Scottish Parliament, 2 April 2009

341 contributions from 82 members. The official report.

Official Report 2 April 2009

Point of Order

George (Labour, Lothians)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I understand that today's First Minister's question time has been suspended. I appreciate that a terrible tragedy has taken place in the North Sea. We all are deeply worried about the position of the families and share in the sympathy for them, but the suspension creates a precedent. There are a number of very serious issues that members on all sides of the chamber might wish to have raised today. The First Minister should be accountable regularly to the Parliament: we are about to go into our two-week Easter recess during which there will be no such accountability to Parliament.

I understand that the matter was discussed at the Parliamentary Bureau, which you chair, Presiding Officer, and that a number of bureau members—or, at least, one—raised concerns on the suspension of First Minister's question time. What guidance will you issue on the circumstances under which First Minister's question time could be abandoned in the future? What should the criteria be, now and in the future?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Thank you for your point of order, Lord Foulkes. First Minister's question time has not been suspended. One question will be put to the First Minister—that is what the bureau agreed. Contrary to what you said, no bureau member questioned the form that First Minister's question time will take today, although the bureau discussed alternatives. At the end of the day, however, the matter is for the bureau. That will remain the case in the future.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Further to my point of order, Presiding Officer, I say that the matter is, of course, for the bureau. However, it is also a matter for the Parliament. There ought to be a mechanism under which the bureau has to explain to the Parliament why our parliamentary business has been changed. The criteria for such decisions should be clear, today and in the future.

Tragedies may happen regularly—unfortunately, that is the case. There are tragedies on the road, in the air, as well as on the sea. There are also other reasons why we might be concerned about incidents that take place in Scotland and for which the Parliament and the Executive may have some responsibility.

It would be useful for Parliament to know the basis on which First Minister's question time is changed substantially. I understand that the suggestion now is for political debate to be curtailed. The matter is an important one. The tragedy is sad—we all share deeply in that sadness—but democratic political debate is equally important, and that should continue to be the case.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I note the points that you make, Lord Foulkes, but the bureau unanimously agreed the matter, so I suggest that you take up the issue with your business manager. In this instance, Parliament is represented through the bureau. I repeat: the decision is one for the bureau, the points that you have made are valid, and I suggest that you take them up with your business manager. We should move on with the business of the day.

George (Labour, Lothians)

I have discussed the matter with our business manager. I accept what you say, Presiding Officer. I know that he participated in the discussion and that—in the end—the decision was unanimous. However, my point is this: although the matter is the responsibility of the bureau and the change to business was agreed by its members, is it not also the responsibility of the bureau to explain to Parliament the reasons behind its decision? Surely it should have to explain the criteria. If you cannot rule on that today, Presiding Officer, I hope that that can be done at some point. That would enable Parliament to know what kind of precedent has been created today.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Your points are noted, Lord Foulkes. The matter may be raised at the bureau. The bureau is the right place for such a discussion.

Creative Scotland

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We now move to our first item of business, which is a statement by Michael Russell on Creative Scotland. As always, the minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I understand that the condolences and concerns of the Parliament about the tragedy yesterday will be expressed later this morning.

As members know well, the level of debate about this Government's intention to establish Creative Scotland is significant, and has been intense. That is to be welcomed. Open dialogue about state support for the arts—not only on the what and the why, but on the how—is central to a modern democracy. However, there is a moment when the talking has to stop: a moment when the focus switches from structures to substance. After a decade of debate in Scotland, I believe that such a moment has come.

Scotland's artists are key contributors to the Scotland of ideas that we all should seek. They help us to frame the wider questions about what we want to be and how we can achieve our aims. As two of our artists, Alexander Moffat and Alan Riach, observed recently:

"All art ... represents and interprets the world. It resists the numbing of the senses, it helps us to live more fully, engaged with the world and critical of it."

For me, that is just the type of creativity that I want to see in Scotland.

There should be no doubt about this Government's continuing commitment to artists and creators of all kinds. The resources that are being made available have been increased. In our approach to structures, we have made it clear that we want to secure a body that is fit for purpose and is able to support, sustain, develop and underpin Scotland's creativity. That body will be the new Creative Scotland.

I am very heartened by the high quality of the work that has been, and is being, done to establish Creative Scotland. I refer to my predecessor, Linda Fabiani; the transition board, which was led by Ewan Brown; the existing joint board, which was led by Richard Holloway; the two chief executives of the existing organisations, Jim Tough and Ken Hay; and the people who work in those organisations whom I have met over the past couple of weeks. The wider arts and creative community—for example, as expressed through the cross-party group on culture and media, with which I met last night—is also deeply engaged. I am particularly pleased that the transition board now has a transition director working with it: I welcome Richard Smith to that role.

Creative Scotland will come into being in the first half of next year—subject, of course, to the final decision of Parliament. However, in order for it to be much more than the sum of its parts, and for it to be the living, dynamic, forward looking, informed and supportive organisation that it must be, it will need more than just parliamentary approval. All the people I have mentioned are needed at this time and all must be part of the process of change. We must engage their enthusiasm, learn from their experience and keep them fully informed of the bigger picture. That is what I intend to do.

Of course, paramount in the decision making process is the Scottish Parliament. It is therefore to Parliament that I want to outline the final details of the cost of establishing Creative Scotland. I am making this statement not only because I recognise the continuing high degree of interest in the issue, but because I want the debate on Creative Scotland to be based on fact, not on speculation.

The context in which Creative Scotland will be established is that this Government wishes to expand access both to funding for the arts and culture and participation in the arts and culture. For that reason, we have increased by £33.6 million the money that is being made available for culture in the plans for this spending review period, which is a 14 per cent increase in cash terms. Although we want that type of support to continue, I should enter an early caveat. In common with all other areas of Government, we may need to review our plans for 2010-11 in the light of the heavy cuts that the United Kingdom Government is to impose on the Scottish block grant in that year. I have already intimated such concern to the national companies and the national institutions. I will continue to keep the matter under revue.

Whatever the financial situation, the establishment of Creative Scotland requires to be paid for; such a task could never have been undertaken at zero cost. This is not just a transition; it is a transformation. It has involved taking the best from both the current organisations, in which there has been much to praise, and creating a unified organisation that has skilled and confident leadership from the sector's best. In so doing, we want to create a new force that will set a national—and, who knows?—an international standard as a vibrant and forward-thinking organisation.

After detailed work from the two current bodies and with the transition board and the Government, my expectation is that the total cost of the transformation will be just over £3.3 million. I am publishing today a summary of the figure and I talked this morning about the costs to the relevant trade unions, which marked the start of a detailed period of consultation of the unions before we present the figures to Parliament in the financial memorandum to the proposed public services reform bill. That £3.3 million represents our rigorous current best estimate of the full costs that will arise from transition. In essence, it is the establishment cost for a new body and we should see it in that positive light.

For completeness, I say that the figures that we are publishing today include two footnotes on a couple of other costs that do not arise from transition, but which should be noted. The first is a one-off payment that may be required to be made to the pension provider of Scottish Screen as part of pension arrangements for Creative Scotland after vesting. The second may arise from the expectation that Creative Scotland will not have charitable status—indeed, it would never have had that, even under the previous Government's plans. However, I intend to discuss that directly with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator before a final decision takes effect.

I hope that this major investment will result in a major return. I expect the skilled leadership of Creative Scotland to set up a lean and intelligent system that will help its staff to help Scotland's creativity in the wider sense. In funding the arts, the Government intends that the money is for just that: for the arts, by means of supporting artists. Consequently, although artists and creators will benefit from the investment, I confirm that they will not pay for it from grants that are intended for their support and assistance. Let me say unequivocally, therefore, that the cost of setting up Creative Scotland will not come from front-line grants to artists, whether they are existing grants administered by the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen, or new initiatives such as the extra £5 million over 2009-10 and 2010-11 for the innovation fund.

The Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen have already made provision for costs that have been incurred to date during 2007-08 and 2008-09. Those figures are included in the costs summary that I am publishing today. The Government will meet the remaining transformation costs from within my portfolio budgets. That will be challenging, but it is the right thing to do.

Since I took over this portfolio six weeks ago, I have met a wide range of arts and cultural bodies, and many individuals in the sector. I have said to all of them that I do not regard it as being the job of the Government, still less as being that of a Government minister, to define what should or should not receive money. I respect and understand the arm's-length principle. However, I believe that we need to be honest about what that principle means. It is not just a principle that stops interference in detail, but one that insists on Government playing a key role in defining the structures, setting the broad parameters and then devolving the key day-to-day decision making.

In short, Government must set the overall context within which our arts and culture can thrive. For me, a successful context means four things: encouraging and sustaining artists and creators of all kinds; ensuring that their work is accessible to all; ensuring that as many people as possible can participate in creative activities; and extending and increasing the wider benefits of arts and culture, including their contribution to the promotion and development of our unique national culture and its place in the wider international sphere. Those aims will be enshrined in the legislation that will set up Creative Scotland. The implementation will be the fruit of the national investment that I have outlined.

This is not just about process, however. While work continues on establishing Creative Scotland—work that will also come to fruition when Parliament gets an opportunity to shape that organisation through modern legislation—much good work in the arts continues. I want to draw attention to some of that now. First, members will recall that some weeks ago I made a promise to expand the board of the transition company. The first new appointment has just been made and I am very happy to welcome broadcaster and cultural commentator and figure, Sheena McDonald, to the organisation. She attended her first meeting last week. One more appointment remains to be made.

Secondly, members will know that I have a particularly strong interest in ensuring that Gaelic is at the forefront of how we present our national story. I am pleased, therefore, to be able to announce today that Gaelic will be integral to the work of Creative Scotland and that funding has been agreed for the appointment of a specialist arts officer to implement the Gaelic arts strategy within the context of Creative Scotland.

Thirdly, I am very mindful that Scotland's creative industries' sector makes a huge cultural and economic impact: it contributes over £5 billion in turnover and supports 60,000 jobs. We have already announced the framework agreement, and I am pleased to be able to tell members that, last Tuesday, Councillor Harry McGuigan of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and I jointly chaired the first meeting of a short-life group to put flesh on the bones of that framework. I look forward to a new partnership in support of the creative industries that will fully involve Creative Scotland and COSLA as lead players.

Fourthly, I confirm that the emerging structure of Creative Scotland, which is very much a work in progress, will continue to have a sectoral and subject focus. This issue has concerned many people who are involved in all the arts and creative industries, and who have been worried that experience within the organisations might be lost and that inappropriate models might be used to replace successful support structures. I am determined that we will build on what is good and I regard this approach as having succeeded. Certainly, it needs to be modernised and developed, so I look forward to some new thinking about how it might evolve. In addition, I have asked Ewan Brown and the transition board to let me have proposals for projects—actual projects under Creative Scotland—which can be developed using the innovation fund that we announced last year.

However, there are sectors in which progress has not been made and where there are shortfalls between ambition and policy. Two sectors in particular have given me cause for concern. In one—the traditional arts—we have already put in place a working group led by David Francis to recommend the best national arrangements to support and develop this vital area of interest. The conclusions of that group will feed into Creative Scotland and inform final decision making about the issue.

I believe that literature is another area in which we are, in terms of national policy, underachieving. Accordingly, I can announce that I have established a similar working group, to be led by the literary editor of The Herald, Rosemary Goring, which will include writers, publishers and academics. I want that group to review what we are doing and to make radical recommendations about what we should do as a nation to support existing talent, promote new talent and encourage books that are made in Scotland, as well as those who publish and sell them. This group will inform emerging policy within Creative Scotland and will advise me and the chairman of Creative Scotland, Ewan Brown.

I hope that I have put some more flesh on the bones of Creative Scotland. Much remains to do, and I welcome again the input of all those who are joining us, Ewan Brown and his colleagues in making the idea a reality. Creative Scotland will happen: it is time that it happened. We can thereafter devote our national energy and our national resource to the important task of encouraging artists, widening access to their art and securing participation in the arts, and by so doing, making our national culture deeper, richer and more connected to the world.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

As I intimated earlier, the minister will now take questions. It will be helpful if members who wish to ask questions would press their request-to-speak buttons. I come first to Pauline McNeill.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

First, I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, to members and to the minister for my being late. I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

Of course, we welcome the long-awaited chance to hear clarification of some of the detail on Creative Scotland and its costs. The policy has caused serious concern and upset in the artistic community. The lack of clarity about finance and the detail of the plans for the organisation has sent out mixed messages and has led to suspicion. I agree with the minister that it is time to dispel that suspicion not just in the interests those who will depend on the new body for their livelihood, but in the interests of Scotland. Labour therefore welcomes the clarity on the transitional costs that the minister has given this morning. We will have detailed questions on that.

I also welcome the setting up of the working group on literature. However, the minister has an opportunity today to give real answers on the detail of the policy. I have some questions that I hope are clear and on which I hope I can get clear answers from the minister. First, on the funding of Creative Scotland, the minister claims that there has been a 14 per cent increase in cash terms: however, that is a stand-still budget in real terms. Even if it was not, Creative Scotland will expand its role. How will the expansion of what Creative Scotland will do be funded? Clearly, there is a gap.

Secondly, on the inclusion of the creative industries, the minister's predecessor announced that the new body would give specialist advice to the creative industries, which I support. She also said that the budget for that would transfer from Scottish Enterprise to Creative Scotland. Is that still the case? Can the minister clarify today whether those funds will transfer from Scottish Enterprise? Does the minister expect that the new body will recruit the types of skills that are needed to provide the specialist advice for the creative industries?

Thirdly, on Scottish Screen, I am sure that the minister will agree that it is a successful brand that has attracted important work to Scotland. Can the minister provide any detail on whether the Scottish Screen brand will be retained in any shape or form? Will Scottish Screen's address still be in Glasgow?

Fourthly, on the new model for grants and loans, many artists are worried about the idea that they might have to seek a loan rather than a grant. Can the minister provide some clarity, at least on what he expects Creative Scotland to do on that? For example, will artists who currently enjoy grants be expected to apply for loans? If the minister would provide some clarity around some of those questions today, I believe that we can put the Creative Scotland policy back on track.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am grateful to Pauline McNeill for her questions, which are similar to questions that I have been answering from the staff of the organisations and the artists involved. I am happy to provide comprehensive answers to them now, although I will be brief because I am conscious of the time.

First, there has been an increase in cultural funding of 14 per cent over the current spending review period—that is a reality. However, we must be accurate about what we are talking about. I was asked the question last night at the cross-party group on culture and media. The two previous organisations have existing responsibilities in dealing with the sectors and are coming together in a new and dynamic body. There is no expanded role sectorally in that regard—all those concerns already exist. However, the resources of the two organisations will be more focused and will be used more. It is simply not true that there is some vastly increased number of specialities; therefore, there is no funding gap.

An enormous resource is not being made available to anybody at this stage. I have made it absolutely clear that the purpose of the exercise is to ensure that we get more bang for our buck—I have said that openly for the past six weeks. We want to ensure that more money is made available to the sector. That will be the case at the end of this process not just because there has been an increase in funding through the spending review, but because the new organisation will focus its resources on its job. I expect the new organisation to be able to do more, and I am sure that that will be the case.

Secondly, the role of Scottish Enterprise in the creative industries is crucial. Pauline McNeill knows that we are building on the framework arrangement, which has been announced to Parliament and with which members are familiar. It will take the ability and resource of a range of bodies and apply them to the creative industries, with Creative Scotland undoubtedly playing a lead role. COSLA also has a role to play. I was pleased that Jack Perry, of Scottish Enterprise, appeared at the first meeting of the short-life working group and was deeply involved.

Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland and the creative industries themselves are also involved in ensuring that all the resources are focused on the task in hand. I will give an example: the resources of the business gateway are not allocated discretely to culture, but can assist many small and medium-sized enterprises in their cultural endeavour. There is therefore a virtuous circle in ensuring that we do things that way. I think that it is going to work. I have also said publicly that I will keep the closest eye on the performance of the enterprise companies—in particular, to ensure that they honour the commitments that they have made.

Thirdly, of course, there is a fondness for Scottish Screen and its importance is recognised. I am sure that, in some way, the work that it does will continue to appear under that brand. However, the really important prize is the new brand of Creative Scotland. Creative Scotland should, will and must be a highly successful and recognised brand, and all our efforts should go into making it so while not looking backwards, but forwards.

On the location of the body, my predecessor made it clear that there would be substantial problems in siting the new body at a single location, not least of which are the existing lease commitments of the Scottish Arts Council. I remain wedded to the policy that my predecessor announced, which is that the costs of changing its location at present could not be borne. Nevertheless, it is obvious that we need to develop a new culture within Creative Scotland to bring the bodies together. Mr Macintosh, who is sitting on the Labour front bench, was part of the inquiry into the exams debacle in 2000. One of the problems at that time was the fact that there were two bodies—one in the west and one in the east—that did not share a single culture, which created a problem for their performance. I am determined that the cultural bodies should learn from that experience and develop a new shared culture.

Finally, on grants and loans, I am absolutely certain that the good support that exists will continue. Nevertheless, I want to ensure that the way in which we provide that support in Scotland is modernised. That will be the job of Creative Scotland 2009. There is no reason for anybody who is being supported at the moment to have any fears about the way in which they will be supported in the future. In fact, our proposals will improve the way in which people are supported.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful to the minister for making copies of his statement available earlier this morning. This is clearly not a happy day for the Government. Although I welcome the minister's attempts at clarification of Government policy, no amount of slamming of stable doors after expensive horses have bolted can disguise the fact that the botched delivery of Creative Scotland has achieved the seemingly impossible—it has united all sectors of the Scottish arts community in condemnation of the Government.

The minister assures us that not a penny of the huge £3.3 million transition costs will be passed on to the arts sector; however, he has failed to explain why those transition costs are necessary at all. His predecessor repeatedly assured Parliament that the setting up of Creative Scotland would not require new legislation. Why then, when the previous bill collapsed, did the Government not cut its losses and put in place immediately the nuts and bolts of the new organisation? The minister tells us that Creative Scotland will be leaner and fitter, but he admits that the Scottish Arts Council has a lease on its Edinburgh offices that runs until 2014 and that Scottish Screen has a similar lease in Blythswood Street, Glasgow. Is there any real point in amalgamating the two organisations if they cannot physically be brought together in the one place?

