencies. We see—as I have seen in Cambuslang and Rutherglen—community facilities that have been vandalised, pensioners afraid to leave their homes and families who have grown up in an area feeling intimidated, and there is no doubt that such matters are of grave concern. We must stand firm alongside our communities in combating such crime and antisocial behaviour.

There is no doubt that, in doing so, we look to Parliament's and the Government's responses. A few weeks ago, a debate on community policing showed the many advantages of increased visibility of the police in our towns and cities, and we heard about how community policing is reassuring for many of our families and citizens. There is no doubt that communities want us to back up the measures that councils have introduced and the actions that their antisocial behaviour units have taken to combat crime and antisocial behaviour, but there is also no doubt that more police on the streets and a more visible police presence provide reassurance.

From that point of view, I note the publication of the police force projection study and the cabinet secretary's announcement that he believes that the number of police officers will reach 17,275 by March 2011. However, the projection study has to be closely examined, because there are some questions about its methodology. As Richard Baker said, the previous Executive successfully managed to put 1,500 additional officers on the streets, and that was done on the basis of there also being 7,000 additional recruits. The figures in the projection study show 3,500 recruits going through Tulliallan so, on a like-for-like basis, that will give 750 additional officers. It seems to me that the cabinet secretary has made some optimistic assumptions about retirals.

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

The member obviously does not believe the statements that I have made that there will be 1,000 recruits and that there will be 1,000 more police officers than in March 2007. If the matter is of such concern, why did the Labour manifesto commit to not one new recruit? Would we not be in an awfy state if Labour was in power and not us? There would not be 1,000 recruits and we would be going backwards.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

Labour delivered 1,500 additional officers in the eight years in which it was in power. The SNP is beginning to show itself as a party that said anything to get a vote in the 2007 elections. That is the issue that is before the Parliament today, and that is why people will scrutinise closely the projection study and the methodology behind it.

The SNP is beginning to make a name for itself by dropping election pledges like confetti at a wedding. It told students that it would dump the debt, but it went back on that promise. It told first-time buyers that they would get £2,000 grants, but that was ditched, as well. It told Scotland that it would introduce a local income tax, but that has also been dumped. Some people quote the cliché that politicians will say anything to get a vote. To me, the SNP is becoming the embodiment of that cliché. It is getting politicians a bad name. We are beginning to see signs of that. An opinion poll at the weekend showed that the SNP has fallen behind for the first time since 2007.

There is no doubt that the matter is a serious one that deserves proper scrutiny. The cabinet secretary has given us a projection study, but my projection is that, in the weeks and months ahead, the people of Scotland will begin to see through the false promises of the SNP.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Zero. Zilch. Nil. Nada. That is the precise number of additional police officers that Labour promised in its 2007 manifesto. Indeed, the statistics that were released on 3 March on police officer quarterly strengths show that police numbers were in decline in the first two quarters of 2007, before we came into office. Despite that, we are on track to exceed our target of 1,000 extra police officers. If Labour did not promise a single extra police officer in its manifesto, why is it suddenly feigning interest? As we heard from the cabinet secretary, the SNP Government has also successfully dealt with the significantly higher than expected numbers of police officers who are leaving the force through retiral, resignation or ill health. Labour did nothing to prepare for that.

Labour must apologise for misleading voters on police numbers. I am sorry that Mr Baker has decided that Labour will not do that today. He has consistently told voters that we have broken our manifesto pledge even though there is no evidence to back that up. Voters have been deliberately misled.

It is great that Labour wants us to hold on to our manifesto commitments, although it is a shame that that does not apply to our commitment to an independence referendum.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I did not say the things that Mr Gibson suggests I said. Unlikely though it might be, perhaps he can provide some enlightenment. Why did Mr MacAskill clearly say in an interview three weeks ago that the target would not be reached? Why did he say that if that was never going to be the case?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The information that Mr MacAskill required was not available. It is available today, and Mr Baker has already heard it.

As for the Liberal Democrats, in 1999, I asked the then Minister for Justice, Jim Wallace, what plans he had to increase the number of police officers. His response was that increasing the number of police officers does not reduce crime—a lawyer and politician who seemed to think that the police have no deterrent effect and do not reduce crime by catching criminals.

We heard a rather bizarre intervention from Mr Rumbles, who said that the previous coalition introduced 138 officers to Grampian in eight years but that we are only introducing 98 officers in four years. Apart from the fact that on an annualised basis that represents more officers, the 98 officers will be in addition to the 138 that he mentioned. Mr Kelly made similar points in his speech. I say to him that the previous regime may have introduced 1,500 officers when it was in power, but we are adding to that. Labour and Liberal politicians seem to be unable to comprehend that.

Of course, Labour did invest in additional police officers. I recall that, when Parliament met in Glasgow, Angus MacKay went on television to announce that £10 million had been found to fund 300 additional police officers. That was great news, but he did not say that in that year, non-domestic rates would for the first time be imposed on police buildings. The sum that was raised was £10 million a year.

There were 16,234 police officers when we took office. As the cabinet secretary has made clear, an additional 441 officers are already in post. In one town—Largs—in my constituency, five additional police officers started on the beat in December. This year, they will provide 10,000 additional hours of policing for the people of Largs, which will help to reduce crime and the fear of crime.

What would have happened if Labour was in power? We should consider what is happening south of the border, where police numbers are falling, as detailed in The Times on 24 February. Recorded crime in Scotland has fallen to a 25-year low, and violent and drug-related crime is already low. All eight Scottish police forces recorded less crime in our first year in power than in Labour's last year.

Funding for the police is at record levels. In 2008-09, it will reach £1,082 million, increase to £1,115 million in 2009-10 and to £1,150 million the following year. Since we took office, Labour has repeatedly, and tediously, accused us of breaking our manifesto promise. If anything, ministers should be commended for their Stakhanovite overfulfilment on the four-year plan. That has come despite the necessity to find for police and fire service pension commutations an extra £55 million that should have come through under Barnett consequentials. We have heard little from Labour politicians about that because they never want to criticise their bosses in London.

The SNP met police pay in full. We gave them the full 2.5 per cent increase while the police down south got only 1.9 per cent. The feeble excuse from Labour's London bosses was that the measly £27 million that was involved would stoke inflation. How hollow that silly comment now sounds. It came from a United Kingdom Government that will put VAT up again by 2.5 per cent in January and which put 2p on fuel duty in December.

Of course, Labour members will never give the SNP credit for anything. If we invented a cure for cancer and brought it to Parliament, their visceral hatred of the SNP and what we stand for, which is to give Scots more control over their own national life—shock horror!—their instinct would be to vote against it.

I commend the cabinet secretary's amendment.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

It is almost always a pleasure to follow Kenny Gibson.

I support the motion in the name of my colleague Richard Baker. Last night, when I was thinking about what I would say in the debate, I made a number of assumptions. I assumed that the debate was unlikely to be consensual, that passions would be high on all sides, and that charges would be hurled and thrown back. It seems that my assumptions have been proved correct.

The subject of the debate caused me to cast my mind back to the events of April and May 2007. I recalled some of the more striking proposals in the SNP manifesto, including a local income tax, the cutting of the pupil teacher ratio to 18:1, and the cancelling of all student debt. Those proposals were all uncosted, they all lack intellectual coherence, and they are all wanting any real financial resilience. At the time, I wondered how on earth the SNP, if it won, would be able to give those pledges practical effect. Ironically, that same puzzle has proved to be beyond the SNP ministers who are in charge of those policy areas. The solemn and binding promises have evaporated.

However, when I read the section entitled

"A stronger focus on safer communities"

on page 58 of the SNP manifesto, I thought I had found a popular policy that might actually have been thought out and costed. It stated:

"we will set out plans in our first Budget for Scotland for 1000 more police and will encourage Chief Constables to focus these new resources on community policing."

There were no ifs and no buts and no hedging of bets by the man who would be First Minister. An unconditional and unambiguous promise was made—a solemn, if not historic, concordat with the people of Scotland. However, we have heard the present First Minister's present Cabinet Secretary for Justice this morning, and I am afraid that he has not been persuasive, to say the least. I say to him that mere assertion is not enough, no matter how loud it is.

Over the months, the cabinet secretary has bobbed and weaved, ducked and dived, and bluffed and blustered. He has been the very model of an SNP cabinet secretary. When I listened to him trying to explain his party's shifting position on police numbers and attempting to invest its position with a degree of certainty, I was reminded of the old saying, "He used to be indecisive, but now he's not so sure." His flip-flopping would be laughable if it were not so serious. People in my constituency and in constituencies throughout Scotland want more visible and readily accessible police officers in their communities.

During the previous Labour-led Executive's period of office, we delivered 1,500 additional police officers. People want their communities to be safer, but they also want their political leaders to be straight with them. I say to the cabinet secretary that the talk of the equivalent of 1,000 additional police officers in September 2007 cut no ice with my constituents in Glasgow Anniesland. Mr MacAskill's new wheeze of a police force projection study, which was announced by his ministerial colleague Nicola Sturgeon—it is ironic that it was announced in a debate on a Labour motion on the Government's broken promises—has left voters in Scotland similarly underwhelmed. Projection studies do not offer additional protection to the decent majority—more police officers on the beat do. More police officers on the beat are required.

Mr MacAskill would do well to heed the warning of the chairman of the Scottish Police Federation, Norrie Flowers, whom The Herald of 5 March quoted as saying that

"Neither the public nor police themselves will be conned on officer numbers. We all know what the promise was after the last election."

That promise was that, by 2011, there would be 17,265 officers in Scotland. Mr Flowers was absolutely correct. Kenny MacAskill needs to stop showering the people of Scotland with more excuses than an alleged fraudster under police interrogation would.

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

No. I am sorry—I am in my final minute.

Kenny MacAskill needs to deliver. If he does not, apologies, excuses and projection studies will not do. The electorate will deliver its own condign community punishment and sentence in May 2011. I support the motion.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am delighted that, despite what Mr Butler has just said, he does, in fact, support Kenny MacAskill's amendment. He notes that police numbers are at a record high and welcomes—grudgingly—the findings of the police force projection study, which show that police officer numbers will increase by 1,000 to between 17,275 and 17,484 officers. To be fair, I do not think that he commended the Scottish Government for its investment in 1,000 additional recruits, but I am sure that he had it in his heart to do so, particularly for the sake of the recruits and the forces that they will work with. Furthermore, he commends the eight Scottish police forces for delivering additional police officers and calls on the Scottish Government to continue to maximise the numbers of police officers through a combination of recruitment, retention and redeployment. That is what I have just heard, and I welcome it.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I have listened carefully to my colleague Nigel Don in the Justice Committee; he is usually a fount of good sense. However, why does his cabinet secretary keeps changing his mind from week to week? How can we believe someone who does not know his own mind from one week's end to the next?

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I know what I have just heard, what I see in front of me and what that means—and in know that it is exactly what everybody wanted it to mean. That is why we are struggling to find other things to say.

I point out to Mr Butler, and others who have spoken about the rise in police numbers over the previous eight years, that the numbers of police officers on the streets did not significantly increase. Indeed, it is possible that they did not increase at all, as the Justice Committee has been told many times, because the police unfortunately had to do a good number of other things in their back rooms. That is not a criticism of the police or of those who produce the work for them to do. It is clear that the number of police officers on our streets dropped significantly in the public's perception, and that problem is now being addressed.

I would like to address a few other issues in my remaining minutes. When Mike Rumbles made an intervention earlier, I thought of the distribution of police officers among the different forces. As a North East Scotland regional member, I would of course like to see the maximum possible number of police in Grampian and Tayside—other members would make cases for their regions—but I say to the cabinet secretary that we need perhaps to reflect on the distribution of funds among the forces over a period of time to ensure that it is consistent with what we are asking the forces to do. That is not a criticism of the current numbers, which may be perfectly right. However, we need to check periodically that funding and, therefore, police officers are reasonably distributed. We also need to reflect on the additional resources for community wardens, albeit that they are within the control of local authorities, because we need to ensure equity and fairness throughout Scotland.

I draw members' attention to operation Lochnagar. That major Grampian Police operation will remind us why we need policemen. According to the latest data that I can find, which are a few days out of date, Grampian Police has, over the past few weeks, pursued 102 drug search warrants, taken 151 folk into custody, visited 150 addresses, seized £77,000-worth of drugs and 15 weapons, visited 88 licensed premises and detected some 35 other crimes. That reminds me why we need police officers.

I will give examples of other things that are happening in the Aberdeen area. An intelligence-led operation on four break-ins to houses in the Rosemount area of west Aberdeen has led to a man being taken into custody. There was a sudden death in Mastrick—such events are always sad, of course, but they happen—and there has been a case involving reckless conduct with a firework in which a youth was taken into custody and eventually charged. I mention those examples simply because such things happen pretty much every day in our cities and towns. Who do people want to see when a house has been broken into, there has been a sudden death, or there has been an incident involving assault or violence? They do not want to see a local council official—however well meaning that official might be—but a police officer. That is why it is important that we maximise the number of police officers in our forces, and especially on the streets and facing our communities.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

It is vital that governing parties are held to their manifesto commitments, and doing so is the job of Opposition parties. No pledge by the SNP has been more widely expected and accepted than its promise to put 1,000 extra police officers on the beat. Perhaps that is not quite correct. What about the young couple who voted for the SNP because it said that it would give them £2,000 towards their first home? What about the pensioner who voted for the SNP because it said that it would abolish the council tax? What about the young family who voted for the SNP because it said that it would match Labour's school building programme brick for brick? What about the construction workers who have lost their jobs because the SNP has dithered on how it will fund capital projects? I could go on and on about the promises that the SNP Administration has broken, but we are focusing on police numbers today.

We know from what has been said this morning that the SNP has difficulty with numbers. It promised to put 1,000 more police officers on the streets. That promise was made to the people of Scotland and to the Tories to secure their votes for last year's budget—some may say that it was made to them to buy their votes. Despite the promise, the cabinet secretary told the press this month that he cannot give a total for the number of police officers who will be on Scotland's streets in 2011. We have heard much about that this morning.

The cabinet secretary said in Scotland on Sunday that providing 1,000 more officers than in May 2007 was not what the SNP promised. In the same article, he said that the SNP promised "1,000 additional recruits". A few months ago, the SNP said that what it had really meant was additional policing capacity—the equivalent of 1,000 officers.

Perhaps the cabinet secretary needs to be reminded again of what his manifesto said—Robert Brown and other colleagues have also quoted from it this morning. It clearly states:

"It is essential that we have sufficient police on local streets. That's why we will set out plans in our first Budget for Scotland for 1000 more police".

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

No, I am sorry; the member has just arrived in the chamber, so I will carry on.

There were no fudges in the SNP manifesto about "additional capacity" and no clarifications about "new recruits". The SNP can change its mind and its words all it likes but, unless drastic action is taken, it is set to break another promise—the promise of 1,000 more police on the beat. I am aware that the cabinet secretary intervened this morning to try to clarify the position, but why should we believe him today when his statements over recent weeks and months seem to change weekly or whenever he is questioned on police numbers?

My constituency is within the Strathclyde Police boundary. The Strathclyde joint police board is keen to develop its community police numbers, so let us look at the figures in the official statistical publication. I have read the minister's letter to the Justice Committee convener and the police force projection study. I am sorry that I have to disagree with the convener and I hope that he will not hold it against me at future committee meetings, but I do not believe that the study stands up to scrutiny at all. It comes with the health warning in the cabinet secretary's letter that

"The actual figure will likely be different from this because retirements and leavers cannot be predicted precisely and because police authorities do not have to stick to their forecast of recruitment."

It is the job and responsibility of Government to ensure that it can make predictions that are based on figures that it is happy to stand with. In other words, the study is just a wish list that has been prepared to try to get the cabinet secretary out of a hole.

Richard Baker pointed out that, because Glasgow City Council wants there to be police on the beat in its area, it is funding nearly 200 officers. However, the number of police officers in Strathclyde has declined since March 2007.

I ask members to please support the Labour motion tonight, to hold the cabinet secretary to account and not to accept any of the fudges in the amendments.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

Police numbers have been the subject of intense speculation and debate throughout this session of Parliament. The Government's story has changed so many times that it has been difficult to keep track. Its manifesto promise of "1000 more police officers" has since been described ambiguously and selectively by Kenny MacAskill as "an additional policing capacity",

"the equivalent of 1000 new police officers"

and "one thousand additional recruits". I am delighted that the Government has finally bowed to public opinion and cross-party pressure to firm up its commitment to provide 1,000 new police officers and end the constant speculation. I also welcome the results of the police force projection study in the hope that it will finally open up the Government's previously undefined numerical target to proper scrutiny and accountability, and, more important, ensure that Scotland gets the extra police that it needs.

Serious questions remain about the Government's conduct in the matter, particularly regarding why it has had to issue a press release nearly two years after the election and under cross-party pressure, claiming that it only now knows for sure that it can fulfil a manifesto promise that has held cross-party support since the beginning of the session. The press release attributes the prediction of the target being successfully reached to increased recruitment as well as investment in police authorities, allowing them to maintain current officer numbers. It mentions in particular £20 million of recent investment to cope with a bulge in retirals. Surely factors such as the projected number of retiring officers should have been taken into account before the manifesto commitment was made, not as an afterthought to be shored up with additional funding on an ad hoc basis while the Government flip-flops between policies trying to determine exactly how many more police it can deliver.