Finally, is the minister yet able to tell us which will be the lead body in Scottish arts funding? If, as seems to be the case, Creative Scotland's role will be largely advisory, with the final say on budgets reserved to Scottish Enterprise, will those who are seeking funding not just cut out the middle man and go directly to the latter body?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I regret the tone that Mr Brocklebank has adopted. I would have thought that his interests in the matter would have led him to rejoice at this happy day on which we have clarity at last. I know that Mr Brocklebank is a man who is capable of rejoicing, so let me encourage him to do so. Perhaps he simply got out of the wrong side of his bed this morning. The reality is that there was considerable clarity in the statement, which I am happy to have provided. The statement was, indeed, circulated to the party spokespeople, including Mr Brocklebank, earlier, so he has had time to mull it over and see how clear it is.

I know that Mr Brocklebank has taken a particular interest in Scottish Enterprise's funding of the creative industries. The role that Creative Scotland will have in the process is absolutely clear: Creative Scotland is the lead organisation. However, wonderfully—this is another reason to be jolly—it is also able to open the door to lots of additional money. I have illustrated how help from the business gateway network can come into play, and there are lots of other opportunities. The problem has never been the resource; it has been the perceived difficulty of accessing that resource. Creative Scotland will open the door to that resource. It will free up the process and will be a lead partner in the framework agreement, as Mr Brocklebank knows. In all those circumstances, things will be better for the creative industries, rather than worse. Mr Brocklebank should welcome that.

I regret—as everybody regrets—the fact that the lease on the Scottish Arts Council premises is as it is; however, it is important to accept the reality of the situation. I would have thought that the Conservatives would be rather relieved that I have taken a pragmatic view of the matter and that, instead of spending more taxpayers' money, I am ensuring that we get the maximum bangs for our buck. I would have thought that Mr Brocklebank would be happy about that.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

Having lost a bill, a board member and a minister, it is time for the Government to take action. The creative industries have suffered from continued uncertainty over the future of Creative Scotland, so I welcome the progress that is being made at last. I welcome the details about the transition costs, but I ask the minister to accept that it was not based on transition costs that the financial resolution was rejected last June. The problem at that time was the lack of clarity about who among Creative Scotland, the enterprise agencies, the business gateway network and Skills Development Scotland would be responsible for what, and the lack of detail about where the finances for the creative industries would lie.

I welcome the framework agreement, which is finally starting to clarify who will do what, although I am surprised that there is no specific reference to the role of Skills Development Scotland in the agreement. I would like an assurance from the minister that the short-life working group that is chaired by Councillor Harry McGuigan will produce clear proposals to ensure that funding for the creative industries will match the responsibilities. In particular, the funding for Creative Scotland should reflect the additional responsibilities that that body will have.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

If there were to be additional responsibilities, I would warm to Mr Smith's final point. However, what we will have is a new, leaner, fitter and more focused organisation, and the resources that we are talking about will be applied in that way.

I am glad that Mr Smith has welcomed the short-life working group. It is important that we put flesh on the bones of the framework agreement, although the framework agreement is a big step forward. Skills Development Scotland is part of the group. Yesterday, I met Skillset and discussed its involvement. In addition, individual practitioners will be involved in the group. Out of that group will come great clarity about how the system will operate, and I am impressed by the commitment of all parties to it.

I am long enough in the tooth in politics to know that, even when there is no reason to complain, the Opposition has to complain. I have done it myself.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Yes—you have.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Lord Foulkes is shouting from a sedentary position. He is a past master at making something out of nothing, or, should I say, at making nothing out of something?

It is important to welcome the clarity that has been provided and to acknowledge that considerable work is being done to talk to, listen to and learn from the experience of—as I said in my statement—the widest creative community. I hope that the Opposition spokespeople—indeed, the whole Parliament—will not only welcome that work, but will become part of it. I was happy to invite the Opposition spokespeople to the event at the Traverse Theatre in February, and I make a commitment that I am happy to continue to involve Opposition spokespeople in the process so that we can get out of it something that not only the Government, but Parliament is glad about.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We have already come to the end of the time that was allocated for our first item of business, but there is some flexibility, as the following debate is undersubscribed. I am keen to get back benchers in, but I beg members to ask one short question, which should be followed by one short answer.

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

As a graduate of the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama and as someone who has an interest in, and experience of, the arts, I am delighted that Creative Scotland will continue with the sectoral and subject approach, and I am confident that most people in the arts will be relieved to hear that. Will the minister give us a little more insight into why he believes the sectoral approach is the best way forward for the arts?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

By and large, that approach has worked in most, although not all, areas. I have talked about a couple of areas in which it has not. I do not want to tie the hands of Creative Scotland 2009 because it should have flexibility and it should consider a modern version of doing things, but the approach means bringing expertise to bear and ensuring that that expertise encourages best practice.

In New York on Friday afternoon, I shall meet RSAMD graduates who will take part in the Scotland week events. I shall take Anne McLaughlin's good wishes to her former colleagues.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

I welcome the new proposals for Creative Scotland and am aware of the minister's strong interest in Gaelic. However, I am particularly disappointed that, in the year of homecoming, the Scots language does not have equal status. Will the minister reconsider that matter or say why the Scots language is not being treated the same?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I wish to treat the Scots language in the same way. Although I have made an announcement about a Gaelic officer, I am keen to discuss with all the relevant parties how we can integrate Scots into Creative Scotland.

I think that Cathy Peattie is aware that I told the cross-party group on culture and media last night that at the British-Irish Council summit on minority languages, I opened my contribution in Gaelic and closed it in Scots. I hope that we all recognise that we have a three-voice nation and that we should celebrate all three voices.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister will acknowledge that there has still not been an announcement on the chief executive of Creative Scotland. In his statement, the minister mentioned that a further appointment has still to be made to the transition board. Does he agree that such circumstances do not help to dispel the disquiet in circles about the leadership of Creative Scotland? Can he confirm when he expects those appointments to be made?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I do not agree with Elizabeth Smith. A natural process is taking place. The transition board is prioritising its work, and the chief executive will be appointed in line with the priorities that the transition board sets. I am happy to support it in that process.

I am sure that the existing leadership in the organisations is effective. Ewan Brown is providing the leadership of the transition process, Richard Smith is now working as the transition director, and the new chief executive will be appointed at the right time. I am sure that applications from all over the place—including applications from furth of Scotland—will be considered.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The costings that the minister has provided for the set-up of Creative Scotland include more than £1 million for voluntary early severance. Will he give details about potential job losses and the other issues that affect staff, and further details about the discussions that he has already had with the trade unions?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Yes. The costs include £1.1 million: half is for 2009-10 and half is for 2010-11. I met the trade unions and the staff of the Scottish Arts Council this morning, and I met the staff of Scottish Screen last week. I intend to follow best practice, and Ewan Brown has echoed that. There will be a voluntary early severance scheme and no compulsory redundancies. We hope that the voluntary early severance scheme will be the best that it can be.

The process will be difficult for the staff. On Tuesday, I said to the staff of the Scottish Arts Council that my career pattern has not had a straight-line trajectory and that I therefore know about how people suffer in such circumstances. The process is genuinely difficult, and we will do everything to ensure that it is made as painless as possible, although it cannot be completely painless. We will keep close contact with the trade unions. We had a positive discussion this morning. Ewan Brown will now engage in detailed discussions with the trade unions to ensure that we progress matters in the best possible way.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The minister will not be surprised to hear that, as convener of the Parliament's art advisory group, I am more than keenly aware that painters and sculptors in particular in Scotland feel rather left out of the process. He will have received an open letter from the Scottish Artists Union. What will be the flavour of his reply to that letter?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It will be warm, inclusive and positive, and it will show that I am determined that every part of the arts community in Scotland feels involved in the process. Such issues are raised in every meeting. It is absolutely no part of my intention to do down one artistic group at the expense of another or to prefer one artistic group or discipline over another. Everybody must share in the process, and I am determined that everybody will do so. I hope that people will talk directly to me, Ewan Brown or others about their worries and concerns rather than build them up without having discussions with us. I am determined that visual artists remain an important part of our arts infrastructure in Scotland. I will be positive about that matter and am happy to meet the Scottish Artists Union to confirm that.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

What role does the minister envisage for Creative Scotland in delivering a lasting arts legacy for the people of Glasgow following the 2014 Commonwealth games in the city?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

As Creative Scotland will be a key partner, we obviously want to ensure that we work in Glasgow as elsewhere. The legacy of the games will be important for Scotland as a whole. In December 2008, the Government published the interim legacy plan, which set out our thinking on turning ideas and aspirations into action. Since then, the Government has worked with a wide range of partners, including the Scottish Arts Council, to develop a legacy plan for Scotland. The evolving plan will be published in the summer, and the established mechanisms for partnership working will mean that everyone will have a part. That means that, when the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen become Creative Scotland, Creative Scotland will have a part too.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Will the minister provide clarification on the summary of costs that was published with his statement today? I refer to the £1.1 million for voluntary severance. How many individuals does the minister expect to go? How many of those positions will the organisation retain? How much of the £75,000 that has been identified for rebranding and leases will be spent on rebranding? Is the minister confident that that money will be sufficient to ensure that the brand is well known?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am keen that we spend as little as possible on branding, but I am equally keen that the brand is well known. We have to strike the right balance.

The member is right to raise the issue. We should be circumspect, but we should also ensure that people understand the importance of Creative Scotland, which will happen if Creative Scotland is an effective organisation that does good things.

I am sure that, with her long experience of trade union matters, the member recognises that it is entirely proper that the trade unions and Creative Scotland discuss details in a proper negotiating forum. I have set out the context for that and confirmed the key issues. The primary and overriding point is that there will be no compulsory redundancies. With the resources set and the discussions undertaken, I hope that the process will be completed in an orderly and proper fashion. It is expected that there will be two rounds—one in the coming financial year and one in the financial year thereafter—during which numbers will be focused on. We are talking about the minimum number of redundancies possible and ensuring that we get the best organisation that we possibly can.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

Bidh saoghal na Gàidhlig gu math toilichte leis an naidheachd gum bi oifigear ealain Gàidhlig ùr ann. Ciamar a bhios an neach seo ag obair leis na sgoiltean agus saoghal an fhoghlaim? Mòran taing.

The world of Gaelic will be very pleased by the news that there is to be a Gaelic arts officer. How will that post work with the schools and the world of education? Thank you.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

As my Gaelic progresses, I will answer Alasdair Allan's questions directly in Gaelic. However, as he used to be my Gaelic tutor, I am a bit nervous that he—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Oh, go on.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Oh no. I assure members that Alasdair Allan is far better than I am—in every way, I am sure.

It is necessary that we make links between education and Gaelic. The officer in question will focus on Gaelic arts, but, as the member knows, Gaelic arts are integral to education. Therefore, the post will have an impact on education. I want to ensure that Gaelic, Scots and other cultural traditions in Scotland are well represented. As part of that process, art will always be involved in education.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Ken Macintosh has the final question.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Mòran taing, Presiding Officer.

The proposals have undergone many transformations. In light of the minister's welcome agreement to a meeting with the Scottish Artists Union, what are his plans to consult the artistic community more widely on the content of the Creative Scotland bill and to rebuild the support that his Administration has lost?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I must admit that I am slightly surprised by all these suggestions that there are revolting masses of people outside who are ready to stone me.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

They are not just outside.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The question whether people in the chamber are revolting I leave to the judgment of members of the public.

Over the past six weeks, I have had the most positive discussions with a large number of groups and individuals. Those discussions have been vigorous and direct, certainly, but they have also been positive. I am absolutely certain that we have to ensure that ownership of the process does not lie simply with me or with the chamber but with the artistic community, in its widest definition.

In my statement, I made it clear that the key issue is the purpose of Creative Scotland. I outlined what I think that purpose should be, and that will be interpreted in the legislation.

To be honest, I do not think that anybody in the artistic community is in any doubt about the fact that Creative Scotland is happening. We should make it happen, and do so collaboratively. I would welcome Mr Macintosh's participation—that is not something that I often say.

I hope that front benchers and back benchers in every party in the chamber will be constructive in making Creative Scotland happen. It will happen best if it happens collaboratively, in a way that involves not just members in the chamber, but people throughout Scotland.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am grateful to members and the minister for ensuring that everybody who wanted to ask a question was able to do so.

Hospital Waiting Times

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3848, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on hospital waiting times. Cabinet secretary, you have around 11 minutes, but we have a little flexibility.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Presiding Officer, I am sure that all our thoughts this morning are with the families of those who lost their lives yesterday in the North Sea, and with all those in the emergency services who are involved in the rescue operation. It was an appalling tragedy, and it puts so much else into perspective.

Before I address the wider issue of waiting times, I want to welcome the confirmation from the Scottish Ambulance Service that it has, for the first time, not only met but exceeded its target to reach 75 per cent of life-threatening emergency call-outs within eight minutes. Figures for March show that the service has reached more than 77 per cent of category A calls across mainland Scotland within eight minutes. I take this opportunity to congratulate the staff on their hard work. It is a significant achievement that will improve outcomes for patients. That said, neither I nor the Ambulance Service is complacent. It will be important for performance to be sustained in the coming year, and I look forward to working with the service to ensure that that happens.

I welcome this opportunity to re-emphasise the Government's commitment to driving down national health service waiting times. I commend the NHS for its excellent performance so far in meeting current national waiting time standards and for the progress that is being made towards meeting future targets. I want to give a personal thank you to everyone who works in the NHS. As we know, delivering swift, high-quality care for patients is a team effort, involving clinical and support staff. They all deserve great credit.

Let me also acknowledge—as our motion does—the progress that was made on waiting times by the previous Administration and its successful efforts to reduce maximum waiting times to six months for both first out-patient appointments and in-patient treatment. However, I know that everyone recognised that a 26-week wait to see a doctor, coupled with a further 26-week wait to access treatment, was not a record that we should be satisfied with. That is why I am pleased to say that, in the past two years, the NHS has achieved a level of performance on waiting times that would once have been totally inconceivable. It has achieved and sustained the maximum waiting time targets of 18 weeks for out-patient consultations, and in-patient and day case treatment, and of nine weeks for key diagnostic tests; and it has achieved and sustained the whole-journey standards of 16 weeks for heart treatment and 18 weeks for cataract surgery, as well as the 24-hour target for surgery for hip fracture.

Moreover, as members will be aware, all NHS boards were expected to meet, by the end of this March, the target that no patient should wait more than 15 weeks for an out-patient consultation or for in-patient and day case treatment. I was very encouraged that, at the end of December 2008, two thirds of the Scottish population were living in health board areas where their board had delivered the targets three months ahead of schedule. I look forward to confirmation that those targets will be achieved throughout Scotland when the next statistics are published at the end of May.

Improvements have also been made in the past few years on cancer waiting times, after some years of little or no progress. The most recent quarterly audit data showed 94.6 per cent compliance with the current target, which is a 10 per cent increase since the beginning of 2007.

Our accident and emergency departments are also continuing to see and treat patients quickly. Even with the considerable challenges of the severe weather that we experienced in December and the increase in the number of patients attending accident and emergency departments, the NHS delivered a performance in which more than 96 per cent of patients were seen and then discharged or transferred within the four-hour target. We should not underestimate the progress that has been made in that area. In March 2007, less than 92 per cent of patients were seen within four hours of arrival at accident and emergency. However, boards are now regularly recording full compliance with the target. That level of sustained performance improvement has been delivered through the application of a focused and systematic approach to quality improvement.

All in all, the past two years have seen the best ever overall performance on waiting times recorded by the NHS. That is impressive in itself, but in my view it is all the more impressive when we consider that hidden waiting lists have also been abolished during that period. We now have a situation in which many thousands of patients who were previously excluded from waiting time standards now have access to health care with the shortest waiting times that this country has ever experienced. The progress to date is impressive.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We would all agree that availability status code waiting lists should be abolished. In fact, Labour set that abolition in train. However, will the cabinet secretary acknowledge that the statistics on waiting times, median waiting times and so on used to take the ASC waiting lists into account but no longer do so? The statistics therefore need to be considered slightly differently, because 100,000 patients are now off the lists, and many of them would previously have been on the ASC lists.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

As a former First Minister used to say to me, the median waiting time is not the true measure of a patient's experience. However, I say to the member that there is now complete and utter transparency around waiting time figures. That did not exist under the previous Administration.

As I was saying, the progress to date is impressive. However, we should not rest on our laurels. We can do much more. That is why "Better Health, Better Care" sets out an ambitious action plan. It also describes our vision of a mutual NHS. I believe that more timely access to health care is an important step in developing that mutual NHS. The benefits of shorter waits for patients are clear: earlier diagnosis and the earlier reaching of a decision to start treatment lead to better outcomes. Moreover, there is less unnecessary worry and less postcode variation.

Shorter waits benefit the NHS too, because they reduce the need to manage large treatment backlogs, and because large sums that have been spent on short-term waiting list initiatives would be better invested in sustainable and timely services. The ambition to do much more is why we have set an ambitious target—that, from the end of December 2011, patients can expect to be seen and treated within 18 weeks of referral. I make that commitment neither lightly nor in isolation. I know that within the chamber there is widespread support for that pledge, and I know that that support also extends to patients and to the public.

Labour's amendment today notes that England is already meeting the 18-week target, ahead of Scotland. That is correct. However, I feel duty bound to point out the reason for that. Whereas the UK Labour Government started working towards the target in England in 2005, it was not until the election of this Government in May 2007 that we started doing so in Scotland. However, I am pleased to say that good progress is now being made on the national 18-week programme. I am also pleased to say that the guidance that sets out the principles and definitions for the 18-week target significantly increases the number of patients who will be included within the standard. It is estimated that more than 100,000 patients who are currently excluded from waiting time standards will be treated within the 18-week target. The additional patient groups include audiology and consultant-to-consultant referrals.

That is good news, but we also need to address waits that lie outside the acute hospital sector. That is why, for the first time, there is to be a target to reduce treatment waiting times for drug misusers to support their recovery.

We are also working to establish a waiting time target for referral to treatment for specialist child and adolescent mental health services in 2010-11—the first ever waiting time target for mental health in Scotland. To support that work, we have established a new health improvement, efficiency access and treatment target. Access to psychological therapies will also receive a similar focus, and I am happy to consider the practicalities of including, over time, adult mental health services as well, a point that the Labour amendment raises.

On cancer waiting times, I have already mentioned the progress that has been made towards meeting the current 62-day target, and work on that continues. However, in "Better Cancer Care, An Action Plan" we set out a next stage for cancer targets, extending the benefits of the urgent pathway to patients on screening programmes whose initial findings give rise to suspicions that they might have cancer. We also set out a new 31-day target from decision to treat to first treatment for all cancer patients. That provides a fairer and more equitable service for all cancer patients after diagnosis, whatever their route into cancer services.

Those targets have to be implemented and achieved by December 2011. The new cancer targets will have other quality benefits, as they will further accelerate diagnosis for routine patients and integrate use of resources across all access targets.

I do not underestimate the enormous task facing the NHS in delivering our ambitious vision for the future. However, the progress that the service has already made gives me confidence that that progress can be continued and accelerated. It will not be easy. It will require the NHS to be prudent in its management of resources and to develop greater capability in innovation, modernisation and service redesign.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Breakthrough Breast Cancer said that it welcomed the 31-day target for first treatment for breast cancer. However, it pointed out that there were no such targets for subsequent treatments such as chemotherapy. Can the cabinet secretary explain why that is?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

We have taken the decision that the next stage in our process around cancer waits should be to have that 31-day guaranteed target for the time between the decision to treat and the first treatment. As Mary Scanlon said, Breakthrough Breast Cancer has welcomed that target, but it has also pointed out that we will need to be vigilant to ensure that waiting times for subsequent treatment do not become extended. I can give an assurance that we will be very much focused on that.

Progress to date has taken an investment of significant resources, and we cannot achieve our aims without the investment of still more resources. As I have said before in the chamber, the Government is backing up its ambition with the provision of extremely substantial resources and as much support as we can give the front line through the improvement and support team's 18-week service redesign and transformation programme.

I am confident that the combination of sustained resources, the skill and dedication of all NHS staff, strong leadership locally and nationally, and the drive and expertise of our clinicians and health professionals will ensure the on-going delivery of better access for patients and a health service that we can be proud of.

Ultimately, decisions about treatment are always for individual clinicians, but I believe that it is important that there is a maximum waiting time guarantee for patients. If they need to be treated more quickly, they should be treated more quickly. However, there should be a backstop on the length of time that they have to wait, and that is what is being delivered across the NHS. We should be proud of that and back the NHS 100 per cent in its on-going progress.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the most recent progress that has been made in reducing waiting times for patients; applauds the commitment, dedication and hard work of all NHS staff who have contributed to delivering these significant improvements for the people of Scotland; notes the progress made by the previous administration; acknowledges the substantial investment being made to increase NHSScotland capacity and the continuing work on integrating, modernising and redesigning services to speed access, diagnosis and treatment, and supports the Scottish Government's commitment to deliver a maximum "whole journey" waiting time of 18 weeks by 2011.

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

Like the cabinet secretary, I offer my condolences to the families who lost their loved ones in yesterday's tragedy, and associate myself with the remarks that were made about the emergency services.

In last week's health debate, we heard support from across the chamber for the fundamental principles of the NHS, something that I am sure that we will hear again today. In that context, it is worth remembering just how far we have come since, for example, the run-up to the United Kingdom general election in 1997, when the future of the NHS was central to Labour's campaign because of the fact that, back then, the NHS itself was in need of intensive care. For the benefit of anyone who cannot remember what it was like, I point out that, in the 1990s, it was not uncommon for people to wait for two years or more for their operation, and that many people did not survive their time on that waiting list. In 1995, after 16 years in government, the Tories unveiled their patients charter, which promised that no one would have to wait more than 18 months for elective surgery, although even that commitment was not delivered.

There is no doubt that the last decade has seen a revolution in the approach of the service, with the result that we have ensured that patients are treated more quickly.

There has been a welcome shift in emphasis away from the length of the waiting list and towards reducing waiting times. It was right to set targets to drive down the waiting times and to back up those targets with sustained investment at the UK and Scottish levels. I am pleased that we have successfully increased the capacity in the NHS to reduce waiting times.

The cabinet secretary referred to the Scottish Ambulance Service's success in meeting its targets on the time that it takes to respond to emergencies, and I also welcome that progress and thank the staff who have worked hard to make that happen. It is also right that we thank the staff across the NHS who have worked hard to deliver improvements in waiting times. We all recognise the commitment that they have shown.

Of course, the improvements that we are recognising today raise expectations and bring fresh challenges. Nowadays, the public do not think back to those days of 18-month waiting lists. Instead, they now think of the average waiting time of around eight weeks as nothing particularly exceptional or out of the ordinary; rightly, they consider such a waiting time to be part of the provision of a decent level of service. As Nye Bevan said when the NHS was created,

"the service must always be changing, growing and improving—it must always appear inadequate."

It is with that ambition and in that spirit that I urge the Scottish Government to continue carefully to consider what further improvements can be made. Even in areas in which the most overwhelming progress has been made, we still have to consolidate our gains. It is also important that we continue to invest and build on the work that has gone before. We all welcome the progress that the cabinet secretary has referred to, but we also agree that there is more to do.

As the cabinet secretary mentioned, in December 2008, the UK Government achieved an 18-week referral-to-treatment target. The current target in Scotland covers only referral to being seen by a consultant. The whole-journey target is scheduled to be met in Scotland by December 2011, and we must focus continued effort on achieving that further improvement as soon as possible. We do not want to meet the target for the sake of a numbers game; it is an important issue for patients. We all recognise that the wait between confirmation of diagnosis and commencement of treatment can be an extremely stressful time for patients.

Our amendment makes particular reference to adult mental health services. We welcome the inclusion of child and adolescent mental health services in the waiting time targets, which the cabinet secretary outlined earlier. However, we are specifically calling for further consideration of the provision of adult mental health services. I think that the cabinet secretary said that she would consider the issue of introducing maximum waiting times for mental health service provision in order to bring that area into line with other areas of health care, and I hope that she will report back to Parliament on that matter at some stage. She will be aware that that proposal has support from a wide range of organisations, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Scottish Association for Mental Health and the Depression Alliance Scotland. Given that one person in four in Scotland will face mental health problems at some stage in their life, the move would benefit a vast number of patients.

In tackling mental health problems, we also need to ensure that the full range of health professionals is available. South of the border, for example, there is a programme of 3,000 training placements for psychologists. We have a pilot programme, but I hope that we will ensure that we have the full range of people available to work on tackling problem areas.

On waiting times for alcohol and drug treatment, again, I welcome the fact that progress is being made and will continue to be made. Sadly, however, waits of six months or more are still too common for those who desperately need treatment for alcohol or drug misuse, and in the worst-case scenario there are waits of up to a year. Given that alcohol-related conditions are overtaking the other so-called big killers, and given what we know about the cost to individuals, families and communities as well as to our economy, it does not make sense to continue with that approach. We must make a real effort to drive down waiting times in order to reap the social as well as the financial dividends.

If we get adults into treatment as quickly as possible, we will also minimise the harmful impact on children who live with drug and alcohol misuse. On that point, I echo the plea that Duncan McNeil made last week for a concerted effort to identify every child who is affected by parental alcohol or drug misuse and to get those parents into treatment programmes.

Other areas where waiting time targets can benefit patients include audiology, which the cabinet secretary mentioned. Again, I welcome the progress in that area, because hearing problems affect the lives of large numbers of people. I hope that we will ensure that further progress is made in future.

On cancer waiting times, Mary Scanlon mentioned the concerns that Breakthrough Breast Cancer has expressed. We welcome the progress that has been made on cancer treatment. The newly revised 31-day waiting time target covers the period between the decision to treat and the first treatment. That will help patients to access treatment more quickly. However, as Breakthrough Breast Cancer has pointed out, subsequent treatments, including chemotherapy following surgery, are not included. We are trying to do the right thing, but if we focus only on the first treatment, there might be unintended consequences. I welcome the assurance that the cabinet secretary gave on that this morning. I am sure that Breakthrough Breast Cancer will continue to keep her and the rest of us in the Parliament up to date with progress on the matter.

While welcoming the improvements that are shown by the national waiting time statistics, we must recognise that there are some disparities between waiting times in different parts of the country. If members glance at the figures by health board, they will see that the waiting time for general medicine in Tayside can be as little as one week, while Lothian, Forth Valley and Grampian all have significantly higher waiting periods of up to 18 weeks. For general surgery, hospitals in Lanarkshire and Lothian have waiting periods of two weeks, but patients in the Borders wait for longer—up to 18 weeks.

As with all aspects of health care, it is also important to ensure that the necessary systems are in place to tackle inequalities. I often hear the cabinet secretary talking about the mutual health service that she wishes to develop. I do not disagree with the principle of ensuring that patients are involved in health care. Far from it—I very much support that approach. Initiatives that drive down the number of missed appointments—for example, by making sensible use of phone calls or text messages to remind people of appointments rather than relying on appointment letters—lead to more efficient use of time and therefore help to get people into treatment more quickly. They also ensure that we reach some patients in the hard-to-reach groups. Offering flexibility in the timing or location of treatments also leads to the sensible use of resources.

As I said earlier, the progress on waiting times during the eight years of the Labour-led Executive—which the cabinet secretary recognised—and more recently by the present Administration is to be commended. As I also said at the outset, however, patients will not regard the current 18-week waiting time as an achievement in itself. They will want progress on the 18-week referral-to-treatment target. I suspect that we will also hear time and again during this morning's debate that targets must not become an end in themselves and that we should not automatically press continuously to reduce waiting times yet further if that would cut across clinical judgment.

There are opportunities to extend waiting time guarantees to yet more areas of health care to ensure that the capacity that we have built in the NHS is fully utilised for the benefit of patients. Patients also want a quality service, and they judge the success of the NHS on their whole experience and not just on waiting times. We must now focus on that. I look forward to progress being made.

I move amendment S3M-3848.3, to leave out from "acknowledges" to end and insert:

"while welcoming the extension of the waiting times guarantee to include child and adolescent mental health services, calls on the Scottish Government to consider extending the range of specialties to include adult mental health services; further calls on the Scottish Government to ensure sufficient resources to bring NHSScotland in line as soon as possible with the NHS in England where a "whole journey" national waiting time standard of 18 weeks was delivered by December 2008, and notes that this compares to a target of 18 months introduced by the previous Conservative administration."

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On behalf of my party, I acknowledge the remarks of the two previous speakers about the tragedy in the North Sea last night.

We welcome the Scottish Ambulance Service's improvement in reaching category A patients in eight minutes. My colleague Jackson Carlaw will speak further on that issue. We also welcome the earlier intervention for child and adolescent mental health services, but, as those of us on the Health and Sport Committee are finding out, not enough is being done to identify mental health problems at the earliest possible age.

We welcome this morning's debate, which is about not only waiting times but the way in which the NHS allocates resources to meet the targets.

Scottish Conservatives want all patients to be seen as soon as possible, whether they are waiting to see their general practitioner, for accident and emergency services, for surgery, or for other treatment. We welcome the progress that has been made by both the previous Administration and the current Government, and we trust that the previous Administration will not vote against this week's accolade.

However, the focus on waiting times undoubtedly has consequences for service delivery. Any condition that is not included in the waiting time targets becomes something of an afterthought in the priority list for resource allocation. Those conditions are often called Cinderella services, because conditions that are covered by the targets assume higher status. An example is mental health. In July last year, the longest wait to see a psychologist in Highland was four years and seven months. In Lanarkshire and Tayside, there were waits of up to a year. If a patient is referred to a psychologist on the basis of clear clinical judgment, it is difficult for any of us to imagine the effect of a four-and-a-half-year wait on that patient's mental health.

The report that Audit Scotland published last week on drug and alcohol services in Scotland confirms that 75 per cent of problem drug users have a mental health problem. In some cases, drug taking could be a form of self-medication. Depression need not be a lifelong chronic condition with no hope of recovery and a level of service that does little to make people feel valued. I thank the Scottish Association for Mental Health for reminding us this week of the promise that was made to me in 2000 by the then Minister for Health and Community Care, Susan Deacon. In response to a parliamentary question, she stated:

"the Mental Health and Well Being Support Group are working closely with the Health Service in Scotland on the development of national waiting times targets in the three national clinical priorities."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 6 November 2000; S1W-10476.]

Those priorities included, and they still include, mental health. Cathy Jamieson might be better to focus on her own record than to look back further than 12 years.

Women in Scotland can wait for up to five years for infertility treatment despite its being age barred. The Government constantly states its opposition to the independent sector, yet its actions force many couples to pay privately for that service.

When a drug addict or an alcoholic reaches the bottom of a chaotic existence, he or she may have lost touch with the world of work, their family and their friends. If they were to seek help at that point only to be told to come back a year later, none of us could accept that the system is working.

However, I appreciate the work that is being done on the issue.

Another example is physiotherapy. I welcome the move by some health boards to self-referral, but GPs in many areas simply tell patients that there is no point in their being referred to the NHS because the waiting lists are so long. Instead, they recommend private treatment.

I also want to mention chronic pain, given that, with Gil Paterson, I co-convene the cross-party group on the issue. Although there are excellent services in Glasgow, the services in other health board areas are very much less than excellent. Because of the long waiting list in the Highlands, only consultants can refer patients to the chronic pain service; referrals from GPs are no longer accepted. Of course, the situation is better than it was a few years ago, when there was no service at all. In fairness, I have received a response from the chairman of NHS Highland saying that the board intends to address the problem.

That list is not exhaustive, but those are all examples of services that lose out as a result of the target-driven waiting times for other conditions. Moreover, the waiting time target is simply that—there is no measurement of the quality of patient care or patient outcome. As the British Medical Association states in its briefing paper for this debate,

"Waiting times are not the only, or the most important indicator of performance—patient outcomes, readmission rates, HAI rates, etc. are also important indicators of the quality of care received."

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I agree with Mary Scanlon's general point that waiting times are not the only performance indicator. However, does she acknowledge that the range of HEAT targets that health boards work towards reflects the broader priorities?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I do not think that that is the case. We have constantly raised concerns in the Parliament about all the issues that I have mentioned. I have never, for example, seen a HEAT target anywhere near chronic pain services.

The assumption behind the waiting time target culture is that every patient has the same clinical need and that despite the pain they might be in, or other conditions that they might have, they must all wait the same length of time. Surely we need to pursue a system that, in partnership with clinicians, delivers care on the basis of prioritised clinical need.

I will be interested to see the legal right set out in the proposed patients' rights bill, particularly the level of redress and perhaps the compensation that might have to be paid out if targets are not met. I fully commend all those in the NHS and the independent sector for their commitment to patient care throughout Scotland, but I must question whether, with the reduction of waiting time targets, the requirements of the working time directive, the further 2 per cent efficiency savings that have to be found and the NHS Scotland national resource allocation committee cuts to boards such as NHS Highland, the targets will be delivered with the quality that we all rightly expect.

Unfortunately, the waiting time target does not focus on innovative ways of managing patient care such as the greater utilisation of telehealth and e-health opportunities that could undoubtedly lead to better outcomes and management of care. Sometimes boards are so busy pursuing and achieving targets that they have no time to consider such different systems and types of provision. I welcome the fact that Richard Simpson will be holding a meeting in the garden lobby to raise awareness of the issue—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member begin to wind up, please?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will do. That meeting will take place on 29 April.

I trust that all MSPs will acknowledge the work of all health professionals who care for NHS patients and support my view that patient care and health outcomes should not be jeopardised to meet targets.

I move amendment S3M-3848.1, to leave out from "staff" to end and insert:

"and independent sector staff who have contributed to delivering these significant improvements for the people of Scotland; notes the progress made by the previous administration; acknowledges the substantial investment being made to increase NHSScotland capacity and the continuing work on integrating, modernising and redesigning services to speed access, diagnosis and treatment, but cautions that, while shorter waiting times are welcome, patient care and health outcomes should not be jeopardised by attempts to meet centrally determined targets."

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I, too, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, associate myself with the remarks that have been made by the cabinet secretary, Cathy Jamieson and Mary Scanlon about yesterday's tragic events. Our thoughts are with the families involved and the emergency services.

Such debates are always difficult. We are right to remind ourselves that this work started because patients were thoroughly dissatisfied—to put it politely—with inexplicably long waiting times. It is all very well to say, "Well, that's fine. Now we need to move on and put together the perfect solution to all these problems," but we should remember that patients wanted a great improvement in those times. However, as Mary Scanlon pointed out, the targets were and are being used to measure the health service's performance, which some have seen as a highly unfortunate move. Indeed, that is why I feel that we need to be careful in how we move forward. However, it would be churlish not to welcome the progress on waiting times, particularly, as the cabinet secretary pointed out, with regard to cancer treatment and A and E.

I very much welcome this morning's announcement of the Scottish Ambulance Service's improved performance, although I point out that response time was not necessarily the core issue in that respect. The Liberal Democrats also welcome the extension of the waiting time guarantee to child and adolescent mental health services and the acknowledgement that was made by the cabinet secretary—and indeed by Mary Scanlon—of the issue of adult mental health services, as raised in the Labour amendment. The fact that treatment for substance abuse will come within the ambit of the waiting time guarantee is very much to be welcomed. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats are keen to explore the possibility of extending appropriate guarantees to other specialised services.

I do not in any way want to give the impression that it is not important to continue to bear down on waiting times. However, although we are making excellent progress, we are in danger of shifting the benchmark of success from achieving satisfactory waiting times for any procedure to achieving waiting times for elective procedures, which after all account for a small proportion of health care expenditure. As we drive forward, we need not only to consolidate what has been achieved but to maintain a balance between directing our attention at waiting times and not losing sight of the other areas that must be considered. I do not suggest that the cabinet secretary's remarks did so, but we must not give the impression that the NHS's performance will be measured solely on whether it bears down on and meets its waiting time targets.

We need to maintain progress, but we also need to think about the areas on which we need to move forward. Although I have no objection to using the independent sector where necessary, I agree with the BMA—and disagree with Mary Scanlon—that it is not a long-term solution to the current problems. Moreover, as my amendment makes clear, we must not, in driving forward with waiting time targets, lose sight of the fact that clinical staff must still be able to exercise clinical judgment.

As Mary Scanlon said, waiting times are neither the only nor, at all times, the most important indicator of performance in the NHS in Scotland; indeed, the cabinet secretary rightly pointed out that HEAT targets have been put in place. However, although we welcome attempts to improve waiting times for a whole span of conditions, we would also welcome the extension of HEAT targets to all aspects of care to ensure that they receive the same level of response.

The cabinet secretary is right to say that this progress has come at a price. Getting us to this point has required very substantial investment, and we must ensure that as we move forward resources are directed not only at achieving waiting time targets. After all, if boards begin to focus too much on one target, that might have an extraordinary and perverse impact on our ability to address health inequalities.