To use Kenny MacAskill's words, although the announcement did in many ways "confound the doom-mongers" who said that the Government would not meet its commitment, it did so only because, as recently as 3 March, it appears that the Government was still unsure as to exactly what its commitment was. In future, the Government should be more careful about making promises when it is unsure of the detail of their fulfilment. That is why the Scottish Liberal Democrat amendment calls for a quarterly update of the police force projection study to ensure that the target is met and that future police numbers are maintained.

Now that the Government has finally firmed up its commitment, it is time to look at the next step and, vitally, at how those valuable new officers will be deployed as a visible presence in our communities and on our streets. That is what our voters want. Before the 2007 election, the Scottish Liberal Democrats also pledged to deliver 1,000 new police officers. Part of that pledge was to recruit two new community police officers for every council ward in Scotland—a total of 706 officers.

Following last month's debate, I think that I speak for everyone in the chamber when I say that we agree on the excellent value of community policing. Now that it is clear that the officers will be available, I hope that the Government will consider—perhaps the cabinet secretary will answer this point when he sums up—the two officers per ward option and that other parties will get behind that plan. Although there is value in the Labour Party's suggestion of increasing the number of community wardens, they should not be seen as a cheap substitute for community policing.

I welcome again the results of the police force projection study and call for a constructive cross- party dialogue with the aim of fulfilling the ambitions of the valuable framework for progress set down in last month's community policing report. I hope that members will support the Liberal Democrat amendment and the Labour motion.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The debate has been useful for a number of reasons, but perhaps it is most important in again highlighting the role of the Scottish Conservatives in bringing 1,000 more police officers on to the streets of Scotland.

Although we welcome Labour and the Liberal Democrats to our way of thinking, it is important to record that in government, the Labour and Liberal parties failed to recruit enough police officers to make Scotland safer. With rising crime rates during their term in office, my Conservative colleagues continually asked the Lib-Lab pact to employ more police officers. Under the Labour-led Executive, crime and offences rose by 8 per cent and, according to the Scottish crime survey in 2003, only one in four crimes was recorded by the police. Despite its best efforts during the 2007 election campaign and since then in opposition, its eight years of failure cannot be spun away.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I want to make some progress.

Labour and the Lib Dems talked about how they had a record number of police officers in Scotland, but the truth was that only 147 were walking the streets of Scotland at any one time. We should also not forget that, when they had the opportunity to support extra police going into our communities in last year's budget, Labour and the Liberal Democrats sat on their hands and abstained. They had a perfect opportunity to repent, show the errors of their ways and vote for extra police, but they chose not to do so. We cannot trust Labour and the Liberal Democrats when it comes to making our communities safer.

I turn to the Scottish Government. In its 2007 manifesto, the SNP proposed 1,000 more police officers. However, by the end of 2007 it had changed its mind and decided that the 1,000 new officers would be made up not only by extra recruitment but by the creation of equivalent police officers—not new additional police officers but equivalent police officers. Thank goodness for the budget process that allowed the Scottish Conservatives to pressure the Scottish Government to provide the 1,000 newly recruited police officers that it promised in its election manifesto.

It was our job as an effective Opposition party to ensure that the SNP honoured its election pledge of 1,000 extra police officers, which was set to be ditched at one point. It is the SNP's job now to ensure that those 1,000 extra officers are delivered by 2011. That is the minimum that the SNP must achieve if it is to justify the trust that it was given when its first budget was passed. We secured the additional funding to recruit those extra officers; the SNP must now deliver them.

However, the SNP Government should not stop there. It must do more to ensure that our police force is freed up from paperwork to allow officers to get on to our streets and serve our communities.

Thanks to eight years of Labour and the Liberal Democrats, an increasing burden of administrative and procedural bureaucracy has come to consume more and more of police officers' time, keeping them away from the front line of crime fighting. That situation is not of the SNP's making, but it must do more to set our police free to do their job, rather than setting criminals free from our jails. We need to take the handcuffs off the police and put them on to the criminals.

The Scottish Conservatives are clear that more police out in our communities are needed to provide a visible deterrent and to boost public confidence. Traditionally, communities throughout Scotland would have had the reassurance of a local police officer as an integral part of their neighbourhood, building up relationships and reducing the fear of crime. The Scottish Government needs to do more to reduce crime and the fear of crime.

Labour did not promise a single extra police officer during the election. The Liberal Democrats and Labour failed in government. There is only one party with any credibility on this issue: the Scottish Conservatives, with our pledge of additional police officers. That is why I urge the Parliament to support the amendment in Bill Aitken's name.

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

This has been a rather rumbustious debate. Throughout the debate, the tenor from Labour in particular but also the Liberal Democrats to an extent seemed to be, "It's no fair." Well, it's a fair cop, guv: there will be 1,000 additional recruits delivered by this Government and there will be 1,000 additional officers beyond what we inherited in March 2007. The doomsayers will just have to accept that and get over it.

Mr Baker made a variety of points. He went on about recruitment in Grampian. Let me be clear: we have record numbers of police officers in Grampian. On Monday, it was my pleasure to be briefed about operation Lochnagar, which Nigel Don mentioned, and to meet some of the young recruits—to which the Scottish Government had committed—who had been involved in operations to make their communities in Torry and elsewhere safer and stronger. Labour and the Liberal Democrats should acknowledge and welcome that good-news story.

Mr Baker also went on about training. Yesterday, I met Calum Steele of the Scottish Police Federation, who told me that the SPF has no problem with how matters are being dealt with at Tulliallan, which Robert Brown mentioned. If anything, the problems at Tulliallan are a result of the success of squeezing through the current number of officers; such problems go with the volume and capacity being delivered.

Yesterday, the Scottish Police Federation said:

"Whilst police recruitment is ultimately a matter for Chief Constables the Scottish Police Federation is aware government is delivering the necessary funding (for the 1000 extra police officers)".

Indeed, ACPOS said last year:

"All eight Scottish Police Forces are working very actively to recruit the thousand police officers that are to be directly funded by the Scottish Government. They are also recruiting to replace officers who are expected to retire within the current financial year ... Forces recruited 697 officers during 2007/2008 and are planning to recruit 1648 officers during the current financial year".

That is the situation. We are delivering on our manifesto promise.

It is all very well for Mr Kelly, Cathie Craigie and others to say how important police officers are and for Bill Butler to emphasise the importance of policing in Anniesland but, as Bill Aitken pointed out, let us remember that the Labour manifesto committed to not one new or additional police officer being recruited. Under Labour, not only would we not have 1,000 additional officers or 1,000 recruited officers, we would be facing the retiral spike of 2,300 officers.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the minister not accept that our manifesto commitment was to increase the number of police officers year on year and that we stood on our record of 7,000 new recruits and 1,500 more police on the beat? It is interesting that, yet again, he tries to divert attention from his own manifesto, which is what is in question here.

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

The Government's position is quite clear: we are delivering on our manifesto commitment. Labour's manifesto commitment was for zero officers at a time when 2,300 officers will be retiring.

As Kenneth Gibson pointed out, the situation here contrasts with that south of the border. This Government recognises the service of our police officers. We did not seek to equivocate on paying them. We did not seek to renege on what should be provided as part of their salary. We stumped up and we paid up. Sadly, that is not reflected south of the border.

Although we are not getting Barnett consequentials to address the pension fund debacle that we face, the Government recognises the importance of the police service to the fabric of our communities. Despite not being given what is due and owing to our country from the Treasury, we are ensuring that our communities are protected by our police forces.

We inherited a spike in police retirals, with 2,300 officers due to retire, and the lowest level of police recruitment since devolution. We should contrast that with the Labour manifesto commitment to not one additional officer. Nevertheless, we are able to commit today: we are delivering our additional 1,000 officers into the community and we will ensure that there are at least 1,000 officers above and beyond the number that we inherited in March 2007. To answer John Lamont's fair point about doing more, we are not stopping there, given our commitment to the three Rs of recruitment, retention and redeployment. We will seek to retain valuable officers who might otherwise retire. That depends to some extent on the economic situation and the personal choice of those officers. Mr Aitken is quite correct about that. The study shows that there is flexibility about that.

Equally, we recognise that we have to redeploy officers, who give great service to our communities, away from sitting behind desks doing needless paperwork. Paperwork has to be done in every area of life, but far too much of police work is bureaucratic. We are freeing up front-line officers where we can.

The doomsayers should just get over it and recognise that the Government is delivering 1,000 additional officers into our community and that it is going to deliver 1,000 additional officers.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Given that the Government so enjoys subject debates and Government debates that, on many occasions, are to discuss absolutely nothing, it is a pity that we have had to use our Opposition time to extract from the Government its so-called commitment to delivering 17,265 officers, as promised in its manifesto. We will not allow the Government to hide behind the police force projection study and will hold it to account on its commitment to delivering the 1,000 police officers.

For so long, the Government has sought to condition our thinking on this issue. Perhaps we were mistaken. As Robert Brown said, perhaps the manifesto commitment was to deliver the equivalent of 1,000 more police officers. Perhaps the commitment was to set up a fund that would allow police authorities to bid for money to put police officers on our streets.

It is time for the Government to be open and accountable. When Alex Salmond was elected as First Minister on 16 May 2007, he said that this is

"a Parliament of minorities where no one party rules without compromise or concession."—[Official Report, 16 May 2007; c 24.]

This is an opportunity for the Government to deliver the principles behind those fine words.

I find it unacceptable that I had to appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner, following the Government's rejection of my request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 for information on how it would deliver its police recruitment figures. I am delighted that the commissioner has upheld my request and I look forward to receiving the information by 23 March.

As I said in a recent debate, Labour members are reasonable and fair individuals. We simply want to be given the opportunity to scrutinise a minority Government. That is why I support Richard Baker's call for an independent report. That would give the Parliament an opportunity to appraise properly many of the challenges that face Government on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps the Justice Committee could assist the Government in the process.

That would also give the Parliament an opportunity to highlight the support that Labour councils throughout Scotland have given the Government on recruitment. My council—Glasgow City Council—has contributed to the recruitment of more than 200 police officers and yet we have heard not one reference from a Government minister on the subject. Perhaps the cabinet secretary might like to intervene. I am happy to let him credit Glasgow City Council for its contribution.

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

I have praised Paul Rooney before in the chamber in relation to a variety of matters, including policing and the Scottish Police Services Authority. This is a partnership. We have to work with chief constables, police board conveners and police boards. It is a pity that the Labour Party is still so negative and begrudging and that it just will not get on board. If Paul Rooney can, why can he not?

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

That was yet another contribution of the sort that we have had to take from the Government today. That said, I welcome the commitment to and the fine words about Glasgow City Council.

Community groups in my constituency in Glasgow have told me of their concern that community planning budgets are being used to pay for police recruits. They have told me that that is to the detriment of many local projects, which are experiencing budget cuts. The groups welcome the deployment of recruits in their communities, but not to the detriment of local community projects.

Labour will support the Liberal Democrat amendment in the name of Robert Brown, which sets out eloquently the frustration that many members feel in trying to extract any clarity from the Government on its position. Once again, I am happy to give way to the cabinet secretary to enable him to say those magic words, "There shall be 17,265 police officers in Scotland by 2011."

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

I repeat what I said at the outset: we will recruit 1,000 additional officers and we will deliver 1,000 additional officers beyond the figure that we inherited in March 2007. That is a good-news story. Labour members should recognise and accept that.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Once again, we failed to hear the magic words.

Let me be clear that we will not take lectures from members opposite on police numbers. We not only provided additional officers when we were in government but gave them the legal remedies to do their job of attacking antisocial behaviour through the delivery of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. That act was widely acclaimed by police forces throughout Scotland, which said that it provided them with the toolkit that they required to fight crime.

Now that this Government is in power, it is making clear its intention to dismantle all the remedies that are available to our officers. New recruits have the thankless task of being governed by the hug-a-hoodie alliance of the SNP and the Tories. We will not support the Tory amendment. Its content reeks of this sad alliance's desperation for attention. It reminds me of a saying of the great Abraham Lincoln:

"I am a success today because I had a friend who believed in me and I didn't have the heart to let him down."

We are delighted to have extracted key information from the Government on its manifesto, but we have yet to extract one bit of information. I ask the cabinet secretary again to say the magic words that he will deliver 17,265 police officers. That is a pledge that we will hold him to.

I call on members to support the motion in Richard Baker's name and the amendment in Robert Brown's name.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will seek a joint legal opinion with the United Kingdom Government on the Scottish Government's fishing quota and licensing proposals. (S3O-6276)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Our proposals have been warmly welcomed by the fishing industry, and are designed to modernise fishing vessel licensing and quota management to help safeguard the future of our fishing communities. Of course, we firmly believe that our proposals are within the competence of this Parliament.

We have worked very closely with the fishing industry to shape our proposals. The final round of consultation is under way. We will continue to work with the industry and, indeed, the UK Government to take forward our policies. We will continue to discuss with them any concerns that they may have.

I have no doubt that the people of Scotland wish our fishing communities to benefit from the rich fishing grounds that are on our own doorstep and future generations of active fishermen to have similar opportunities to those that are available to the current generation. That is one of the aims of our proposals.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am sure that the fishing industry will find that all very interesting, but the fact is that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has made it very clear that it cannot address the important substance of the cabinet secretary's fishing quota and licensing proposals because of the English Government's statement that the proposals are illegal.

Whether that statement is right or wrong, the important matter for Scottish fishermen is their ability to engage in the discussion on these important proposals. What steps is the cabinet secretary taking—with his opposite number—to enable Scottish fishermen and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to discuss the proposals in the knowledge that they are legal and not contested?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Mr Finnie brings a great deal of knowledge and experience to the issue. I understand that discussions on the subject began when he was in office—indeed, they began as far back as 2004. That illustrates why the time has come for the Scottish Government to act within our powers to address this important issue. We have to do that, given the lack of progress under previous joint agreements.

I reiterate what I said at the outset: we will continue to engage with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and other organisations in Scotland, most of which widely support the vast majority of our proposals. Indeed, given that the proposals are about protecting the viability of our fishing communities, they have been warmly welcomed by those communities in particular.

In the absence of a UK policy on licensing and quota management, we have taken the view that we need to modernise the current arrangements, under our own powers. We firmly believe that the actions that we are taking are within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. We will continue to engage with fishing organisations to make that point clear.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

What legal advice did the cabinet secretary seek on the proposals? Will he publish that legal advice in its entirety?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

As the member will be aware, when her party was in government, it never published its legal advice on such issues. Of course, in keeping with convention, that will always be the case with any Scottish Government.

Given that the member represents fishing communities, I will be very surprised if she does not support the proposals that have been put forward, which are within the powers of the Parliament, to protect the long-term future of our fishing communities in Scotland.

Many people believe that we need to modernise the licensing arrangements for fishing vessels and quota management in Scotland so that we can put in place safeguards. Many people believe that it is not right that the current generation of fishermen can sell their quota to the highest bidder—should they choose to do so—and that no safeguard is in place to ensure that the benefit is retained in Scotland. As part of the current consultation process, the industry has given a warm welcome to the wide range of proposals.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that it would be a disaster if the UK Government were to go down the road of effectively privatising fishing quotas—a policy that is apparently supported by Brussels? If that were to happen, fishing quotas could be sold to the highest bidder—most likely a foreign-owned company. Does he share my anger that Labour members who represent fishing communities are supporting the attempts of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to prevent the Scottish ministers from putting in place safeguards to ensure the long-term future of our traditional fishing communities?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am perplexed by the UK Government's stance on what we consider to be a very worthwhile policy intention. I am even more perplexed by the fact that Labour members, who at times come across as DEFRA's spokespeople, tend to oppose everything that the Scottish National Party Government does on fishing policy. That is unfortunate.

The member may be aware of the UK Government's unilateral action on under-10 licences south of the border, as a result of which the fleet south of the border is re-registering its licences in Wales. Is any further evidence needed that the current regime is not working for Scotland or for England? The example shows why the Scottish Government is right to modernise the policy and to make progress.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I accept that any move in the direction of individual transferable quotas at European Union-level has the potential to be hugely damaging and that it requires to be resisted. However, does the cabinet secretary accept that legal uncertainty over aspects of his quota management proposals is not welcome by anyone in the industry? Like Ross Finnie, I urge him to lift that uncertainty as a matter of urgency and to work with not only the industry but the UK Government on the matter.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am keen to lift any uncertainty and to work with the UK Government towards that end, but there is only so much that the Scottish Government can do when the UK Government will not engage with our policy intentions for north of the border.

As I indicated to the member's party colleague in my earlier answer, the discussions have been going on since 2004. It is now 2009. The UK Government's latest position is that it will sit down and talk to us—but over the next few years. How long does it take to reach a sensible policy conclusion? We have voluntary joint arrangements among the devolved Administrations and the UK Government; we believe that the time has come to move forward to safeguard the future of Scotland's fishing communities.

I hope that the member, as a representative of a fishing community, will support the SNP Government's policy intentions and that we can get some cross-party support for them, rather than having party-political point scoring, which would be to the detriment of fishing communities.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to attract tourism business to Ayrshire and in particular southern Ayrshire. (S3O-6257)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As with all areas of Scotland, Ayrshire is marketed by VisitScotland, based on its considerable strengths and its ability to deliver what visitors are looking for on their visit to Scotland. VisitScotland uses a range of channels including websites, direct mail and public relations to reach potential visitors throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom and in international markets.