As we progress, we must be cautious in relation to the Government's desire to give the process legal backing and to provide a form of legal redress. All health care staff have professional standards. Most, but not all, of them are regulated or are seeking to become regulated. They are therefore individually capable of providing redress, as a result of their own practice. I am not entirely clear that we need to go further. A Government-driven and publicly owned health sector is capable of delivering targets and it can be publicly held to account on that. People who work in the service have professional standards that they are personally responsible for adhering to.

I welcome all that has been achieved. It would not be right to be churlish about that. Significant achievements have been made in improving a service that had to be improved. However, we must be cautious and ensure that we achieve the right balance. We need to sustain and consolidate progress on waiting times, but we should not make that the sole benchmark against which the NHS is judged. Clinicians must not believe that their clinical judgment is in some way subjugated to targets that are to be met for the greater good.

I move amendment S3M-3848.2, to insert at end:

"but believes that the achievement of maximum waiting times should ultimately be at the discretion of clinicians to protect those with the greatest clinical need."

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sure that all members acknowledge the value of all those who work in the NHS, particularly the front-line staff such as consultants, nurses and ancillary staff. It is not so often acknowledged that they are always under the direction of good and responsible management. We should also acknowledge the achievements of the previous Liberal-Labour Administration in the early days of the Parliament, when we were all feeling our way. The NHS is like an ocean-going tanker that is seemingly set on a fixed route and carrying necessary life-saving cargo, but which, as we all know, is painfully slow to change direction or even set another course. I will not go over the history but, as Cathy Jamieson said, we have come a long way in 10 years. That is against the background that expectations of the NHS are rightly high, which is reflected in demand, while treatments and developments are becoming more complex and expensive. The environment in which the NHS works is very different from that in the early days after its establishment.

As the Labour amendment does, I welcome the extension of the waiting time guarantee to child and adolescent mental health services. I will discuss the issue of adult mental health services later, but I assure members that the Health and Sport Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into child and adolescent mental health services, will monitor the situation carefully—that is our job.

I turn to the Conservative amendment. The SNP is rightly set on reducing private activity in the NHS. In a perfect world, I would not have any such activity, as it would be redundant. However, it would be churlish not to recognise that good work can be done in the private sector. "Churlish" must be the word of the day, although I point out to Ross Finnie that I wrote it in my speech before he said it. The Conservative amendment acknowledges the good work that the Government is doing.

Concerns about waiting times becoming the be-all and end-all are expressed in the Conservative amendment and are the meat of the Liberal Democrat amendment. I agree that we should caution against a mantra on waiting times, but the discretion that the Liberal Democrats would introduce on waiting times would put a major hole below the waterline in the SS NHS. That would dispose of certainty and, at the extreme, would make a waiting time obligation almost not worth the paper that it was written on.

We all know that waiting times matter. They matter to those who are delivering, because they understand their obligations and the requirement to organise resources and apply them accordingly, but they matter most of all to the patient, once diagnosed, who wants direction and security in a troubling period of serious concern. The proposed patients' rights bill will add to security by giving a legally binding agreement on treatment within 12 weeks for in-patients and day care patients. The sooner treatment is instigated, the better for the physical, mental and emotional wellbeing of not only the patient, but the family and the wider community.

We all accept that substantial progress has been made. In particular, I point out the progress that has been made on audiology services, which I always felt were a bit of a Cinderella in our priorities. As I said, I have concerns about waiting times for adult mental health services, which are also a bit of a Cinderella. We should perhaps consider prioritising services for the elderly, although they are not easy to label. As my late mother said endlessly, Rome was not built in a day—I am full of metaphors today. That applies to the NHS. Even in 10 years, we cannot sort everything. It will take time, but we are moving the great tanker in the right direction.

Ross Finnie raised concerns that the focus on waiting times will distort clinical priorities. Those concerns are understandable and I am sure that the cabinet secretary and the minister are well aware of them and that they will take them into account and monitor the situation. However, it is for GPs or consultants who have a patient before them to consider whether a referral for treatment or examination is necessary. That is where the referral starts and where the clinical prioritisation takes place. It is also when the clock starts ticking. I know that that is a burden on those professionals, but that is their job.

Despite my comments about introducing waiting time guarantees for, inter alia, adult mental health services and, I hope, services for the elderly, I welcome the progress that the Government has made. Indeed, I welcome the progress that the Parliament has made, as we have learned to do our job. The improvements in delivery and accountability in the NHS are not only a result of the work of the staff, to whom we should pay tribute, but proof that devolution, which was long delayed in my lifetime as we should have had it in the 1970s, is doing its job. Just think what more we could do with independence.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

As other members have done, I record on behalf of my constituents how much I value the commitment and expertise of health workers and the service that they provide in the private and public sectors. I include in that all clinicians and allied health professionals, right through to the hospital porters, who serve to improve our health in Scotland. There is no doubt that progress is being made, but there are major concerns. As other members have said, it would be churlish not to give credit where it is due. In the most life-threatening cases, targets are being met, but there are many issues that must be addressed by the cabinet secretary and her colleague the minister. We agree that there is a great deal more to be done.

Many conditions simply do not have targets and are not the focus of attention. It is our job as politicians to say that there is much more to be done. Complacency is simply not acceptable.

Christine Grahame said that the NHS is a tanker. I once read that the NHS in the United Kingdom is bigger than the red army ever was. Therefore, to turn round the NHS is a mammoth feat. My key message for the Government in talking about what more needs to be done is to point out that an expert advisory group of clinicians has reported that couples still have to wait up to six years even to begin to access infertility treatment or assisted conception services. By the time couples realise that there is an issue, their biological clocks are ticking. However, the NHS is failing people, so the private sector is their only option. Couples sometimes have to bear costs of tens of thousands of pounds to access assisted conception services, if they have the money. That is simply not acceptable.

I am concerned about the newspaper reports and headlines that we had last November that 100,000 patients had been removed from hospital waiting lists in a bid to meet Government targets. We learned that about 100,000 Scots a year were referred back to their GPs, which meant that they went back to the start of the 18-week maximum waiting time for treatment. Figures that were released last November showed that 27,160 patients were taken off waiting lists in that way in October. My friend and colleague Dr Richard Simpson has pointed out that nearly 30,000 patients were removed from waiting lists; they were denied treatment, sent back to their GP and told to start again. Richard Simpson said:

"Nicola Sturgeon built her reputation by exposing hidden waiting lists".

Now that she is in government, she has to be honest and accept that people find the removal of patients from waiting lists deplorable. If she was one of the patients who had been moved, she would be angry for them. I am angry for them, too.

We have been contacted by a number of organisations such as Breakthrough Breast Cancer. I echo the concerns that have been raised. I will not reiterate them, because Mary Scanlon and Cathy Jamieson have expressed them amply.

In support of Labour's amendment, I have to say that mental health is an issue of profound concern for us all. The request that Mary Scanlon made under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 to NHS boards last year revealed that waiting times varied substantially from area to area throughout Scotland. In Lanarkshire, the maximum wait to see a psychologist was more than a year, while in Tayside, more than 120 people waited between 26 and 52 weeks. That is simply not acceptable, given the delivery plan commitment to reduce antidepressant use and the integrated clinical pathway guidance that people with clinically significant depression should be offered brief psychological therapies within six weeks.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does the member accept that the patients who are referred back to their GP from the hospital are referred back for clinical conditions that need treatment and that in many cases it would be dangerous to go ahead with hospital treatment at that time?

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I am not sure that all clinicians would agree with that. In the context of prioritising care, the BMA, which has made representations to us, said:

"Doctors believe that waiting list initiatives have distorted clinical priorities in the past resulting in patients with less serious complaints being treated before those with more complex medical problems. 98% of doctors who took part in the BMA survey said that patient waiting times should be based on the individual patient's clinical needs and not political targets."

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Do I take it that the member does not support maximum waiting time targets?

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

The minister and the Government should listen to what the BMA and other professional organisations—not me—are saying. The BMA said:

"Doctors believe that NHS managers should encourage local innovations led by clinicians which would have a positive impact on waiting times. 84% would back a system where waiting times for services with outcomes that are not easily measured"—

such as care of the elderly—

"are given equal if not greater, priority than current targets for certain types of elective surgery.

The BMA does recognise that targets are necessary to help governments demonstrate and measure progress. However, the BMA would call on the political parties to work in partnership with clinicians to develop targets that are meaningful, relevant and that deliver benefits to patients who are most in need of care."

The Scottish Government has recently consulted on the proposals for a patients' rights bill. Although we and the BMA welcome

"the commitment to articulate the rights and responsibilities of all those using and providing NHS services",

we all agree that we do not necessarily

"believe that any political guarantee regarding specific waiting times should be placed in legislation."

That is controversial and we need to debate it further.

The BMA said:

"We believe that without a significant increase in resources, and the provision of extra capacity in the system for periods of unexpected activity, legally binding guarantees could be of detriment to those who may be most in need of urgent care."

It remains unclear what the legal redress would be under the proposed patients' rights bill if a minimum waiting time guarantee was not met.

Much has been done, but, as I have demonstrated, much more has to be done. We are simply not performing as well as we could.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Who could fail to welcome the tremendous progress made in recent years to reduce waiting times for patients? I join the cabinet secretary in congratulating the NHS staff who have worked so hard to help make that possible and the previous Administration, which laid some of the foundations for the advance.

There are few more stressful occasions in life than waiting for necessary diagnosis or treatment, and anything that is done to shorten such waits must be applauded.

I am delighted that the Government has expanded the number of procedures that are covered by the 18-week guarantee and that it has the courage to turn its attention to mental health services, which are sometimes called the Cinderella of the NHS but, alas, were treated more often by previous Administrations as if they were the ugly sisters.

As I am well aware from my professional work in the past, there are specific problems with mental health services. Mental health treatment is often long term and time consuming—that is especially true of the talking therapies such as psychology or psychotherapy—but there is abundant evidence that the earlier the intervention, the greater the likelihood that treatment will be successful. Resources invested in reducing waiting times in mental health services is an investment that will cover its cost several times over as years go by.

Presiding Officer, I am sure that you will be pleased that I do not intend to recite a catalogue of targets that our Government has now reached and targets that will be achieved by 2011. No one can listen to either of the ministers in our health team without concluding that our health service is in safe hands. [Interruption.] Promotion, please!

I will take a small step back and look at the broader picture of health delivery in the context of the wait for treatment. It is often stated that the need for health services is infinite and that such services must be rationed in some way, either by making people pay—by price—or by increasing the length of waiting lists. For a lot of services, that is arrant nonsense. At any one time, there is a finite need for hip-joint replacements, hernia operations, heart bypasses and many other procedures—if someone does not have the complaint, they will not thank anyone for giving them the treatment. Those treatments should be amenable to one-off waiting time initiatives that shorten the waiting interval and allow it to be kept short simply by keeping pace with subsequent demand.

The situation is more complex for investigations that might or might not lead to a treatment need. Speeding up investigations will allow earlier interventions for those diagnosed as requiring them, which, in turn, might well prolong life and/or preserve health. Although that is almost entirely beneficial, it might incur a greater financial cost for the NHS than a situation in which investigation is prolonged for so long that curative treatment is impossible. A good example is testing blood cholesterol. A high cholesterol level in a person will cost the NHS a lot of money in treatment, but such treatment might save the person from a heart attack or stroke. In strictly financial terms, that treatment might be a more expensive option for the health service than not treating the population and allowing a few patients to die suddenly and prematurely. It is to our credit that we do not proceed along those lines whole-heartedly, but I am afraid that, in the past, we have sometimes succumbed to the temptation to ration investigations, if not by waiting list then by availability, to avoid the cost of treatment.

There are also new health needs—needs that either did not or could not exist some time ago. Many, such as certain cosmetic surgery procedures and unproven alternative treatment, are not even considered to be related to health at all. As Helen Eadie said, the new advances in the treatment of infertility are wildly expensive in time and resource terms and tend to be rationed either by waiting time or availability. Whether such treatment should be available on the NHS is a matter for society, not health workers or health boards, which I suspect would welcome further guidance from society on such matters. There is an opportunity cost with any initiative, and we must always consider whether it is worth it.

That all means that, although waiting time targets are highly desirable, the need to achieve and shorten them should not be the be-all and end-all of our concerns. I am glad that the Government accepts that. I do not always agree with the BMA, but it is right to emphasise that some important services are less amenable to measurement than others and that the quality of a service is usually more important than the speed with which it is delivered. Some conditions might not need immediate attention, while others demand it.

It is always important to look at health services in the round and to consider not only waiting times but readmission rates, health-acquired infection incidence and whether there is a satisfactory outcome. We usually debate those issues when we are discussing hospitals, but there is a huge and relatively untapped pool of experience in primary care, which, if utilised properly, could transform the way that we provide services to those in need.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The rate of referral for such things as computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans by general practitioners is hugely lower in Scotland than it is in England. There seems to be a major barrier to such referrals. Does the member agree that, if we loosened that up, it would improve the effectiveness and throughput of the service?

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I agree with Dr Simpson to the extent that we need a total review of how primary care contributes to achieving waiting list targets and to general health. For example, we used to do lots of minor operations in primary care, but they tend no longer to be done because of the provisions in the Glennie report to protect us against new variant CJD, which the risk of contracting is extraordinarily slight. That also means that some people have to go to hospital because those operations cannot be done in primary care. Such matters should be looked into.

Another example, which has been mentioned, is the early treatment of people with alcohol problems. A relatively small investment in training in primary care—for not just GPs but nurses and even receptionists—could revolutionise how we tackle alcohol problems in the community and shorten the waiting time from several months to a day or two. All that is needed is the drive and the investment in services. I know that the Government will consider how primary care can be used in that way.

I sincerely congratulate the Government on the success that it has achieved and look forward to further progress in years to come, as I am sure my Labour colleagues do—I see them all smiling at the prospect.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am pleased to be back in a health debate. It is some time since I spoke in one, and such debates have become terribly consensual and friendly in my absence. I will not take that personally.

As an issue in all of our constituency work, health never goes away. Over the years, the Parliament has debated many health priorities—from inequalities to long-term conditions and the general improvement of our population's health. It is common ground that we want all our responses to those challenges to deliver proper and fair access to the services that are available. That idea is wrapped around the debate and that is why we have a substantial commitment to waiting time guarantees as a driver of standards and change.

We must ensure that all people—irrespective of their background, their age and particularly their location—receive the treatment that they need in a clear and understandable framework. Access to treatment reduces worry and all that goes with that but, in the past 10 years, we have also tried to empower patients and to create a sense of entitlement in the Scottish population. That has meant that families do not have to worry or argue with a service about when treatment will be provided, and it has created the expectation that the best that the NHS offers will be delivered to everyone on a timescale that is laid out.

Significant progress has been made. As Ian McKee said, that has not been easy to achieve, but the focus, drive and resources have allowed that to happen. Sometimes, that has come from politicians, but—as the motion says—it has also come from the national health service's leadership, which should be acknowledged, and mostly from NHS staff, whom all of us recognise, as is proper.

As Cathy Jamieson said, we should remember that reducing the waiting time from 18 months to 18 weeks was a fundamental turnaround, which was not easy to achieve. That change has transformed people's lives, expectations and confidence in the NHS. That is important, and we should understand how that was achieved as we—properly—progress from that.

Mary Scanlon, Ross Finnie, Helen Eadie and Ian McKee referred to the BMA's substantial points about the waiting time guarantee, which we cannot easily dismiss. As Ian McKee said, we should give great consideration to that as we try to answer some of the questions.

Waiting time targets should not be used to distort or direct clinical priorities. In fact, they should be a tool to implement clinical priorities, not an end in themselves. We should never fall for the quality versus time argument: we should always strive to ensure quality, but we should never take our eye off the ball of the time guarantee, which matters much to people and has driven up standards in the national health service. Waiting time targets encourage patients throughout Scotland to have a proper level of expectation about the service that they will receive.

The Liberal Democrats led a previous debate on waiting times in which I spoke, when we discussed legally binding guarantees. They are perhaps a step too far and could prevent us from addressing some of the limits of waiting time guarantees, which have been mentioned. Legal enforcement could upset a system that has—broadly—worked, and it could encourage a compensation culture that involves more lawyers than doctors. None of us wants to go down that road. It might lead us to take our eye off the ball of the need to maintain the focus and momentum with which the service has met the challenges of waiting time guarantees. I re-emphasise what the motion says about the commitment of staff. Legally binding guarantees would not facilitate the continued empowerment of staff that has happened so far.

Of course, we need to go further. We must focus on the whole-journey waiting time guarantee. I accept the cabinet secretary's point that the 31-day target for cancer treatment is a first step towards a whole-journey waiting time guarantee, but we must take seriously the Breakthrough Breast Cancer campaign's point that we cannot take our eye off the ball of the second phase of treatment.

Labour's amendment makes a critically important point about access to adult mental health services, and I welcome what the cabinet secretary said about that. All of us are aware of the exploration of mental health, the need for appropriate services and the fact that we are not delivering the services that we should for people with mental health issues. We must make a step change in those services.

All of us received the briefing from the Scottish Association for Mental Health, which says that waiting times for mental health services are substantial and vary significantly between areas. We must fully recognise the human consequence of that, and I am sure that all members deal with constituency cases of people who are not receiving the services that they need. That must be fundamentally addressed, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will report to Parliament on how she has fulfilled her commitment to consider including adult mental health services in the guarantee and to lay out a plan for doing that. Having a waiting time target for such services is unavoidable if we are to deliver the quality and range of services that are desperately needed throughout Scotland.

Like Ian McKee, I make the plea that we consider the contribution of not only the acute sector but other health professionals to the general standard of health. We need to meet the challenge of delivering waiting time targets for access to allied health professionals. Such services are often neglected, but they make a vital difference to the quality of health services. I hope that we can rise to that challenge, too, as Scotland would be better served by that.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

I apologise that I cannot stay for the closing speeches because of a matter that has arisen in my constituency.

The price of reducing waiting lists is constant vigilance, but it is a price worth paying. There is now serious evidence that waiting lists in a range of key services are reducing, and the motion recognises the achievements of the previous and current Administrations in that.

Waiting times are important not just because punctuality is popular but because, as we all know from our respective constituency mailbags, every patient understands the clinical importance of speedy treatment, which is key to providing the best outcomes.