In addition, Scottish Enterprise is helping tourism businesses with a package of support including capital investment, advice and mentoring, customer feedback workshops and the development of tourism intelligence.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

As the minister will know, I believe that key tourism destination status could bring a significant boost to the tourism sector in Ayrshire. I know from our previous discussions that he is keen to explore means to achieve that end. What further consideration has the Government given to the matter? What progress has been made towards awarding Ayrshire key tourism destination status? Is he able to say how soon that status might be granted so that Ayrshire can take full advantage of it?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I recognise the desire to promote individual elements of Scotland with local knowledge and local passion. We are entering a new, industry-led, collaborative era. The Scottish Tourism Forum and the tourism framework for change are coming together to take a lead in offering scope for other organisations—including VisitScotland, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, EventScotland, local councils and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—to evolve and collaborate more closely.

South Ayrshire Council is very much on the front foot in that regard, and we recognise its great brand, its association with Burns and its huge portfolio of attractions. We had meetings with Councillor Hugh Hunter in January, and I am prepared to work directly with him further. I think that, together, we can allow destinations to evolve properly, while focusing on the main destinations at the same time. We are not precluding further development, and we will work with Councillor Hunter—and with John Scott—to ensure that that development happens.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The minister might be aware that the new Burns monument centre opened in Kilmarnock on Monday. It adds significantly to the Burns attractions throughout Ayrshire and provides state-of-the-art family history and local history research facilities. Does he agree that that type of facility can play a vital part in attracting tourists to Ayrshire? Will he ensure that the Scottish Government and its agencies play a full part in developing the potential of the new centre?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I have visited the new Burns monument centre, and it is fabulous. I had my photograph taken there, and it is a photograph that I will cherish. We can contact everybody in Scotland and everyone with a connection with Scotland about it—people will want to go there and have their photographs taken, too. It is a must-visit site that has huge potential for the homecoming and real pulling power. I understand that the First Minister will open it in May.

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

I certainly agree that it would be excellent if people were to visit any part of Ayrshire. Does the minister agree that one possibility for increasing tourism potential in South Ayrshire lies in walking and outdoor activities? In that context, does he agree that it is rather bizarre that Tory-led South Ayrshire Council has decided to close the majority of public conveniences in the locations throughout South Ayrshire to which walkers are attracted?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The issue is about bringing people together. I look forward to going down to Girvan to join the member and the community there in April. Equally, I am looking forward to further engagements on a tourism and pan-Ayrshire agenda with a view to maximising the assets that are Ayrshire and giving the area every chance to attract people for all purposes.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will re-examine the operation of legal aid rules that in practice mean that many mortgage borrowers facing repossession are not eligible for assistance or, where they are eligible, that many lawyers will not assist because they are required to recover fees from clients if successful. (S3O-6290)

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

The Scottish Legal Aid Board helps hundreds of people to defend repossession actions every year, and the Government is making changes to legal aid rules that will benefit many mortgage borrowers facing repossession, along with thousands of others.

Regulations to increase the financial eligibility limits for civil legal aid were approved by the Justice Committee earlier this week. That increase means that almost 1 million more Scots will be able to receive free or subsidised legal advice.

About three quarters of the population should come within the scope of the scheme from this April.

The Government is also taking steps to secure legal assistance where there might be gaps in private sector provision. We have invested an additional £3 million over the next two years to strengthen the provision of legal advice services, particularly for people facing difficulties as a result of the economic downturn. The Legal Aid Board will use that funding, in the first instance, to employ a small number of solicitors to work in areas where the level of provision is currently low.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I acknowledge that the area has been of wide concern to the Government. However, given the scale of the challenge when it comes to repossessions, and given that the burden of many such cases falls disproportionately on Scotland's small number of law centres—it was Paisley Law Centre that drew the matter to my attention—will the cabinet secretary undertake to meet representatives of Scotland's law centres as a matter of urgency to discuss with them how we can ensure that the best possible support is available to families facing the burden and strain of repossession?

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

As a lawyer of 20 years' standing, I had a great deal of involvement with law centres: I was an agent for them, and I sat on a variety of law centre boards. Therefore, I have a great deal of time and respect for them, although Paisley Law Centre is not one that I know, as it started to operate more recently than my periods of practice.

The Government is happy to engage with all parties, and the Legal Aid Board is involved in discussions. We recognise that we have to tackle the situation and that we have to provide facilities where the private sector cannot. We also have to ensure that in-court advice—which sometimes comes from people who are not legally qualified—is provided. If representatives of the law centres wish to meet me, they should write in the normal manner. I would be more than happy to have discussions with them—many of them will be former practising colleagues of mine.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive, in the light of the findings of the Scottish environmental attitudes and behaviours survey 2008 that the main barriers to green behaviour are cost, convenience, a lack of alternative options and practical considerations, how it plans to tackle these barriers. (S3O-6303)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

We understand the importance of people's everyday actions for the environment, and we will use the SEABS findings to help inform our work to encourage greener behaviours through education, media campaigns and targeted actions to make greener choices easier in areas such as travel, recycling and energy use in the home.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

Attitudinal change is indeed important. However, what was the rationale for not including mini wind turbines in the recently issued regulations? When will the minister answer the question whether the Government will include them?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I was rather hoping for a supplementary about sock darning, and I am sorry that I did not get that.

The recent wind turbine regulations are not a matter for me. Perhaps the member would care to take up the issue directly with the department concerned, rather than bringing it in on the back of a question about the survey. The results of the survey were published only last week, and we hope that they will give a number of departments useful information so that we can begin to address many of the issues that the survey threw up.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to contribute towards the maintenance of the Clyde tunnel in Glasgow. (S3O-6319)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I have no plans to contribute to the on-going maintenance of the Clyde tunnel. The tunnel is part of the local road network. Therefore, responsibility for its management and maintenance rests with Glasgow City Council.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Surely the minister must recognise that the Clyde tunnel is an integral part of the road network, not only for Glasgow but for the west of Scotland, and that Glasgow City Council bears the £700,000 operational cost entirely on its own and also provided the £12 million that was recently needed to protect the tunnel from fire and to meet fire regulations.

Does the minister agree that it is about time that Glasgow City Council got some assistance through the creation of a distinct funding mechanism, such as exists for the Tay and Forth bridges? It is not appropriate to treat the Clyde tunnel like any other road. Surely he could at least consider contributing to the costs of the further modernisation that the Clyde tunnel needs, which includes the installation of important emergency communications systems and replacement of the lighting system, at a cost of £5 million.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Glasgow City Council received a 3.4 per cent increase in its funding in the current year and a 4.7 per cent increase in the next year. Those are very substantial increases.

The Clyde tunnel is, of course, part of the road infrastructure in Glasgow, and we are making substantial investments in road infrastructure in Glasgow. At long last, the M74 is progressing—that will affect the traffic flows in Glasgow. I am always happy to discuss matters with the council if it feels that that is appropriate.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will renew funding to the Scottish Fair Trade Forum to support the small grants scheme. (S3O-6316)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Scottish Government has committed funding from its international development fund to the Scottish Fair Trade Forum until 31 March 2010. Any requests for future funding will be considered in discussion with the forum.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Does the minister agree that the fair trade movement has thrived and expanded in recent years through the work of many individuals and small groups in local communities? Does he further agree that it is therefore vital, if we are to achieve fair trade status as a country, that we continue to build on the work of that grass-roots movement through the provision of easily accessible small sums?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am happy to agree with the member on that matter.

Leadership on the issue has come from a range of individuals who have been committed to co-ordinated actions that have been brought together within their own communities. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Linda Fabiani, who had a very strong commitment to this area of activity and was keen to ensure that as many organisations as possible participated.

The Scottish Government provides funding of £60,000 a year to the Scottish Fair Trade Forum. Additional funding, of £40,000 in 2007-08 and £20,000 in 2008-09, has been awarded. That money has gone, in great part, towards helping the grass-roots movement. All of us want that work to continue.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will make representations to the Royal Mail regarding its decision to withdraw five postbus services from the north and west Highlands. (S3O-6288)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

At a recent meeting with Royal Mail Group, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism took the opportunity to express the Scottish Government's concerns about the withdrawal of the Highland postbus services. The provision of local bus services is, of course, a matter for commercial bus operators and local authorities. However, the Scottish Government would urge partners to work together to ensure that those vital services continue.

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

I put on the record my gratitude to Jim Mather for saying what he said to the Royal Mail.

Will the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change instruct his officials to point out to the Royal Mail the absolute undesirability of discontinuing those services and the potential, in respect of tourism, of not only retaining the services but building on them in the future, for tourists and for our pensioners, who desperately need the postbus so that they can access vital services?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I associate myself with Mr Stone's remarks and concur with them.

The whole future of Royal Mail is being debated. I note that 130 Labour members of the United Kingdom Parliament have indicated their opposition to the UK Government's plans. In that context, I hope that the UK Government takes a much more supportive attitude to the Royal Mail that enables it to support, through postbus services and otherwise, the needs of rural and urban Scotland.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I ask Peter Peacock to be brief.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Can the minister confirm that the Scottish Government has powers under transport policies to offer support to the Post Office's network of postbuses? Is he considering doing that in this instance?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I ask the minister to be equally brief, if possible.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We are supporting local authorities by appointing someone from the Scottish Government to work directly with them on bus services. I hope that that will be one means by which we have greater and more effective engagement with local authorities and bus service providers such as the Royal Mail.