Reducing waiting lists is worth the effort because, in the long run, it saves time, energy and resources by cutting out the bureaucracy of managing and administering queues and backlogs for treatment. It reduces inequalities by addressing variations in waiting times between NHS boards and hospitals, and it wipes out the postcode lottery in health care that prevailed under the previous Executive's stewardship. More important is that decent waiting times have a clear human benefit. They reduce unnecessary uncertainty, concern and sleepless nights for patients and—most important—they lead to earlier diagnosis and treatment.

The Scottish Government has invested £270 million in Scotland's health boards to ensure that waiting times are at their lowest since the relevant records began. It is significant that the Government has abolished the availability status codes that were established simply to doctor the figures.

We are fostering a new relationship with patients by providing them with a legally binding waiting time guarantee. Although others have already alluded to the fact, it is worth mentioning again that, when the Government came into office, it inherited 30,000 patients who had been kept off waiting lists.

The vision is for a truly mutual NHS, in which patients have a say in how their health service is run and organised and a direct say in how they are treated. If we are serious about that, patients have a moral right to know exactly what treatment they will receive and when it will be carried out. Health care should not be something that is simply done to them.

In July last year, the NHS celebrated its 60th birthday. One of the many ways in which the event was marked was by a visit by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to the Uist and Barra hospital in my constituency, where she initiated a variety of new services. The point was made then—and holds now—that the agenda to reduce waiting times is inseparable from the agenda to reduce, where possible, the distances that patients have to travel for treatment. I will not rehearse the distances that are involved for patients in the Western Isles. Suffice it to say that cancer patients in Uist and Barra were relieved to get a chemotherapy service up and running locally in recent weeks, to save them the exhaustion and distress of a regular two-day round trip for treatment.

I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will be concerned that, in recent days, Highland Airways has unexpectedly refused to transfer the materials that are necessary for the chemotherapy service, citing a gap in its safety certification—despite the willingness of NHS Western Isles to pay at least part of the cost of certification and to provide necessary training. I know that NHS Western Isles is working actively to persuade the airline to adopt a more sensible position.

I hope that we now recognise more fully that, just as people have a right not to be subjected to unreasonable travelling times, they have a right to be treated within a reasonable time. With that in mind and with, I would like to think, at least some support across the chamber, the Government has published a consultation on a patients' rights bill. It is vital that patients should see themselves as active partners in life-changing decisions. We want to ensure that they are respected and have entitlements set in statute to ensure that their access, safety and participation are valued and delivered.

As other speakers have mentioned, from December 2011, 18 weeks will be the guaranteed maximum wait for treatment of non-urgent patients following referral by a GP, although most patients will be seen more quickly. The 18-week guarantee is distinct from previous waiting time targets in that, rather than focus on a single stage of care, it focuses on what will be termed an 18-week referral-to-treatment standard. Rather than there being a target time from the GP referral to the first out-patient appointment and then a time from someone being put on a waiting list until treatment is delivered, the RTT standard will address the whole patient care pathway, from receipt of a GP referral up to the point at which each patient is admitted to hospital for treatment. That approach has the advantage of introducing a uniform standard for access that is less complex and should, therefore, be better understood by patients and health professionals alike.

The referral-to-treatment standard will be delivered through a service transformation programme that will engage with NHS boards and look at best practice. The employees of NHS Scotland will play a crucial role and, thanks to the increased investment that we have provided, the overall number of staff who are employed by NHS Scotland has increased and the number of clinical nurse specialists is at an all-time high.

Although all the steps that I have described will make a real difference to reducing waiting times in the short term, Scotland is clearly taking a longer-term and more holistic view of health, of which waiting times are only a single but important part.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I, too, welcome this Scottish Government debate on hospital waiting times. I know that the issue is important to many of the constituents who come to see me at my surgeries across the South of Scotland. The broadly consensual nature of this morning's debate, which acknowledged past achievements, shows just how important we all know that the NHS is for communities throughout Scotland and why it is important for us to work together in a positive way to make it the best that it can be.

Today's debate shows the Scottish Government's commitment to ensuring that our NHS works for the people and responds to their needs. The Government's commitment to delivering a maximum whole-journey waiting time of 18 weeks by 2011 is just one aspect of its work to ensure a healthier Scotland and an improved NHS. I am heartened by the moves that the Government is making to ensure that people are placed at the centre of the health service, because when people come to me with problems relating to the health service it is often because they do not understand what is going on, who has made decisions and why things are happening to them in a particular way. It is distressing for people to have all those emotions when they at their most vulnerable. I hope that equipping people with knowledge of their rights will go some way towards removing remoteness, be reassuring and re-engage them with a service that they love.

As the motion states, the improvement that we seek is partly about valuing the work of the thousands of dedicated staff throughout the country who believe in the principles of the NHS, as well as delivering commitments to reduce waiting times. I have seen first hand how hard my sister, who is a podiatrist in the south of Scotland, and her colleagues work and how important their role and that of other allied health professionals is; Margaret Curran made that point in her speech.

We are all aware of the huge health problems that Scotland faces: rising obesity levels, heart disease and our drinking culture. Our lifestyles put an enormous amount of pressure on the services that the NHS provides.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In Highland, it is difficult for many people to access podiatry on the NHS. Will the member commend those podiatrists who treat patients privately in order to maintain their mobility?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

My sister would not forgive me if I did not commend podiatrists on their work. I know first hand that they work incredibly hard throughout the country. The fact that there are lower waiting times is testament to the work that NHS staff do, and their achievement is even more incredible given the pressures that all of us place on them.

Reduced waiting times, more staff and the fact that people are being placed at the heart of the NHS suggest a healthy prognosis for the service's future. However, as with everything, improvements will always be necessary, and the Government will need to strike the correct balance on the challenges that lie ahead. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing made that point in her opening speech.

The most immediate and important benefit of shorter waiting times is for individual patients. Faster treatment helps them to return much more quickly to health and a full and productive life. That has a wider benefit for society as a whole, especially in these times of economic difficulty. If we can treat people quickly and enable them to return to work once they are ready to do so, that will have knock-on benefits for the economy and society.

We should also hope that less time spent on waiting lists will mean that there is less chance of people developing complications or of conditions deteriorating. In turn, that will mean that NHS resources are spent much more effectively and can benefit more people. We should see a virtuous circle, as waiting lists reduce and more people can be treated much more quickly. In that way, reducing waiting times helps us towards the badly needed goal of moving the NHS away from being a national sickness service to being a health service that promotes prevention and overall wellbeing, which is good not just for individual patients but for society as a whole.

Since the Government came to power in 2007, there has been a clear, strong commitment to improving the level of care that is provided to people in Scotland. As Alasdair Allan said, £270 million of funding has been provided to NHS health boards between 2008 and 2011 to help them to meet pledges on waiting times. That funding has helped the NHS to take great strides in tackling waiting times in important medical areas such as cancer, drug use and mental health. Figures show that those requiring access to mental health services already receive treatment well within 18 weeks and that 70 per cent of those who are offered an appointment for a drug use assessment are offered a date within 14 days. Those figures, and the abolition of availability status codes, which—as has been mentioned—kept people languishing for months or even years without treatment, demonstrate that the Government has provided the support that allows the NHS to operate in an even better way.

The task of creating an even better NHS will be made much easier if we ensure that the NHS has the appropriate number of staff. I was pleased to see that the total number of staff who are employed by NHS Scotland increased by 2.1 per cent in the previous year, that the number of clinical nurse specialists is at an all-time high—as has been mentioned—and that the number of allied health professionals has increased.

As we all strive for a healthier nation, it is imperative that we support the Government in its work to provide the health service with the capacity to treat patients within guaranteed timeframes and to provide wide-ranging services that meet the needs of the people of Scotland. Although the move to reduce further the cost of prescription charges, with a view to getting rid of them altogether by 2011, is not the sole topic of today's debate, it has caught the imagination of my constituents. The move, which will ensure that people are not financially penalised because they suffer ill health, is especially welcome during tough economic times. The approach reunites the NHS with its founding principles and makes the service fit the needs of the people. I hope that such moves, along with the reduction in hospital waiting times and increased staffing levels, will create a healthier and fairer Scotland.

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

I associate myself with the remarks that have been made about the tragedy in the North Sea yesterday. I am sure that, like me, many members have flown by helicopter to oil platforms. My first thought was that the tragedy will affect people from my constituency, but I think that we do not yet know who lost their lives. The tragedy could affect any of our constituencies, and the thought of what the families are going through is, I am sure, with us all. Our hearts and minds are with them.

The cabinet secretary talked about driving down NHS waiting times, and Liberal Democrats give credit where it is due. We are also grateful for the cabinet secretary's gracious acknowledgment of the previous Administration's contribution. She said that compliance with the cancer waiting time target has increased by 10 per cent since 2007. In an intervention during her speech, Mary Scanlon was right to flag up that despite such improvements we need to tackle waiting times for further cancer treatment, such as chemotherapy. We should be mindful of the issue, which other members mentioned.

Cathy Jamieson offered a timely reminder of the appalling situation in the past. I was a local councillor in those days—as I am sure that many members were—and I remember how desperate it was for people who had a long wait for treatment. It is important to remember how far we have come. Cathy Jamieson reminded us that we have raised expectations to a level that was never anticipated, given continuing health improvements. She also picked up on Mary Scanlon's point about on-going cancer treatment.

I like the language about a mutual health service that involves patients as well as health professionals in decisions. I am sure that the cabinet secretary's comments about appointment times struck a chord with many members, including Alasdair Allan. If we are to drive down waiting times, we must ensure that patients can take up appointments that are made for them—for that reason, members talked about how reminders could be sent to people's mobile phones. For patients in the Highlands who live on the north or west coast, early morning and late afternoon appointments at Raigmore hospital in Inverness can cause problems. Such appointments can also cause problems for patient transport services, and those problems might be a reason for some cancellations, despite the best efforts of the cabinet secretary and her team to drive down waiting times. I have written to the cabinet secretary in the past—I mean the recent past; I am not demanding an instant reply—to ask whether appointment times could be co-ordinated, to help to achieve the outcome that she is working hard to secure.

Mary Scanlon's example of a Highland patient's four-and-a-half-year wait to see a psychologist was a horror story that showed how bad the situation can be. In my experience as a constituency member, there is an issue about waiting lists for physiotherapy and the chronic pain service, so I can confirm what she said. She was right to flag up the potential in telehealth. The approach has got beyond trial stage in two Caithness hospitals, and I hope that it will be rolled out further.

I was intrigued by a comment that Christine Grahame made. If I understood her correctly, she said that the waiting time clock starts ticking when a GP decides to refer a patient. Did she mean that the decision cannot be changed? As Ross Finnie said, some decisions have to be revisited, and a blind adherence to waiting time targets could get in the way of clinical decisions.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I was making the point that the clinical decision is made by the GP or the consultant, so the clock starts ticking when there is a referral or decision. A patient does not say, "I want to be treated within 18 weeks." If someone does not require treatment, there is no reason to refer them and offer an 18-week waiting time guarantee. Of course, as Dr McKee said, if circumstances change there might be a referral back to the GP: a patient's health might change and a proposed operation or surgical procedure might no longer be the right approach. The area is quite technical, so I will leave it to the Minister for Public Health to address it in more detail.

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

Ross Finnie and I are saying that we want to maintain a balance between waiting time targets and other aspects of the service. As Ross Finnie said, clinical experts make clinical judgments, which should not be in any way subordinate to waiting time targets. Perhaps Christine Grahame and I are not far apart on that, and we will listen to what the minister says. I think that Ian McKee perhaps agrees with the Liberal Democrats because he said that waiting times should not be the be-all and end-all.

Alasdair Allan talked about his constituency mailbag and issues that rural members such as Mary Scanlon and I will recognise. I liked what he said about the local delivery of services such as chemotherapy. The more that we conduct audits that consider what services can be taken out of Raigmore hospital and delivered locally in Caithness general hospital in my constituency and other hospitals in the Highlands, the more accessible we can make services for patients—that brings me back to my point about the timing of appointments. Local delivery of services will ensure greater and quicker throughput and thereby drive down waiting times.

The cabinet secretary congratulated the Scottish Ambulance Service on getting its response times down. I cannot resist the temptation to say that in the far north there remains an issue about double manning and so on, but in fairness to the cabinet secretary I should say that she is aware of that.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does the member share the concerns of many GPs in his home town, Tain in Ross-shire, and elsewhere in the Highlands, who have been told that the waiting list for GP referral to the chronic pain service is closed? Does he share my concern at that example of what can happen when resources are diverted so that targets can be met? I appreciate that the matter is being considered, but many of the member's constituents remain concerned, as do I.

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

I associate myself with Mary Scanlon's remarks. I imagine that the issue has been brought to her attention as much as it has been brought to mine. Work is being done, but a solution has not quite yet been reached.

I conclude where Ross Finnie began. I repeat that the Liberal Democrats believe in maintaining a balance between waiting times and other service aspects, and it is crucial that we get the balance right. I whole-heartedly support the amendment in Ross Finnie's name, and I sincerely hope that other parties, including the party of the Government, will do so too.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

This morning's debate takes place against a sombre background, but it is nonetheless an end-of-term occasion of sorts. In the tradition of ends of term, we are presented with a report card, in the form of the motion. That somewhat lavish tribute to the Government has been penned by the Government itself—would that we could all enjoy a lifetime of writing our own reports. If, after two years, the Government has to congratulate itself, in the absence of anyone else to do so, we are at a crossroads. We might have hoped that the new politics, about which members of all parties spoke so engagingly only two short years ago, would have seen an end to self-satisfied, Politburo-style statements—it is ironic that such motions resemble the motions that used to populate Scottish Conservative party conferences two or three decades ago.

However, if we are to take the motion at face value and judge the Government by its own lights, we must admit that welcome progress has been made, for which the Government is entitled to a share of the credit. The question is whether, ultimately, targets are more indicative of progress than outcomes are.

We welcome the commitment and dedication of all the people—I mean "all"—who have contributed to the reduction in waiting times. Last week, Mary Scanlon admonished Shona Robison for having no regard for the contribution of health workers in the independent sector, which has contributed—in however small a way—to the achievement of the Government's targets. As I noted last week, those health care professionals have helped to polish the self-awarded halos that adorn ministerial heads. Perhaps it was too much to expect that the Government would reflect on the shameful disregard that it showed only a week ago for the many workers in the independent sector who—in however small a way, as I said—have, together with all those who work in the NHS, achieved so much. It seems to be business as usual and, in the process, the work of thousands of professional health care workers goes unrecognised by the SNP—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

In a moment.

The work of those professionals goes unrecognised by the SNP, riddled as it is with dogma rather than generosity of spirit, with the magnanimous exception of the independently minded Christine Grahame who, like Helen Eadie on the other side of the chamber, made a measured and sympathetic contribution to the debate that was anything but self-congratulatory.

I give way to Christine Grahame.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is not necessary for me to intervene now—I fear that I have been handed the black spot.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The member should rejoice at that news.

Our amendment recognises the efforts and success of those who are overlooked by the Government. Indeed, it goes further by supporting the Government's acknowledgement of the progress that was made by the previous Administration, on which Cathy Jamieson lingered long in her opening speech.

During the 23 months of the current session of Parliament, Conservative members have regularly been challenged to pay tribute to the previous Executive. A week has not gone by, nor has a debate been held, in which members opposite have not stood up and demanded that we doff our caps to the earnest good works that they achieved before their rejection by the electorate. It was good to hear from Margaret Curran earlier, who has made that demand a speciality during her time on the health front bench. However, when we acknowledged that very thing last week, we were spurned. Therefore, as I am sure members opposite will agree, it is certainly big hearted of us to persist with yet another attempt in the 24th month of the session. We live in hope but, even so, we fully expect that the inclusion of our acknowledgement of their efforts will ensure that our amendment is defeated.

As I said a moment ago, we acknowledge the progress that has been made. However, I question whether progress towards the achievement of top-down targets is the progress that we ultimately need and that will revitalise the morale of dedicated health care workers in our NHS. We believe that far more emphasis should be placed on outcomes.

To illustrate my point, even as we celebrate this morning the success of the Ambulance Service in achieving its attendance targets, it is the case—I have confirmed this with the Scottish Parliament information centre—that if an ambulance achieves its eight-minute attendance target and the patient dies, that is considered to be a success in terms of meeting the target. However, it is deemed to be a failure if the ambulance arrives after nine minutes and the patient lives. That is a peculiar sort of success.

Driving targets ever higher can distort clinical priorities and potentially worsen patient outcomes, which helps to demoralise a workforce whose expertise is in delivering health care. Surprisingly, that point was made by Cathy Jamieson.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am fascinated by the member's speech, but is he saying that we should allow ambulance arrival times to drift later and later? When someone has had a heart attack, for example, speed is of the essence, so the targets are entirely reasonable. They are also rational, as they are set at 75 per cent rather than 100 per cent. The Conservative party's ideological opposition to targets is ridiculous.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am not opposed to people being treated at the earliest possible point. We are, however, uncomfortable with how it is determined what is a success and what is a failure. The outcome, as well as the speed at which the ambulance attended, is critical to the patient.

Of course, no one advocates a long wait for any patient, but top-down targets can lead to unintended outcomes. Clinical necessities must be our priority—I am sure that the cabinet secretary would not disagree. Many members have spoken this morning about the long waiting times that we want to avoid for patients, and about areas in which much work remains to be done.

We believe that there should be far more emphasis on NHS outcomes. We should record the result of the care that a patient experienced: whether they lived or died, and for how long they survived a cancer. We believe that health care professionals see value in a system that measures results rather than just processes and in which that information is used to drive up standards. It is the result that matters, rather than how it is achieved. We support the emphasis that Ross Finnie and Ian McKee placed on the need to achieve balance.

As for the rest of the Government's report-card motion, in addition to congratulating all health care workers on the outstanding job that they do, we acknowledge the further investment that the Government is making. We support that, as we supported the reversal of the deeply damaging accident and emergency cuts throughout Scotland that were planned by the previous Executive and championed by Scottish Labour. We welcome the investment in new health care facilities; in the treatment of cancer—to which Alasdair Allan referred—in both adults and children; in tackling health inequalities; and, hopefully, in tackling health care associated infections through the use of electronic bed and infection tracking technology.

On the Government's report card, we note, "Well done. Ministers are making progress and showing a determination in their application. They are brightish pupils, and we wish them well, but we caution against being narrow minded and dogmatic in their dealings with others, or self-congratulatory. Pride, after all, comes before a fall. Stick to it—try to be imaginative and flexible, and the rewards may speak for themselves."