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-1547)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

The Parliament will wish to know that I wrote to the Opposition party leaders this morning to inform them of a joint statement that the Scottish and UK Governments are issuing at noon—right now, in fact—on the Somerville judgment. The statement announces that we have reached agreement in principle to deliver the one-year time bar in Scotland by the end of June. I hope that the Parliament will join me in welcoming that announcement and the rapid progress that has been made since the statement to Parliament last week. [Applause.]

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

During the budget negotiations, I suggested to the First Minister a summit of apprenticeship providers as part of a Labour package of support in the economic crisis. I welcome the announcement earlier this week that that summit will take place on 28 April.

Sadly, a further increase in unemployment was reported yesterday. Does the First Minister agree that that simply means that we must redouble our efforts to ensure that everyone—and especially our young people—is given the skills to make their way in life?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Not just yesterday's unemployment figure, but the whole economic environment means that each and every one of us must redouble, treble and focus our efforts on the economic situation in Scotland. As Iain Gray knows, we have a six-point recovery plan that contains 51 measures, many of which were suggested by social partners. Within the Scottish Parliament's powers, we are straining every sinew and obtaining best value from every pound of investment to boost the Scottish economy in these times.

Yesterday's unemployment figures show that, although Scotland has huge difficulties in the economy, what we have done has been relatively successful, as our rise in unemployment—grievous though it is—is lower than that in many other places. However, there is no room for a shred of complacency from anyone. Tough and difficult times are to come. Of course, that makes it an absolute priority that we do not—we must not— have a substantial reduction in Scottish public spending next year.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

It is true that we must strain every sinew. The better, or less bad, employment situation puts us in a good position to make good another promise that the First Minister made during the budget negotiations—the apprenticeship guarantee. That is a personal guarantee to every apprentice that, if they are made redundant, they will still be able to finish their training. My constituent Lewis Doig from Tranent is in exactly that situation—he is to be made redundant and he does not know what to do. He is not alone. Lewis needs that guarantee now. Where should he go for it?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Skills Development Scotland is responsible for pursuing that guarantee. An apprenticeship guarantee was first proposed to me by the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which had examined a scheme that was first developed in Northern Ireland. In the budget debate, we presented a more extensive scheme for Scotland, which Skills Development Scotland is responsible for introducing. We will deliver the scheme. That will not be easy, but it shall be done. If Iain Gray would like to write to me about his constituent's case, we can reply specifically.

Given the extent of the efforts that were made in dealing with the budget and the eventual unity that the Parliament showed in passing the budget, I hope that all parties welcome our introduction of an apprenticeship guarantee that is unrivalled in any country in the United Kingdom.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I very much welcome the guarantee, of course. I have already written to Fiona Hyslop, who is the responsible cabinet secretary, about Lewis Doig. In her reply, which I received yesterday, she said that he should contact his training provider, then Skills Development Scotland and then partnership action for continuing employment, then visit a website and then ring round his local colleges.

All those bodies and institutions existed before the First Minister gave the guarantee. Lewis is 19, has spent almost four years as an apprentice and is three months away from being a qualified joiner. However, next month, he will be out of work and his efforts will be wasted. He and all those like him do not need call sheets of places to go; they need someone whose job it is to set them up with the places that they need to finish their training. Can I tell Lewis that the First Minister will sort that out so that he can finish his training as promised?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I point out as gently as possible to Iain Gray that, when we deal with individual constituents' cases, we must ensure that each individual is treated with the respect that they deserve.

Skills Development Scotland combines a skills programme that was previously dispersed across many organisations. I would have thought that Iain Gray and all other members would welcome the introduction of the guarantee and that a letter that specifies who is responsible for ensuring that that guarantee is delivered for each individual would be the right way to go.

The measures that we have discussed are being introduced. They involve ambitious targets and will be done. One of the interesting things about the Scottish economy of late is the speed at which developments and initiatives have been introduced in it compared with economies elsewhere. I tell Iain Gray that the apprenticeship guarantee will be introduced in Scotland. I hope that, when it is, the Labour Party will welcome it with good grace.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

My question is exactly about how quickly a promise that was made in the Parliament is being introduced—not quickly enough for my constituent. It is exactly about the respect that we have for young Lewis. The measure of our response to the economic crisis will be the extent to which we protect the jobs and futures of people such as him.

Today, Lewis is very close to being a qualified tradesman with a future of his own and a big contribution to make to Scotland's future. I do not want him to be part of next month's unemployment figures and I do not believe that the First Minister does either, but he will be unless the First Minister makes good his guarantee now. The First Minister has 5,000 officials; will he give just one of them the job of matching such young apprentices with the opportunity to finish their training?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

That is exactly the responsibility of Skills Development Scotland, which is why this Government set it up. It will be done and implemented.

I have every sympathy for young Lewis. We will ensure that his case is looked at and delivered, as we will ensure that the case is delivered for the hundreds—indeed, thousands—of other people who will end up in the same position. As and when that is done, members will look around and be glad that the Government and the Parliament agreed to such an apprenticeship guarantee.

At some stage, Iain Gray will have to recognise that many of the measures that are being introduced at present across the economy are dependent on Scottish Government intervention and the Scottish Government's budget. How many of them will be at risk if £500 million is chopped out of the Scottish budget? What will Iain Gray say then to his constituents, not only those who are looking for apprenticeships but those who come to him about the health service, education system and vital social services? Will he say, as he did two weeks ago, "Just find the efficiency savings, chop the public spending and put people out of work"? What will the Labour Party's alibi be then?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I will say to my constituent that, when the First Minister was given the chance to lift him up, he chose instead to try to put others down.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have already said to Iain Gray that we will deal with the individual constituency case, as I have the courtesy to deal with every individual constituency case that comes up. I have said to him that the guarantee extends not only to one constituent but to hundreds and thousands of apprentices throughout Scotland. That is the purpose of the guarantee. I have said to him that Skills Development Scotland, which was brought into being by this Government, is the body responsible for delivering skills and development in Scotland—hence the name. However, I have also said to Iain Gray, and he can regard it as a put-down if he wishes, that any political party that says, in the teeth of a recession, that it should chop public spending by £500 million in Scotland will have to live with the political consequences.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-1548)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future, but I did speak to him last night on the telephone.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Despite what the Scottish National Party Government says, there is no such thing as a free prescription. Abolishing prescription charges will cost the health budget £40 million every year—£40 million every year that will be cut from somewhere else in the health budget. The First Minister needs to come clean and tell the people of Scotland which national health services will suffer as a result of this SNP cut.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I remind Annabel Goldie that our proposals to cut prescription charges, to help those who are suffering, and in particular those who are suffering from long-running illnesses, were in the budget that Annabel Goldie's co-operation allowed to pass through the Parliament.

Annabel and I agree on a number of things, but here I think we have a positive disagreement. I do not think that it is right and proper to tax the sick in society. I think that we should abide by the original obligations of a national health service free at the point of need. Only the Conservative member voted against the proposal in committee this week, so perhaps Annabel Goldie will be willing to accept, on this issue, that she is isolated in the chamber.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There has been only one vote on the reduction of prescription charges this year and it was yesterday. The First Minister should stop ducking the issue and dodging the question. I repeat: there is no such thing as a free prescription. While Two-salaries Salmond over there will be getting his prescriptions for free, patients all over Scotland will be losing out—losing out on 2,000 nurses, or nearly 200,000 magnetic resonance imaging scans, or huge quantities of life-saving cancer drugs, or a massive increase in the budget for hospital cleaning. As ever, the First Minister has chosen cheap headlines over responsible governance.

It is not evil, and it is not lack of compassion, to expect those such as the First Minister and every MSP in this Parliament, who can pay for prescriptions, to pay. How can Two-salaries Salmond justify his position, as—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. Miss Goldie, I have warned members before that I do not like the use of nicknames in the chamber. I ask all members to abide by that wish.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I defer to your position, Presiding Officer.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

A double for the Conservative party—pulled up in two different chambers in two different Parliaments over the course of two days.

I say to Annabel Goldie that the increase that I welcomed most particularly of all in the public sector information on employment that was given yesterday was the substantial increase in health service numbers in Scotland. Under this Government, there are more doctors, more nurses and more consultants. The budget—which Annabel Goldie asked for, and which was voted for in this Parliament—combined investment in health service personnel with doing justice to those in society who were faced with a tax on illness. I think it right and proper that this chamber moves to abolish prescription charges in Scotland.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1549)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

A global research study by HSBC bank shows that the United Kingdom is investing less of its economic recovery package in tackling climate change and reducing carbon emissions than anywhere else in the world except Spain. The UK proportion is just 6.7 per cent; the United States Government is spending double that proportion.

Governments should be creating new green jobs and supporting economic recovery by tackling climate change. Will the First Minister publish the equivalent figures for his economic plans, so that we can know that his Government is not making the same mistakes as the UK Government?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am perfectly happy to do that. However, we should draw attention to the fact that, even in these troubled times, almost £1 billion of private sector investment has been announced in renewable projects in Scotland over the past nine months or so. I am sure that, as a keen student of these matters, Tavish Scott will have read the report that was published very recently by the electricity networks strategy group—which includes the Governments and the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets—which looks forward to network solutions that will allow the massive power produced from renewable energy in Scotland not only to power this country, but to be exported south of the border. I hope that, eventually, we will become the green energy powerhouse of Europe.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Most people accept that marine renewables can create 7,000 jobs across Scotland and, of course, the industry conference is being held in Edinburgh this week. However, on Tuesday, Shell announced that it was stopping investment in wind, wave and hydro energy. Surely such a loss is significant. Did Shell consult the First Minister? Did he try to convince the company that this is the wrong time to be copping out of investment in green energy jobs? The cheque for the saltire prize will not be signed until 2015, but Shell is pulling out this year; meanwhile, this week, Labour started its latest dash for nuclear energy. What new investment in green jobs can the First Minister offer today?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I point out to the member that in its term of office this Government has approved 18 major renewable energy projects—one a month. The number of such projects approved under the previous Administration averaged four a year. Tavish Scott should welcome what the Government is doing.

Shell did not consult me on its decision, but I will give Tavish Scott some information that he might find of interest. The saltire prize has now attracted 90 declarations of interest from 21 countries, and we should welcome the fact that many publications around the globe are seeing Scotland as the centre of developments in tidal and wave power. Indeed, I rather liked the headline in Fortune magazine, "Scotland rules the waves".

Tavish Scott should understand that there is huge interest from a range of companies that are moving forward with renewable projects in Scotland. In fact, as far as marine, tidal and wave energy is concerned, there is even more interest to come. Some companies might well fall by the wayside, but we should welcome the fact that major companies are investing or proposing to invest in Scotland. We should, above all, welcome the delivery of one major renewable project a month, given the rather miserable record of the previous 10 years.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a constituency question from Michael McMahon. [ Interruption. ] I beg your pardon—I meant Michael Matheson.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

McMahon is actually Irish for Matheson.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Exactly.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

As the First Minister will be aware, earlier this week, bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis, which is based in my constituency, announced that up to 150 employees will be made redundant. He will also know from his recent visit to the plant that the company is a world leader in hybrid buses, which it exports around the world.

Does the First Minister share my frustration that none of the major bus operators in Scotland—or, for that matter, in the rest of the United Kingdom—uses hybrid buses? Will the Government look at what action it can take to encourage bus operators in Scotland to move towards using such buses, as it will not only help our economy but benefit our environment?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, we will. We will do everything in our power to help this outstanding company.

I am seriously concerned that the employment figures that were released yesterday—and that were generally better news than many people had expected—showed a decline over the year in manufacturing employment in Scotland. Alexander Dennis, for example, employs 1,000 people in Scotland and 2,000 people world wide and is innovative in bringing forward new projects. The fact is that we have some choices to make. Many people in this city—and, I hope, in the Parliament—might be thinking that if we had ascribed even a fraction of the money that has been devoted to the trams project in Edinburgh to buying hybrid buses from a Scottish manufacturer we would all be better off.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a further constituency question from John Lamont.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

This week has been another terrible week for job losses in the Scottish Borders. Hawick Knitwear is shedding jobs, construction firms are running on skeleton workforces and many other employers are asking their staff to take pay cuts or work reduced hours. No one knows where the axe will fall next. John Swinney has visited Hawick in my constituency on two occasions already to discuss the jobs crisis—lots of warm words, but very little concrete action so far.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question, please.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

What action will the Scottish Government take to ease the pain of Gordon Brown's recession in the Scottish Borders?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We are taking the action—the 51 measures—in the recovery plan. That is not just John Swinney visiting the Borders, as the constituency member said. For example, we are doubling the capability of the partnership action for continuing employment initiative—PACE—which intervenes in redundancy situations. We are straining every sinew, as I said earlier, to combat the recession and we are combating it rather better than elsewhere. I hope that the constituency member, in acknowledging the efforts of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and the Government in helping every area of Scotland, will not just join us in condemning Gordon Brown for the recession, but unite with us against the threatened cuts in Scottish public spending.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what progress has been made with the United Kingdom Government in addressing issues arising from the Somerville judgment. (S3F-1567)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As I indicated earlier, the UK Government and the Scottish Government have made a joint statement on the Somerville issue. That statement says in detail that, following intensive discussions between officials, we have reached agreement in principle on a quick and practical solution to the anomaly exposed by the House of Lords judgment on Somerville.

We will work together to deliver, first, a one-year time bar in Scotland by the summer. Later, the UK Government will seek the support of the UK Parliament to bring forward a comprehensive solution extending the same protection to the devolved Administrations of Wales and Northern Ireland, so putting all the devolved Administrations on a consistent footing and consolidating the proposed changes to the Scotland Act 1998.

Our joint aim is to restore the situation to what it was before this anomaly became apparent and to protect the public interest in Scotland. I am pleased and grateful that, in the course of discussions over the past week, I was able to confirm that there is all-party support in this Parliament for bringing forward the required legislation before the summer recess.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I welcome the announcement that the Westminster Government is to rush to close this loophole only 18 months after it was first asked to do so.

The First Minister will be aware of cases in England where people who were compensated for wrongful imprisonment have had money withheld from their compensation payment to cover the cost of their board and lodging while in jail. Such deductions are completely wrong. Does the First Minister agree, however, that in cases where compensation has been or will be paid out as a result of the Somerville judgment to those rightly imprisoned, the responsible authority should pursue a similar course of action and deduct board and lodging expenses from that compensation payment so that those rightly imprisoned do not benefit financially from that imprisonment? Will the First Minister support such a course of action and ask the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to investigate the issue?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Stewart Maxwell has an important point and I share his concerns about public money going to criminals. The issues are complicated, of course, and I am sure that Stewart Maxwell will appreciate that I cannot give a commitment now to any particular course of action. However, I agree that the matter ought to be looked at. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and his officials are already considering the matter that Stewart Maxwell has raised and will take it further now that agreement has been reached on addressing the Somerville issue.

Reflecting on the Somerville judgment, I can see the advantage—perhaps the Parliament sees it too—of not just conducting discussions and reaching agreements between authorities, which is hugely important, but making public statements to the Parliament when it is necessary to do so and the time is right. The Parliament has a role in ensuring that the required political consensus can be reached to effect progress.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the First Minister agree that the direct intervention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to resolve the issues around the Somerville case was welcome and effective? [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Can the First Minister say whether money saved as a result raises the possibility of ending the current sanitation arrangements at Peterhead prison without the closure of the community prison in Aberdeen?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Given that we have reached an amicable settlement that is in the public interest in Scotland, I will not ascribe a word of criticism to anyone today.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

What about tomorrow?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Tavish Scott must not judge my motives by his own.

It is a joint agreement, which I will do nothing other than welcome. I welcome the progress that has been made and the all-party support in the Parliament that has enabled us to bring forward with confidence the emergency legislation that will be required.

I say to Richard Baker that the cases that underlay Somerville dealt with conditions that existed in the Scottish Prison Service some years ago. If he checks the record, he will see exactly why some of the judgments went against the then Scottish Executive. Perhaps we can all come together to agree that the new prison estate in Scotland—the estate that this Government progressed and sanctioned in its early weeks of office—will be something of which all parties in the Parliament can rightfully be proud.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Robert Brown—very briefly.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

On the principle that it is vital to get the legislation right to achieve the desired effect, will the First Minister undertake to publish the Scottish Government's draft legislation now? Will an urgent consultation be undertaken with stakeholders such as the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates to ensure that the law of unintended consequences does not arise as a result of the haste with which the legislation is introduced?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We published the proposed legislation last week. It might be amended slightly following the discussions over the past week. That is exactly why we published it.

Robert Brown mentions the haste with which the legislation is being introduced, but there has been no haste at all in the consideration of this matter. A lot of consideration has gone into the legislation, which I will gladly publish.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will publish the report of the study that it has commissioned on future energy options. (S3F-1573)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government published volume 5 of the Scottish energy study in October 2008. That independent study examined the prospects for future energy supply and demand in Scotland, and the implications of those trends for energy-related CO2 emissions up to 2020. In particular, it presented projections of how the electricity generation portfolio in Scotland could evolve to achieve the renewable energy targets for 2011 and 2020.

I am sure that the whole Parliament will be delighted to know that we can say with considerable confidence, as we can on police numbers, that the 2011 target will not just be reached but exceeded.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I am sorry that the First Minister appears to have forgotten the undertaking that he gave after the publication of the Scottish energy study, at the behest of his Council of Economic Advisers, to commission a study of energy options. I look forward to receiving an answer from the First Minister on that subject in due course.