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I associate myself with some of the sombre remarks that members have made about yesterday's accident.

The debate is serious and it must reflect where we have come from. Although she did not linger on it, Cathy Jamieson mentioned that we have moved a considerable way, not only in terms of what has been achieved in our health service, and what is continuing to be achieved under the present Administration, but in terms of the aspirations that we all have for the quality and timely delivery of the service.

I join the cabinet secretary and the other members who have praised NHS staff for their achievements during the past 10 or 12 years in moving the health service forward. When I entered practice in 1970, I referred my first patient to an orthopaedic surgeon and received a note back that said that there was no doubt that the patient needed an operative procedure, but it was not urgent and would not be done before the surgeon retired. I inquired when the surgeon would be retiring, and was told that his retirement was about five years away. We have moved a long way from those rather dark days, when the health service's waiting lists were appalling.

As I think the Liberals mentioned, NHS staff have not always found targets comfortable but, to be frank, I will not apologise to them for that. If clinical priorities are being distorted in a way that would put patients at risk, we need to take that seriously, but I do not believe that that is happening. I will return to that point later in my speech.

When I carried out a word search on the draft of my speech, I found that the word "welcome" was used on about seven occasions. I thought, "My goodness—this will be a hard speech to deliver," so I will get the welcomes over quickly.

I welcome the addition of the target on child and adolescent mental health, on which the Health and Sport Committee is currently carrying out an inquiry. There is a long way to go on that issue, but the target is welcome. I welcome the cabinet secretary's assurance in her opening speech that the Government will consider the situation with adult mental health.

Ian McKee, Mary Scanlon and Helen Eadie have referred to the enormous waiting lists for psychological treatment. There are workforce problems in relation to psychologists, which—although it will be difficult for the Parliament—need to be addressed. I am concerned that, in contrast with England, where 3,000 new therapists are being trained, we do not have the talking therapists who will be required to deliver on the joint targets on driving down the levels of antidepressant prescriptions. Those targets will not be met unless the therapists are in place. I hope that the NHS pilot on cognitive behavioural therapy by phone is successful, but I do not believe that it will be enough.

I welcome the decision to have a HEAT target on drug waiting times, although—as I said yesterday—I have some concerns about exactly how the new drug and alcohol partnerships will deliver on that. It is an NHS target, and the local authorities will now be put in a more central spot through the community planning partnerships.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

With his extensive expertise, does the member agree that it is not only the treatment that is important for drug addicts but the support that is provided over time through the recovery services?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mary Scanlon is right. The support has to be sustainable. I am sure that no member feels that waiting more than six months for assessment is good for the 872 patients who have had to do that, or for their families or children—we have debated that aspect; nor is it good for the public safety of the patients' communities, because some of the patients will commit crimes. It will be interesting to see the targets that the Government brings in for those areas, as it has announced that it will.

Labour's 2007 manifesto promised that, if returned to power, we would tackle a number of issues—I am glad to say that most of them are being taken forward by the present Administration—including the use of availability status codes, which were always referred to as hidden waiting lists. I know that the press were persuaded to use that term; reporters had to ask me what the ASC actually meant. The availability status code was a simple system whereby people were put on a separate waiting list if they could not make themselves available or if their doctor decided that they were not available. The fact that the system was abused by management to deal with waiting lists was both unfortunate and regrettable, but we all agreed that the ASCs should be got rid of and they have been got rid of.

Therefore, we developed the new ways waiting times, which were then carried on by the current Administration.

However, there are problems with the new ways waiting times. As Helen Eadie mentioned, I have pointed out some of those problems on previous occasions. The fact is that 100,000 people have been put off the lists for one of the 14 reasons. I welcome—that is another welcome—the fact that the reasons listed as items 50 and 51 in the index to the new ways waiting times document, which relate to interconsultant referrals, will now be cancelled. At least we will now have two fewer reasons why people should be put off the list.

I remain concerned about the effect of the new system on some groups of people, including those with learning difficulties; those with communication difficulties, such as the deafblind; elderly people, especially those who are unsupported or have early dementia; the homeless; travelling people; prisoners; new immigrants; asylum seekers; some from black and minority ethnic communities who might have language problems; and some with mental health problems. We have a small amount of evidence so far that suggests that those groups might be squeezed by the new bureaucracy, but we do not have enough evidence to make a case or to have a debate on the matter. Nevertheless, I ask the cabinet secretary to ensure that the Audit Scotland review looks closely at whether those vulnerable groups are being squeezed by the new bureaucracy that has been created.

Another target on which we are all agreed is that no one attending accident and emergency should wait for more than four hours. More than any other, the four-hour A and E target has been the subject of protests from clinicians about false decisions being made in order to squeeze inside the target. We should send out the clear message from the Parliament that such targets are designed not to force clinicians into inappropriate decisions but to ensure that management supplies the resources that are necessary for the clinicians to undertake their work. I still hear from A and E consultants who are angry that, at three hours and 50 minutes, clinically unqualified managers almost bully them into sending patients home so that the target can be met. If a patient can be moved to a clinical decision unit to await the results of tests rather than be sent home just to meet a target, we need to find some more sophisticated way to allow that process because it is in the patient's interests. The interests of the patient should always be borne in mind. In that regard, I urge the cabinet secretary to look again at the emergency department information system—EDIS—which several reports suggest is not user friendly and might need to be reviewed.

As many members have mentioned, people are also waiting for appointments with allied health professionals. Last year, a census showed that 94,000 patients are on that waiting list. Is that the new hidden waiting list? We will see. As other members have mentioned, people are waiting to see podiatrists and physiotherapists as well as—I would add—orthoptists. Many groups of people are experiencing serious problems of waiting. Labour's manifesto committed us to delivering a nine-week waiting time guarantee for AHPs. I urge the cabinet secretary to consider that issue closely. In that regard, I understand that referrals from consultants to allied health professionals or from allied health professionals to consultants do not come within the current waiting time guarantee. That needs to be sorted.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I remind the member that the most recent survey on the waiting list to see physiotherapists—of course, details are not held centrally—was carried out in 2005. At that time, 28,000 patients were on that waiting list.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As I understand it from my discussions with allied health professionals and from my reading of the census that was carried out last year, there are 2,600 separate waiting lists. This is not a criticism of the Government—we did not tackle the issue because we had other priorities, which the Government now shares—but I believe that the issue now needs further attention. I hope that Shona Robison will refer to that when she sums up the debate.

The Labour amendment draws a comparison with waiting times in England. I do not suggest that we emulate England's approach, which was taken to tackle the particular problems that it faced. Over the past 10 years, the Scottish health service has adopted a collaborative and co-operative approach that does not seek—this is one reason why we will not vote for the Tory amendment this evening—to build capacity within the private sector. Nevertheless, the fact that 93 per cent of in-patients and 97 per cent of out-patients in England now have a whole-journey wait of less than 18 weeks for treatment is a significant achievement. We are now falling behind, so we need to redouble our efforts if we are to maintain things. The cabinet secretary said that median waiting times do not reflect the individual patient's experience. That is of course correct, but the median waiting time in England for the whole journey for in-patient treatment is now 62 days compared with our 79 days. We need to be realistic about the fact that we are falling behind and we need to ensure that pressure is maintained.

Finally, we need to look ahead. We need to begin now a process of debating a more sophisticated system that goes beyond the target that has been set for 2011. We need to begin the discussion with the public, with professionals and within the Parliament on how we can achieve individual waiting time guarantees for conditions to reflect the needs of patients more appropriately. That discussion could begin now.

I ask members to support our amendment.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Like others, I associate myself with the remarks that were made about the tragedy in the North Sea. Our thoughts are with the family and friends of those who have been affected.

This has been an interesting, worthwhile and quite consensual debate. Members have made a wide range of points that demonstrate the high level of interest in patient waiting times and how vital health care services are to us all in Scotland. I am encouraged that we appear to have general cross-party support on a number of issues, including the need to improve on the current waiting times standards by giving patients a clear indication of the maximum time that they will need to wait from referral to hospital treatment.

Delivering on the 18-week target will be challenging and will require an enormous shift in how hospital services are provided. Although Richard Simpson suggested that England was in some ways ahead of us in doing that, I should point out that England started on that process in 2005, whereas the previous Scottish Executive decided not to do so in 2005. Therefore, rather than falling behind, we are now catching up because of the efforts that were taken two years ago to move towards the 18-week target. As I said, the target is challenging, but it can be achieved by building on the changes that are already taking place and by continuing to develop the NHS as an integrated service in which the patient's experience is smooth, swift and seamless.

Mary Scanlon and Jamie Stone suggested that targets somehow distort clinical priority. I strongly disagree with that. As we have stated on a number of occasions, patients whose clinical need requires that they be treated quicker than the maximum waiting time should indeed be treated much more quickly. That is the very essence of a clinically driven system and we will always support and defend that. The maximum waiting time is a backstop, as the cabinet secretary said in her opening speech.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

If the waiting time is based on clinical need, does that apply to the waiting time for mental health services, physiotherapy and fertility treatment? As Jamie Stone will know, many people in the Highlands have been unable to wait for a psychologist and—I am sorry to say—have taken their lives with their own hands due to the long wait.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I am very aware of some of the challenges that exist with mental health services. That is why, for the first time, we have moved to bring some of those treatments within the waiting time target. Clinical priority is still very important in those areas and most people are treated within the 18 weeks, but there are still too many people who wait too long. That is an issue that we are determined to address.

Mary Scanlon and others mentioned the issue of long waits for patient groups that are currently outside waiting time standards. I assure those members that the Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that patients have swift and safe access to the full range of services that they need from the NHS. Already, an increase of more than 100,000 patients to whom the standards will apply has been brought within the waiting time target for 2011.

The development of the mental health waiting time target for children and adolescent mental health services has been welcomed by many members, as has the work that we are taking forward on access to psychological therapies. I note the workforce challenges that were highlighted by Richard Simpson. We are considering that area. However, it is to be welcomed that, for the first time ever, we have waiting time targets for mental health services.

We continue to focus on other services. We are well advanced on the drug treatment HEAT target. Alcohol-related problems were mentioned by some members. Work has begun on the development of the alcohol HEAT target. However, it is important to recognise that, although it is important that we develop a HEAT target, we have not rested on our laurels when it comes to alcohol-related problems. That is why we have invested a huge resource—up to £120 million—in alcohol-related services, many of which are directed at brief interventions. That perhaps answers Ian McKee's point. It is very important that the staff who are delivering those brief interventions, whether it is a GP or a nurse working in A and E, have received the training to do so. That is an important development, which members should welcome.

Helen Eadie talked about infertility services. I recognise the challenges, in that some of the waits are longer than we would want them to be. That is a long-standing issue, which goes back many years. Progress has been made, though, and those waits are not as long as they were. However, we recognise that there is more work to be done. We want to work in partnership with members to broaden our focus and ensure that all patients get a service that is continuously improving. I hope that other members share the same objective and will work with us in that positive spirit.

Although the debate has focused on waiting time performance, sustained delivery of that performance depends on having a workforce in place to deliver the highest level of care to the people of Scotland. I am pleased that more doctors, nurses and allied health professionals are working in Scotland's hospitals and community settings. Richard Simpson raised the issue of allied health professionals. If we are going to meet the 18-week referral-to-treatment target, we require to reduce waiting times to see allied health professionals. In turn, meeting the target will drive down waiting times.

The latest figures show that, at September 2008, the total number of staff employed in the NHS in Scotland was 165,551—an increase of 2.1 per cent. While I am on the subject of staff, I assure Jackson Carlaw that I appreciate the efforts of all health workers, no matter which setting they work in. I hope that he will welcome the improvement in staffing levels within the NHS, which will deliver for patients throughout Scotland.

As the cabinet secretary said in her opening remarks, we are investing more money in the NHS than ever before. We have increased spending on health in Scotland per head of population to record levels and have delivered record investment, which will exceed £11 billion by 2010-11. Capital investment totalling £1.676 billion was made available to the NHS in Scotland over the period 2008-09 to 2010-11—delivering real change and real progress for the NHS so that it can be better equipped and resourced than ever before to improve the quality of the patient and staff environment.

As the cabinet secretary stated, we are committed to giving patients better access and to providing a health service of which the Scottish people can be proud. We believe that the maximum waiting time is an important element of that. It focuses the attention of those running the health service on what patients expect, which is quick and safe access to treatment in the NHS. That is what the SNP Government is determined to deliver for the people of Scotland.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

As we have finished early, I suspend the meeting until 11.40, when we will have general questions to ministers.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

To ask the Scottish Executive with what legislation landlords offering short-term holiday lets must comply. (S3O-6514)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

There is no specific legislation with which all landlords who offer short-term holiday lets must comply.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Is the minister aware that many of my constituents have to endure deeply unpleasant antisocial behaviour by people in overcrowded flats—often drunk revellers—that presents not just serious fire and health and safety issues but makes their lives a misery?

The minister's predecessor, Stewart Maxwell, made it clear to me in a letter that the Scottish Government did not intend to take legislative action to tackle what is acknowledged by the local council to be a loophole in the legislation. Is that still the case, or is the minister prepared to listen to the evidence of my constituents' experiences?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am always prepared to listen to more evidence, but the current position is that if people are engaging in antisocial behaviour while residing in holiday let flats, they are subject to the legislation relating to antisocial behaviour, and the police and others have powers to deal with that effectively. If the member feels that there is a loophole in the law that requires to be addressed, I am happy to listen to any additional information that she brings to the table. So far, however, we have not seen any information to justify a separate law relating to holiday lets.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the minister explain how holiday homes are taken into consideration as part of the affordable homes strategy?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

There are two aspects to holiday homes. First, in some areas, particularly rural areas, they add to the pressure on affordable housing provision. We are actively examining the impact of that on the supply of affordable housing in rural areas and, in due course, we will decide whether there is anything we can do to relieve it. Secondly, the fundamental way in which we are dealing with the problems of the shortage of affordable houses is to drive up the number of affordable homes that we are building.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I emphasise to the minister how serious the problem is in developments such as Western Harbour in my constituency, where a large number of stag and hen weekends are based. The people who are trying to impose the law are telling us that there is a problem with the legislation, so will the minister undertake at least to examine the problem and to consider options to address it? It is an increasing problem, and it came up at the local community council last night.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As I have said, there are already provisions for dealing with antisocial behaviour and related matters, but I am happy to listen to any further evidence. So far, we have not received any evidence to demonstrate that a specific law relating to holiday lets would make any material difference.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of any implications for fuel poverty, whether it will respond to the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets consultation on proposals in relation to the regulation of energy companies. (S3O-6488)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Yes. I welcome any move to ensure that everyone in Scotland pays a fair price for their energy. We want the advantages of competition to benefit everyone, including the most vulnerable customers. Some of the proposals in the forthcoming consultation seem long overdue. They include action to ensure that prices for different payment methods reflect their true administrative costs. That is particularly important for customers who are on prepayment meters. Measures to ensure that customers are given clear, transparent information about the available tariffs and about switching are also welcome.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for that answer, particularly with regard to prepayment meters. When the minister responds to the Ofgem consultation, will he make the most powerful representations about the lack of action on tariff differentials, whereby customers on prepayment meters pay far more than those who pay by direct debit—the difference is £118 a year, on average. I ask him to bear it in mind that 22 per cent of people on an income of less than £10,000 a year use prepayment meters.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I share the member's concerns and we have made it clear to Ofgem that the Scottish Government shares them. The primary responsibility lies with Ofgem. We are happy to make continuing representations until we find a permanent solution to the problem.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The new energy action package, which is aimed at tackling fuel poverty, starts this week but we have not yet heard anything about the home insulation scheme. Can the minister say when the home insulation scheme will be introduced and how the resources will be distributed? Will he expect local authorities to contribute to the package of measures?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I should point out that insulation is part of the energy assistance package that we announced this week, through which there is now record spending on tackling fuel poverty. I take it that the member is referring to the new home insulation programme that was announced at the time of the budget, to which we committed £15 million. We expect to get matching funding of a further £15 million. We are currently engaged in detailed discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other stakeholders. I hope to be in a position to make a further announcement on the scheme shortly.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S3W-1716 by Shona Robison on 20 July 2007, what progress it has made in monitoring NHS boards for consistency in applying the guidance issued in relation to the provision of fertility treatment. (S3O-6520)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

We wrote to national health service boards in December 2008, asking for information on the implementation of the updated guidance. We have received responses from all NHS boards. They show that seven areas are now fully compliant with that guidance and that a further three have partly implemented it.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Why, then, does there continue to be a postcode lottery for infertility services in the NHS in Scotland? Why does the Scottish Government guidance say that the age limit is 40 whereas NHS Fife says that it is 38? Why does the expert advisory group on infertility services in Scotland advocate an age limit of 41, yet the Scottish Government sticks with 40? Why does the guidance on the meaning of a cycle of treatment encompass fresh and frozen embryos, yet NHS Fife regards a cycle as involving frozen embryos only and does not include both fresh and frozen ones as the guidance from the Scottish Government clearly states? Why are couples with a child from a previous relationship refused NHS treatment for fertility services by the Government?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

All the issues that Helen Eadie raises are complex and long standing. Progress has been made on some of them, particularly waiting times, although some of them remain longer than we would like, but they are not as long as they were. I hope that Helen Eadie acknowledges that the issue is a long standing one. I am not sure whether she has raised it previously. Perhaps if action had been taken on some points 10 years ago, we would not be wrestling with some of the issues today.

I can assure Helen Eadie that we are aware of the issues that she has raised, which are not easy to address. We are determined to work with NHS boards to get a more consistent pattern across Scotland with regard to access, criteria and waiting lists, but I reiterate the point that the issues are complex.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Yesterday, I received a written reply to say that the Government is

"currently considering how best to ensure equity of access across Scotland"—[Official Report, Written Answers, 1 April 2009; S3W-22040.]

for fertility treatment. Aside from the points that Helen Eadie raised, will that "equity" take account of the age bar and of the inability of some people to pay for private treatment?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

As I said in reply to Helen Eadie, these matters are interrelated and complex. I reiterate that seven health boards—seven areas out of 14—are compliant with the guidance. Another three have partly implemented the updated guidance and four have not made the progress that I would have liked them to make. I am discussing with them when and how they will make progress. There are other complex issues that surround that of waiting times, which we are more than aware of. As I said in reply to Helen Eadie, we will consider how to address them.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Can the minister explain what the current eligibility criteria are for the provision of assisted conception treatment and why she believes they are important?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The current eligibility criteria are—I cannot find them among my papers. [ Laughter. ] I will ensure that I write to the member with the current eligibility criteria, which of course cover issues such as age. I would not want to mislead him by giving him the wrong ones; I want to ensure that I give accurate information.

Helen Eadie's point is important. The criteria that we have issued and the updated guidance have been followed by some boards but not by others. It is only fair that, no matter where someone lives in Scotland, there should be consistency in access. We want to progress that.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it has made since the members' business debate on a tenancy deposit protection scheme on 18 June 2008 towards preventing tenants in the private rented sector from having their security deposits unfairly withheld by landlords. (S3O-6558)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

On 14 August 2006, the Scottish Government set up a stakeholder working group that comprised representatives of Citizens Advice Scotland, the local authorities, Crisis, the National Union of Students Scotland and many other bodies, with remit to examine the various approaches to improving tenancy deposit practice before we decide how to proceed. The private rented sector review, which was published last week and presented to the working group, gathered, systematically and for the first time, information on tenancy deposits. We will now take the issue forward and actively consider the available options with a view to seeking agreement on the most appropriate way to tackle the issue.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I look forward to receiving further information about that. I welcome the findings of the Government's recent review of the private rented sector but am disappointed that, even following the review's publication, and as noted in the executive summary of the key findings and policy implications section, there are still disagreements about the scale of the problem of unfairly held tenancy deposits. In accepting the existence of a problem that involves thousands of tenants and millions of pounds every year, will the Government now commit to using the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 to implement a national tenancy deposit protection scheme?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We now have a much clearer idea of the scale of the problem. Based on the tenant and landlord survey that was undertaken as part of the PRS review, we estimate that the actual amount of wrongly withheld deposits in Scotland is somewhere up to £3.6 million per annum, which affects up to 11,000 tenants at any one time, which is up to 4.7 per cent of all tenants. We are actively considering all the implications of the report on the PRS review, including how to take forward the issue of wrongly withheld deposits. I am keen, as the member is, to find a permanent resolution of the problem.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the minister recognise that there is significant support in the Parliament for a tenant deposit scheme in Scotland? Now that we have the research results, we can see that it is indeed a significant problem that the Parliament must address. Will the minister outline today how and when the Government will proceed in the event that it cannot secure consensus between landlords' and tenants' organisations?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am aware of the strength of feeling on the issue across the chamber. I will take cognisance of that, which is why I have given a commitment that we will actively and timeously consider the implications and recommendations of the PRS report and make decisions in due course. Clearly, it would be far better if we can achieve consensus and agreement, but if we cannot the Government will decide how best to take the matter forward.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in its review of the national waste plan. (S3O-6544)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Good progress is being made and we intend to consult later this year. We have established a steering group, which has considered a first draft of the new plan. We have begun work on the costs and benefits of meeting municipal waste targets and a strategic environmental assessment. We are also carrying out research on landfill bans. While the new plan is being prepared, progress continues; the most recent recycling rate for Scotland is 32.9 per cent.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister may be aware that Fife Council has an excellent recycling record. However, proposals to move to four-weekly collections are being debated in Fife just now. Can the minister, perhaps along with other members in the chamber, encourage Fife Council to engage effectively with the communities in Fife to ensure that the public is fully engaged in the process and that their views are taken on board?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

The member is of course quite right that Fife Council has a good record on recycling. It produced one of the best performances in Scotland, with a recycling rate of 41.3 per cent. Members will realise that that figure is significantly above the Scottish average. Fife Council recycles more tonnes than any other local authority. The council is considering how to go forward on waste collection, but it is my understanding that no decisions have yet been made and that the council has set up a cross-party, member-officer group to consider the question.

Obviously, a decision on the frequency of collections of household waste is a matter for each individual local authority, which will have regard to its own local needs and circumstances. I advise the member that it might be useful to have a look at what has happened in some other local authority areas, because there are examples of extremely good practice. I hope that all local authorities, including Fife Council, look at those examples of good practice and think about adopting them in their own practice.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what progress is being made on the development of the Gaelic language. (S3O-6505)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Very good progress has been made in terms of our structural support for the Gaelic. The progress that I still want to see is that, while we strengthen our structural support further, we must ensure that it is effectively and urgently used to increase the use of Gaelic in the home, school, community and workplace.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The minister will appreciate that Gaelic road signs are an important factor in increasing awareness of Gaelic and raising its status. He will also be aware that funding of the Government's current trunk road bilingual road sign programme ends in 2010. I believe that a review of the policy and programme is taking place. Can the minister tell us when it will be completed and when we will receive confirmation of an extension of the trunk road bilingual road sign programme beyond 2010?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I certainly agree with the member that the visibility of Gaelic in Scotland is important and a valuable means of raising the status and use of Gaelic and demonstrating the strong links between Scottish heritage and the Gaelic heritage. The Scottish Government wants a continuing increase in the visibility of Gaelic and to ensure that road signs, for example, reflect the importance of Gaelic. That is why, since becoming Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, my colleague Mr Stevenson has extended the use of Gaelic road signs on the A82 through Inverness, building on the existing programme being implemented on other trunk roads.

Transport Scotland has a responsibility to evaluate its polices, including the bilingual one, but I know that Stewart Stevenson is clear that he wants any review to be fast tracked and completed as soon as possible. I have been assured that results will be available in 2010 before the current signage programme ends. I understand that Mr Stevenson has asked senior officials for advice on accelerating that even further. The research will be conducted by Transport Research Laboratory, which will carry out an evaluation study, including an examination of changes in accident patterns that will of course be scientifically and properly based. We will continue to discuss how we can spread the important visibility of Gaelic even further.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it expects the number of full-time equivalent teachers employed in publicly funded schools at the teacher census date in September 2010 to be higher or lower than the number employed in September 2006 or 2008. (S3O-6472)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

As the member knows, it is local authorities' responsibility to employ teachers and, as is well known, the Scottish Government and local authorities have jointly pledged to maintain teacher numbers at 2007 levels. We will meet local authorities soon, and we will meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities today, to discuss the issue. Our objective and expectation is to deliver on the concordat pledge of teacher numbers around the 2007 level.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The minister will therefore be aware that the number of teachers employed at the census date in 2007 was 54,559. He will also be aware that the number employed at the most recent census date, in 2008, was 53,584—which is 975 fewer teachers one year on. In view of the SNP's manifesto pledge to maintain teacher numbers, which was repeated in the concordat, can we take it that the Government's policy in practice is to reduce teacher numbers in Scotland and to carry on doing so?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Mr McLetchie should also note that the fall in teacher numbers between 2007 and 2008 was largely concentrated in a small number of local authorities. I am sure that positive engagement with those authorities could turn around their performance. It is also worth reminding Mr McLetchie that the purpose of maintaining teacher numbers is to reduce class sizes, particularly in the early years, so that every child will get the attention he or she deserves. Mr McLetchie and his party are opposed to that policy. Unlike him, the Government is determined to ensure that every child gets the best start in life.

First Minister's Question Time

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

As members are aware, the Parliamentary Bureau agreed last night to a change in the normal format of questions to the First Minister in recognition of the tragic helicopter accident in the North Sea yesterday afternoon. Iain Gray will ask the first diary question. That will be followed by supplementary questions from the main party leaders, after which I will suspend the meeting until 2.15.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the week. (S3F-1601)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am grateful to you, Presiding Officer, for allowing me to make a short statement concerning yesterday's tragic events in the North Sea. The Secretary of State for Scotland, to whom I have spoken, will make a parallel statement in the United Kingdom Parliament in the next few minutes.

Just a few minutes ago, I received the latest update from Grampian Police. Eight bodies had been recovered following the accident. Another eight people remain missing and are, we must now accept, presumed dead. The names of the victims of this terrible tragedy will be released this afternoon. The Solicitor General for Scotland has authorised their release now that the next of kin have been informed.

The personal impact of the accident will fall heaviest on families in the north-east of Scotland, but it will fall also on other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom, as well as further afield. A book of condolence was opened this morning at the Kirk of St Nicholas, in Aberdeen. The whole chamber and, I am sure, the whole nation will want to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy and condolences to the families, friends, colleagues and loved ones of those who have been tragically killed in this appalling incident.

The facts of the incident as we understand them at present are that a Bond Super Puma helicopter, which was on its way back from the Miller field, came down in the water about 14 nautical miles north-east of Fraserburgh at just before 2 o'clock yesterday afternoon. Sixteen people—14 passengers and two crew members—were on board. The crash was catastrophic and the aircraft sank quickly.

A search and rescue operation was launched immediately and included two Royal Air Force helicopters, which were scrambled to the scene along with an RAF Nimrod that was diverted to the area. Lifeboats from Peterhead and Fraserburgh and a supply vessel, the Normand Aurora, were also involved, as were many other vessels including oil support boats and fishing boats that were in the area. I will talk about the emergency services in a few seconds, but we should also recognise the efforts of those—for example, in the fishing industry—who are not part of the emergency services but who respond as seafarers when an emergency is under way. The search, which is now a recovery operation, continued late into last night and was resumed this morning. Eight bodies were recovered and returned to Aberdeen at 04:30 this morning.

Activity at the scene is now focused on the recovery of the remaining eight bodies and of the aircraft itself. The details of the latest police report to me are that their priority remains to recover, identify and reconcile the deceased with their families and to support a thorough and full joint investigation of the accident. A humanitarian assistance centre for relatives was established this morning and is being supported by Aberdeen City Council, Grampian Police and representatives of the companies involved—Bond Offshore Helicopters, BP and KCA Deutag. The procurator fiscal is chairing a meeting today between the Crown Office, Grampian Police and the air accidents investigation branch to determine the next steps in conducting a thorough investigation into yesterday's tragic events.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and I went to Aberdeen last night to see the work of the emergency services, including that of the police, the coastguard, and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. On behalf of the whole community, we expressed our gratitude to the highly professional and committed individuals who carried out the search, rescue and recovery operation in such trying circumstances. As I said, the recovery operation is on-going. Our thoughts and support remain with our colleagues in the emergency services and, indeed, with the many organisations that are providing and will provide support and comfort to those affected.

The mood in the operations centre last night was sombre. People said to Kenny MacAskill and me that it contrasted with the elation that the same people felt only six weeks ago following a totally successful operation to rescue 18 people from another helicopter incident. The tragic outcome of yesterday's event tells us that sometimes even the heroic efforts of the emergency services cannot overcome catastrophic events. Our respect for those in the emergency services should be absolute.

It is understandable that concerns have been heightened because of the close proximity of two helicopter incidents in the North Sea. However, we now know that the incident six weeks ago, which involved a Super Puma of a different model, was almost certainly weather related—the result of a fog bank. The incident yesterday was of a quite different nature. It was catastrophic in its impact and deadly in its effect. In terms of its death toll, it is likely to have been the second-worst aircraft incident in the North Sea, surpassed only by the Chinook disaster of 1986.

The investigation of yesterday's crash by the air accidents investigation branch began yesterday. I spoke to the Secretary of State for Transport, Geoff Hoon, yesterday evening. I know that he shares the wish of us all to arrive at an explanation for yesterday's tragic events so that we can learn the lessons and take whatever action is required. It seems clear to me that an inquiry in public will have to be considered. Law officers and ministers will consider that matter once the full facts are established.

We are all aware of the economic benefits—the millions, indeed billions, of pounds—that are brought by North Sea oil and gas. The Miller field alone, for example, has produced some 350 million barrels of oil in its producing lifetime. However, we are equally aware that those benefits can come at a dreadful cost in human lives. With the latest incident, more than 100 crew and passengers have lost their lives in aircraft accidents in the North Sea over the past 30 years. Of course, it is important to understand that in context. During that period, more than 60 million passengers have been carried, and tens of thousands of flights take place every year. Nevertheless, it is the Government's and the Parliament's duty, working with the oil and gas industry and its workforce, to learn the lessons of the accident and to do all that is in our power to ensure that safety is the ultimate priority for those who work in the North Sea. Let that stand as a memorial that we can give to the lives of those who died so tragically in yesterday's accident.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The Labour Party, too, sends its condolences to the families, friends and workmates of those who have been lost in the tragedy, and we join the First Minister in thanking those who have been involved in the rescue and recovery operation.

We often debate the oil and gas industry in the chamber. We argue about its future, its price, who owns it or who should own it, how it should be taxed and how that tax revenue should be spent or saved. We even argue about the extent to which oil and gas should be replaced by cleaner or less finite sources of energy. Meanwhile, we expect the tens of thousands of people who work in the North Sea to continue to deliver oil and gas day in, day out. Perhaps we would do well to reflect more often on the difficult conditions in which they do that work and the risks that they take, in an industry that is at the heart of our economy, to produce a commodity that flows pervasively throughout our society. That we do not do so is testament to an astonishing safety record in the industry, which makes tragedies such as yesterday's rarities.

Of course, offshore travel—usually by helicopter—is an intrinsic part of the work of the men and women who work in the North Sea, and their helicopter journeys have always been recognised as one of the most hazardous aspects of their jobs.

I have travelled offshore just once; others in the chamber have done so more often. Anyone who has done so knows how meticulous and how relentless is the approach to health and safety in the oil and gas industry. That, however, is no consolation at all to those who have suffered the loss of a loved one, and our thoughts and prayers are with them today.

Those who lose their lives just doing their job are special to us all. We remember them each year on workers memorial day, later in this month. Thirty-two workers lost their lives doing their jobs in Scotland last year, so the scale of this tragedy is indeed very significant.

Does the First Minister agree that, beyond the immediate recovery, the important thing is to find out definitively what happened yesterday and why the crash was so catastrophic? Will he ensure that all concerned can do everything in their power to support that objective? How quickly does he think that findings or interim findings might become available?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I thank Iain Gray for his question. It is entirely right that, on an all-party basis, we have the opportunity to express condolences on behalf of the whole chamber.

The air accidents investigation branch started its investigation immediately yesterday. That investigation is on-going as we speak. Obviously, a key priority is to recover the helicopter and the black box, in order to understand the causes of the incident.

Iain Gray rightly says that, despite the generally excellent record in the North Sea, tragedies have occurred. This incident is devastating, clearly and obviously because of the death toll—the cost in human lives—but also because of its nature, which is very difficult at this stage to explain. That makes the priority of the AAIB all the more urgent as it tries to get to the facts. It has the ability, through working with the Civil Aviation Authority, to issue any interim instructions that it is necessary to issue. Both the AAIB's inquiry and any public inquiry that follows will be taken forward with the greatest urgency.

As I said a few minutes ago, the best and most lasting memorial in incidents such as those that have taken place in the North Sea is for us all to rededicate ourselves to finding out the causes, addressing whatever issues have to be addressed, and trying to ensure that safety is always paramount in North Sea activities.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Presiding Officer, may I echo the sentiments already expressed by the First Minister and by Mr Gray? On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I express our sorrow at the tragic events of yesterday. We extend our sympathy to the families, friends and colleagues of all those who have lost their lives.

For many of us, the petrol in our cars and the heat in our homes are everyday facts of life. It takes a dreadful accident such as this one to give us a stark and sharp reminder of just how dangerous the environment is for all those who work in and support the oil and gas industry in the North Sea. Of course, an inquiry will have to take place. We hope that sufficient facts will be available to explain what happened and why, and whether there are lessons that can be learned.

We pay tribute to everyone who took part in the search and recovery operation. As the First Minister has suggested, people from all sections of the community rallied to the call. They are to be commended for their dedicated efforts.

The community in the north-east of Scotland is close-knit, as are all those who work in the oil and gas industry. We hope that this Parliament's witness of their grief at this very sad time will bring some comfort.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I thank Annabel Goldie for the point that she makes on behalf of her party. She rightly says that the search and rescue operation by the emergency services mobilised people. The operation extends to literally hundreds of people who took part yesterday and who are taking part in the on-going recovery today. We do these things incredibly well, in terms of the immediate mobilisation of every assistance that can be brought to the scene. Within minutes, the first rescue craft was on site yesterday. The likely tragedy, in terms of the death toll, is a reminder that sometimes even those heroic efforts are not enough to save lives.

Annabel Goldie says, quite rightly, that the community in the north-east of Scotland has endured many tragedies in the oil and gas industry and the fishing industry. However, the impact extends through the North Sea family, through Scotland, through the United Kingdom and, indeed, across the world. As I indicated, now that relatives have been informed, the Solicitor General has authorised the release of the victims' names. Eight of them are from the north-east of Scotland, one is from Angus, one is from Dundee, one is from Dumfries, one is from Cumbernauld, one is from Liverpool, one is from Norwich, one is from the West Midlands and one is from Riga in Latvia.

The impact of the tragedy will be keenly felt by the victims' families and by people in the chamber and across the nation.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Today, and for weeks and years to come, our thoughts and prayers will be with the loved ones, families and relatives of the lost. We on the Liberal Democrat benches give our support to those who are involved in the continuing recovery work.

I have many friends at home in Shetland who work offshore. The helicopter is the lifeline transport service that keeps the North Sea working. Flying a helicopter requires immensely skilled men and women. However, it is not a pleasant flight. I have flown offshore in the North Sea with people from the oil industry. The strong men and women who ignore mountainous seas and gale-force winds do not enjoy the helicopter flights to work or back to Aberdeen or Scatsta in Shetland. There is nothing glamorous about helicopter flights. The islands that I represent remember all too well the tragic Chinook crash of November 6 1986, when 45 men who were inbound from the North Sea's Brent oilfield perished, one minute's flying time from Sumburgh airport. On that occasion, the impact and trauma were enormous, and that is the case again today.

Twenty-three years ago, emergency staff faced huge pressures and responded with the utter professionalism and courage that we expect. We had hoped that their abilities might not be needed in this way again, but it is already clear that the same professionalism and courage have been the hallmark of the offshore and onshore recovery work that has taken place yesterday and today.

It would not be fair to ask the First Minister questions about matters for which his Government has no responsibility. My colleagues Alistair Carmichael and Malcolm Bruce are pursuing those matters with United Kingdom ministers in relation to the statement that, as the First Minister said, is being made in the House of Commons.