He has already mentioned the report on the electricity transmission network across Great Britain that was published this month. Given that that report confirms that urgent action is needed to provide grid access for future renewable generation and that that action goes beyond what the Scottish ministers have included in the national planning framework, will he, when he publishes the energy options study, which I hope that he will do in due course, set out a timetable for the decisions that the Scottish ministers will need to take to realise that vision, starting with a decision on the Beauly to Denny transmission line?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Beauly to Denny public local inquiry has been held under the provisions that were operated by the previous Government and has taken some considerable time. As Lewis Macdonald will know from local experience, under the new legislation public local inquiries can go through rather more quickly and ministers can take related decisions expeditiously.

I am glad that he mentioned the grid study, which I have with me. The proposals for the offshore gridlines will not just help the Scottish renewable energy targets—which, as he will understand, we are confident of meeting—to be met; they will contribute to the meeting of the UK's renewable energy targets. The study suggests that, between them, the two major offshore lines might accommodate 3.6GW of renewable electricity, which could be exported from Scotland down the east and west coasts to England. I mention that because I think that it is a good idea to generate electricity and to export it. However, it makes the position of people in his party, such as Iain Gray, who sometimes suggest that there will be an energy gap in Scotland, appear rather curious. I put it to them that if 4GW of renewable electricity—which amounts to two thirds of Scotland's entire electricity consumption—will be exported offshore, it hardly sounds as if we will be short of electricity.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government intends to take to make the law more effective in respect of the confiscation of assets of criminals. (S3F-1566)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Asset recovery is a vital tool in the fight against organised crime in Scotland. We will be consulting shortly on adding to the list of specific offences that are deemed to be criminal lifestyle offences in Scotland; for example, illegal money lending. We also intend to reduce the criminal benefit amount—the minimum amount that can be targeted—from its current £5,000 level to £1,000.

We have recently allocated an additional £400,000 for this year and the next two years to the Crown Office to help bolster its efforts in recovering criminal assets.

Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland and Her Majesty's inspectorate of prosecution are currently reviewing performance in asset recovery, and we will act on their recommendations as soon as they become available.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Despite the best efforts of all concerned, the present policy is largely ineffective at combating the actions of a small group of ruthless individuals who create havoc in some of Scotland's communities. [ Laughter. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

In Ireland, the situation is quite simple. Where an individual has a lifestyle inconsistent with his work record—where he has a £2 million house, two Mercs in the driveway and a villa in Marbella, and he has not worked for years—he has to prove where he got the money from or his property is forfeited to the state. The balance of proof is entirely on that individual. Will the First Minister undertake to consider the Irish experience and whether it is worth importing into Scots law?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Bill Aitken should understand that when he referred to a small, dedicated group trying to undermine Scottish society, some of the baser elements in the chamber were looking at the Conservatives.

Yes, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and I will consider the Irish experience and whether to add it to our weaponry in the matter.

The proceeds of crime legislation has secured more than £23.5 million in Scotland. We can and will improve it through the measures that I have suggested, and we will consider any proposals to improve it further. However, let us remember that in the past financial year, the costs for the civil recovery unit were £1 million, and the unit managed to remit £2.7 million to the Scottish consolidated funds, helping a range of organisations and communities, including YouthLink Scotland, the Scottish Football Association, the Scottish Rugby Union, basketballscotland and the sports facilities fund While we hope to bolster the unit's efforts through increased funding and legislation, let us not, in any sense, give the impression that the proceeds of crime legislation has not been a success. It is doing a great deal of good in Scottish society.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I regret raising this point of order, and I do so with the greatest respect, but I believe that the exchanges that took place following Mr Maxwell's question to the First Minister constituted an abuse of the criteria for the conduct of question time, which are set out in standing orders. Might I suggest that it would be more suitable to have such an important topic discussed after a statement, instead of using First Minister's question time in this way?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am afraid that I am not entirely aware of what Ms MacDonald is referring to. I will consider her point of order, but at this time I am afraid that I am unable to give an answer.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Health and Wellbeing

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The Scottish Government is committed to helping tackle housing issues in Edinburgh, working closely with the City of Edinburgh Council. Support to the city is provided through a range of measures. For example, the city will receive £46 million in this financial year for a range of affordable housing measures and I recently announced that, next year, the city will receive nearly £50 million. In addition, the city will have access to a share of the demand-led £60 million national open market shared equity scheme. The recently submitted bid to help fund new council houses in the city is being examined. I expect to make announcements on that bid fairly soon.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I welcome the recent affordable housing investment programme allocation to the city and the allocation for strategic land acquisition, both of which are important. Those allocations recognise that the Scottish Government must invest more in areas where the shortage of affordable housing is most acute. What discussions does the minister intend to have with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to achieve a longer-term and fairer distribution of the Government's housing investment funds, so that they are distributed on the basis of need, bearing in mind the acute needs in areas such as Edinburgh?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I have instituted several meetings with COSLA and individual councils. Indeed, I met the leadership of the City of Edinburgh Council this week to discuss the long-term housing pressure on Edinburgh. I have arranged to have monthly meetings with COSLA to discuss the issues to ensure that we move ahead on all aspects of housing policy.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Two weeks ago at question time, I drew to the minister's attention the fact that 45p of every pound of rent in Edinburgh goes to paying off housing debt. I ask the minister for his thoughts on the important campaign on that issue by Edinburgh Tenants Federation, which is run by committed tenants throughout the city.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As the member knows, I have arranged in principle to meet Edinburgh Tenants Federation to discuss the issues of concern. As I said to the member two weeks ago, the Scottish Government's position remains firmly that Her Majesty's Treasury should write off the housing debt throughout Scotland with no strings attached. That would make a substantial difference to housing investment in Scotland.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I acknowledge the increase for Edinburgh, which has been achieved by bringing forward money from 2010-11. Will there be a corresponding reduction from the pre-announced indicative allocation for Edinburgh for 2010-11, or will the minister move speedily on to a new distribution formula that pays proper regard to the shortage of affordable housing as the key indicator?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We will make the announcements on the allocations for that financial year at the appropriate time and once the final decisions are made. I should point out that, as I said in an earlier answer, our decision on the bids for the £25 million-worth of investment in council housing throughout Scotland will be announced in the next few weeks. Edinburgh, being an ambitious city with an ambitious council, has applied for only 40 per cent of the total Scottish funding.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I take it that Edinburgh's ambition will not be punished in any way and that its bid will be recognised as expressing not just the city's ambition but its need, which has not been acknowledged until now. In that vein, can the minister assure me that, if the homelessness figures for Edinburgh continue to rise, there will be flexibility in any response that he might be asked for?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

On Tuesday, I discussed the issues that Margo MacDonald has raised with the political leadership and housing chiefs of the City of Edinburgh Council. The Government is aware of the particular pressures on housing in Edinburgh and is keen to agree with the council a medium-term plan to address them.

The mid-term homelessness target for Edinburgh, starting from a baseline of 75 per cent, was for 87 per cent of allocations to be made on the basis of priority need. Early indications are that the city has reached only 81 or 82 per cent, which underlines the need for us to do more in Edinburgh to meet the homelessness target by 2012.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what arrangements are in place to ensure the safe delivery of medicines for patients who receive them by post. (S3O-6333)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Under their code of ethics, pharmacists must ensure that medicines are delivered safely and securely. In particular, they must ensure that there is a verifiable audit trail for medicine from the point at which it leaves the pharmacy to the point at which it is handed over to the patient or carer.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Recently, a constituent of mine in Lanark reported delayed receipt of medicine in a parcel that was damaged. Does the minister agree that the public service aspect of the Royal Mail must be maintained, especially where the delivery of medicine is concerned, and that that is threatened by the United Kingdom Government's determination to press ahead with privatisation of the Royal Mail?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

As my colleague the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism said at question time last week, the Scottish Government shares the widespread public concern about the UK Government's proposals to part-privatise the Royal Mail. As he explained, we will continue to express our concerns and to monitor developments, to ensure that service levels in Scotland are protected.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made with the fuel poverty programme. (S3O-6292)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Our review last year identified that the programmes that we inherited from the previous Administration were not targeting the fuel poor effectively. We re-established the Scottish fuel poverty forum and announced in November that we will adopt its key recommendation, which is to replace the central heating and warm deal programmes with the energy assistance package. The package will start next month and will present an holistic approach, targeting a wider range of fuel-poor groups, better addressing energy-inefficient homes and, for the first time, tackling rural fuel poverty.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

We all want measures that will tackle fuel poverty effectively. However, the minister will be aware that the number of central heating installations fell from 1,236 in October last year to 520 in November—a fall of more than 50 per cent. Can the minister justify a cut of such magnitude five months before the new fuel poverty programme is scheduled to start?