The air accidents investigation branch and the CAA must act quickly. The immediate issue is to reassure men and women who are asked to fly today, tomorrow and next week. They must know that the helicopters are safe. If the UK Government needs to ground Super Pumas, it should. Lessons must be learned. However, today, our support is for the emergency services teams, and our thoughts and sympathies must be with the loved ones of those who have tragically lost their lives.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

On Tavish Scott's last point, when I spoke yesterday to the UK Secretary of State for Transport, Geoff Hoon, he was fully seized of the necessity of ensuring that the investigations proceed as at rapid a pace as possible. The AAIB is on the scene and the investigation has started. Lessons will be drawn and information will be gathered, and factually based action will result as soon as possible.

I understand that Bond Offshore Helicopters has suspended flights as a mark of respect. I also understand that the opportunity has been taken to carry out a full engineering check of the aircrafts. I hope that that will come as a reassurance to people, as the need for reassurance is urgent. Tavish Scott can take it as read that any findings of the AAIB will be brought quickly and firmly into course.

On the point about the rescue and emergency services, Tavish Scott is absolutely correct to say that the mobilisation that takes place is extraordinary, as are the efforts that are made by professionals and volunteers, such as those in the RNLI.

Kenny MacAskill and I can tell members that the atmosphere in the control room in Queen Street in Aberdeen was sombre as it became clear that the efforts would probably not result in the rescue of any human life. The staff contrasted the atmosphere with the elation that they felt only six weeks ago. Tavish Scott, I and everyone else in the chamber recognise and respect their efforts. We know that, in every instant, they make every possible effort to save as many lives as possible.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Finance and Sustainable Growth

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans there are to build the port and transport infrastructure that is needed to launch marine renewables devices in Scottish waters. (S3O-6491)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Ports in Scotland have a major role to play by providing strategic transport infrastructure, thus contributing strongly to the Government's core purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth. The ports sector in Scotland is diverse and adaptable. It is well placed to pursue commercial opportunities in partnership with the expanding marine renewables sector.

The recently reconvened forum for renewable energy development in Scotland's marine energy group is considering the marine renewables industry's port and transport needs. The identified needs will be set out in the Scottish Government's renewables action plan, which is to be published later this year.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for that reply and for sharing my view on the need for urgency in the drive to install clean energy machinery. Will he identify the Scottish, United Kingdom and European Union funding streams that ports such as Scrabster, Scapa Flow and those in the Cromarty Firth can access to speed up what the minister and I both wish to see, which is the development of tidal and wave devices in the Pentland firth and so on?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It is indeed important that we maximise access to all sorts of funding sources for our harbours, and that funds are available from all. That is particularly the case in light of the substantially higher than expected interest from developers, as a result of the Crown Estate's recent round 1 leasing programme for the area. We will keep a very close eye on funding from all possible sources.

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

One possible funding source is the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which has very deep pockets. I am thinking of the on-going work to decommission Dounreay. Can the minister give an assurance that, when he comes to consider the potential of harbours including Scrabster and Wick, he will co-ordinate closely with the NDA with a view to getting as much money as possible from the authority for those two harbours?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am always a very good friend of anyone with deep pockets. The NDA is certainly a key player in the far north of Scotland, where it plays a very important role. I would be very happy to discuss with the NDA any role that it could play in the development of harbour and wider transport infrastructure.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The minister will be aware that the best tidal energy resource in Scotland is to be found in the central part of the Pentland Firth, which is—as he will also be aware—an international shipping channel. Will he ensure that steps are taken to reduce the risk of conflicts between tidal energy development and the safety of those at sea? Will he work with the Crown Estate and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to ensure that the issues are given the highest priority?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Mr Macdonald is entirely correct to point to the potential for conflict and to identify by his reference to the MCA the need for different jurisdictions to work closely together to ensure that their respective responsibilities are focused on the same direction. He can be assured that we will do that.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that the advances made to it by Her Majesty's Treasury to allow it to accelerate public spending in the recession should be paid back. (S3O-6552)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In his pre-budget report, the Chancellor of the Exchequer offered us the opportunity to have early access to some capital spending provided that it is repaid in 2010-11. That is the basis on which we took up the offer. It would be nice not to have to pay it back, but I believe that that would be a difficult case to argue.

The real point of the question is to draw attention to the grave risk in implementing the changes to the United Kingdom budget from that which we expected for 2010-11. The consequence of the Whitehall baseline changes and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's so-called efficiency savings is a reduction to capital. My answer on that is that those cuts should not be made. Over many weeks and at every opportunity, both the First Minister and I have made urgent representations to the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the matter.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am grateful for that response. I appreciate that not having to repay money may be beyond the powers even of our estimable Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, but there is an important point on which I wish to press him further. I understand perfectly what he says about the timing of any repayments, but I seek from him an assurance that when we talk about the repayment of moneys, the Government is not against the principle of repayment but is concerned about the timing of any repayments.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Finnie makes a fair distinction. When the chancellor produces his budget on 22 April, we will have further information on the likely profile of public expenditure in 2010-11, when the sums of money in question fall liable to be repaid. In my estimation, the economic situation has changed significantly since the chancellor set out his expectations in the pre-budget report, in which he made it clear that the accelerated capital expenditure would be required to be repaid in 2010-11.

As a consequence of the fact that the chancellor's prediction that the recession is likely to improve by the third quarter of 2009 is unlikely to be realised, the issue that Mr Finnie raises—whether it would be appropriate to repay the accelerated public expenditure in 2010-11—is substantial. As things stand, I am concerned that there will be a significant drop-off in public expenditure in 2010-11, at a crucial time of economic recovery, so I would be happy to discuss with Mr Finnie and his colleagues in due course how we might marshal the arguments to protect the continuity of public expenditure through what will be a difficult economic recovery.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what it considers the implications to be for transport policy, tourism and the economy of the recommendations in the Competition Commission's report in relation to the future of BAA airports in Scotland. (S3O-6494)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Competition in the airport sector can drive investment, innovation and the further development of Scotland's direct international air links, which can make Scotland more accessible for inbound tourists and improve business connectivity, thereby contributing to sustainable growth in the Scottish economy.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The minister will recall that I have written to him on the issue on a number of occasions. Does he share my concern that every opportunity to ensure that local authorities and other parts of the public sector that have an interest in having at least an equity share in any BAA airport that is sold should be explored? Does he agree that their having such a stake might allow for the greater pursuance of strategic transport, tourism, environmental and economic objectives?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member may be aware, as others are, that the top-performing Scottish airport in the Which? survey of user satisfaction—Inverness airport—is publicly owned. I take the opportunity to congratulate the staff and management there for that highly significant achievement.

It is clear, therefore, that it is possible to have well-performing public airports. If local authorities are in a position to come to the view that they should take an equity share in any particular airport that is sold off by BAA in Scotland, we will watch the outcomes with interest and hope that they take the opportunity to emulate the top-notch performance at Inverness airport.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

What is the minister's view on the planned 12 per cent reduction in the number of flights from Glasgow airport this summer? Is he alive to the danger of asset stripping prior to any sale of Glasgow airport?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I suspect that the reduction in the number of flights is more a reflection of the difficult economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. If BAA were to decide that Glasgow airport is to be sold, I am sure that it would be in its interest to ensure that flight numbers are maintained to maximise its return. If the member feels that there are issues that I can respond to directly, I would be happy to interact with him further.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will ensure that adequate funding is made available to the City of Edinburgh Council to enable the completion of the tram project. (S3O-6479)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Scottish Government has agreed to provide £500 million. Any funding beyond that to enable completion of the project is entirely a matter for the City of Edinburgh Council.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I thank the minister for his reply but I hope that I can change his mind. I hope that he will take comfort from the fact that the project has a new boss, Richard Jeffrey, who has already shown that he can run a very big project extremely well. Added to that, since "not a penny more, not a penny less" was said about the cost of the tram project in Edinburgh, things have changed. We now desperately need the jobs that the project affords. All that I ask is that the minister display the same flexibility and imagination in relation to end-of-year spending that he displayed yesterday in relation to the Dunfermline Building Society.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

On the issue of end-year flexibility in general—nothing to do with the Edinburgh trams—I advise Margo MacDonald that the Government can deploy end-year flexibility only when we have the consent of Her Majesty's Treasury and after we have declared something as end-year flexibility. The point that the First Minister made yesterday on the Dunfermline Building Society was entirely contingent on agreement by Her Majesty's Treasury that the Scottish Government could use some of that end-year flexibility at that time and in that fashion.

As Parliament knows, I have negotiated with the United Kingdom Government a three-year approach to the utilisation of end-year flexibility, which is factored into the Government's spending plans. There are no other facilities within our existing spending plans to increase financial support for the trams. If I were to do that, I would have to take resources from another part of the Scottish Government's budget. We have made it abundantly clear, in Parliament and by correspondence, that the Government will contribute £500 million. That is the limit of our commitment to the project.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I share Margo MacDonald's concerns about the fact that Edinburgh council tax payers will pay any additional costs that the project incurs. Will the cabinet secretary ensure that, unless we get an assurance from Transport Initiatives Edinburgh that the project will be delivered on time and on budget—something that now seems highly unlikely—it is the responsibility of the politicians in the Parliament and in Edinburgh City Chambers who voted for the project to explain to the residents of Edinburgh what impact their decision will have on other services in the city?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am sure that it will be clear to members of the public where the political support for the tram project came from, in Parliament and in the City of Edinburgh Council. For the record, the Government lost the vote in Parliament when it proposed that the project should not proceed. We accepted the will of Parliament on that occasion and we have made clear the limit of the resources that we will make available for the project. That is the approach that we have taken in the discussions regarding the Edinburgh tram project.

In my answer to Margo MacDonald, I should have said that I welcome Richard Jeffrey to his post as the chief executive of TIE and wish him well in his job.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The response from Mr Swinney's ministerial colleague to a number of questions that I asked about the tram project was that it is a matter strictly for the City of Edinburgh Council. The cabinet secretary repeated that in his answer to Margo MacDonald. I remind him that £236 million has so far been invoiced from public funds to enable the project to go ahead. Can he assure me that ministers and Transport Scotland are not entirely disengaged from the process of delivering the project or from the expenditure of public money that is associated with it?

The cabinet secretary will recall that he has been in power for nearly two years and that the SNP shares the power in the City of Edinburgh Council. I am afraid that the responsibility rests with him.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I really enjoy Mr McNulty's gymnastics on the floor of Parliament. It was Mr McNulty, perhaps from where Mr Park is sitting just now, who lambasted and berated the Government, demanding that it accept the will of Parliament. Indeed, Mr McNulty was party to dragooning the Government into proceeding with the project. So it is a bit rich for Mr McNulty to come here today and start the usual Labour Party reinvention of history and wriggle out of responsibilities that he and his reckless parliamentary colleagues forced on this Government.

I assure Mr McNulty that the Government takes seriously its responsibilities for managing and distributing public spending in every respect, whether the funding is deployed on behalf of a local authority, a public body or, in the case of the tram project, the City of Edinburgh Council.

We should be spared Mr McNulty's reinventing history for his own convenience in Parliament today.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to assist Highland Council to find long-term alternative transport options in light of the recent decision by the Royal Mail to withdraw five post-bus routes in Caithness, Sutherland and Ross-shire. (S3O-6525)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I have written to, and the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism has met, Royal Mail to urge it to work with Highland Council to find a way to continue those vital rural bus services. The Scottish Government is already providing local government in Scotland with record levels of funding over the period 2008 to 2011. It is the responsibility of each local authority to allocate its total financial resources on the basis of local needs and priorities, which include the subsidy of local bus services.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister has said in previous answers to similar questions that he will put in place someone to advise Highland Council on rural transport options and funding. No matter how worthy the person might be, would not the money for that post be better spent on front-line services? Decisions on post buses were taken after budget settlements were made. If the post has to be funded from Highland Council's pot of money, it will mean cuts in other areas. Will the minister provide the finance?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The advice provided by the person who will be appointed will be for all councils in Scotland. That is on top of the funding per capita for buses that the Scottish Government provides, which is more than 20 per cent higher than that in Wales and in England outside London. Our support for buses is very substantial.

The member would have to be accountable to the 31 other councils that would be denied the opportunity to have the advice and encouragement that would improve their bus services if we diverted the modest amount of money involved in providing an individual who will promote bus services with councils. I intend to proceed on the basis that was previously advised.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will approve the Glasgow crossrail project. (S3O-6518)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Improving cross-Glasgow connections is an important part of the west of Scotland rail enhancements recommended by the strategic transport projects review.

Transport Scotland is working in partnership to develop a delivery plan for the package. That work will examine the interactions of the crossrail proposal with the proposed wider strategic enhancements.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am sure that the minister will be aware that my constituents in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth would benefit greatly from any cross-Glasgow improvements. Will the minister give me an assurance that the crucial need for cross-Glasgow connectivity is still paramount in his considerations? Will he give timescales for implementation of the enhancements proposed in the SPTR, including the light metro system?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I certainly agree with the member's observation about the importance of providing Cumbernauld—and many other communities—with cross-Glasgow access.

We had an initial meeting with Strathclyde Passenger Transport, Network Rail, First ScotRail and Glasgow City Council on 7 January. A steering group has been established to progress work, which we hope will be completed around the middle of this year.

The difficulty is the constraints in particular parts of the network south of Glasgow central station, where the longer-term needs—the commitment is already made to improve railway services to the south-west of Glasgow—make it very difficult to consider short-term issues without tackling the long-term ones. Nonetheless, the steering group will show us the way to make progress. There is substantial collaboration and co-operation among all the bodies with an interest, and I remain optimistic that we will deliver a plan in early course.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what recent discussions it has had with Aberdeen City Council about its financial situation. (S3O-6512)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I have had a number of exchanges with Aberdeen City Council regarding its current financial situation over the last year.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the funding problems of Aberdeen City Council in finding finances to enable it to proceed with the 3Rs project, which is to provide badly needed new schools in the city. Following the financial problems of Landsbanki Islands, which has been financing the scheme, has the cabinet secretary had any further dialogue with the council on how the Scottish Government might be able to provide the council with support to ensure that the project can go ahead?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Government has, of course, been in touch with Aberdeen City Council on this matter and discussions are on-going. We will continue that dialogue with Aberdeen City Council. Obviously, the primary responsibility for resolving the issue rests with Aberdeen City Council, which is the contracting party for the project. However, the Government will, of course, maintain its dialogue with the council on this question.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary welcome, as I do, the progress that has been made by Aberdeen City Council—since the Scottish National Party took control in the city and in this Parliament—in redressing its historic spending problems? Will he join me in welcoming the restructuring of Aberdeen City Council's top tier of management as a result of last May's inquiry by the Accounts Commission? The tier now includes a new post of economic development project manager.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

A whole programme of action has been implemented by Aberdeen City Council to repair a budget problem that we all know has grown up over many years. The problem had reached the point at which the Accounts Commission had to take necessary action. I required the city council to follow the recommendations of the Accounts Commission.

Good progress is being made by Aberdeen City Council. It is having to take tough decisions, but it is doing so in a mature fashion. The council is also benefiting from the injection of new direction that has come about following the appointment of Sue Bruce as its chief executive. She is building on the substantial progress that was made by the acting chief executive, Mr Coomber, who took office as a consequence of the intervention of the Accounts Commission and the Government. The city council obviously has some distance to go in completing the challenge that it faces, but good progress has been made, and I welcome that.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth last met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the impact of the equal pay settlement on local authorities. (S3O-6538)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Under the concordat arrangements, I meet COSLA regularly. Those meetings have included discussion about funding pressures, including the costs associated with the equal pay settlement that local government is implementing.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

On 18 March at the Local Government and Communities Committee, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing agreed with the view of Glyn Hawker of Unison that equal pay is about taking women out of poverty. The cabinet secretary said that she would raise the issue with her colleagues in cabinet. What discussions has the finance secretary had with his colleagues? What influence does he have to ensure that we break the logjam that is denying justice to some of the lowest-paid female workers in Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr McNeil will know from my discussions with the Local Government and Communities Committee, of which he is the convener, that the Government takes the issue seriously. Fundamentally and properly, it is an issue for local government to resolve, and many local authorities around the country are taking steps to address these questions. Many local authorities, if not all, have made financial provision to tackle the problem.

The issue of equal pay has not just appeared in the past couple of years, but has been with us for a significant number of years. However, I note that it engages local authorities in working towards a solution. Of course, the Government is also engaged in that discussion, and will continue to be so.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what information it has on when the superfast broadband that is to be offered to some internet users in Glasgow and Edinburgh next year will be rolled out across Scotland. (S3O-6554)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Other than parts of Glasgow and Edinburgh, as per BT's announcement of 20 March, we have yet to hear specific plans for the further roll out of superfast broadband in Scotland, However, we continue to engage proactively with BT to seek clarification of its roll-out plans.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Although I welcome the fact that some customers in Scotland will soon have access to broadband speeds of up to 40 megabits per second, I am concerned about the growing digital divide that is opening up in Scotland. I accept that the current Government has continued to roll out broadband and is building on the work of, and some funding that was set aside by, the previous Executive.

Will the minister agree that access to good quality broadband services is increasingly key to sustaining businesses and communities in our remote and island areas? Does he accept that there is now an overwhelming case for a universal service obligation to be put in place, to ensure that all parts of the country benefit from current and future advances in technology? What assurances can he give my constituents that this Government has learned the lesson from the rural priorities scheme—that making Government services accessible exclusively online further disadvantages those who do not have access to quality high-speed broadband?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

In responding to the United Kingdom Government's "Digital Britain" interim report, we were supportive of the universal commitment, and Scottish Government officials continue to engage directly with the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, although the United Kingdom Government is yet to articulate its position on that matter.

Next week, we are running a session that will bring together the Office of Communications, public bodies, business organisations and people from telecommunications and computer companies. Liam McArthur and others who are proactively interested in the area are welcome to take part in that meeting. Following that, we will commission further research to strengthen the case for future broadband investment.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Although I welcome the news of BT's investment, I have, as Liam McArthur has, concerns that the roll-out will mean that, at the end of the day, parts of urban Scotland and big towns in Scotland will have access to broadband speeds of up to 40 megabits per second, while very rural areas might have access to broadband speeds as low as half a megabit, which might mean that the gap will widen rather than narrow.

Would the minister support efforts, with Ofcom, to encourage BT to change the habits of a lifetime and invest early in the remote areas of Scotland, not just in our cities and big towns?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As a member who represents a rural constituency, I continue to have that dialogue. However, it is evident that an adequate broadband speed of around 2 megabits per second allows businesses to move forward and, in the current economic climate, we need to focus on getting more businesses active in rural areas. At the moment, the extremely high broadband speeds are mainly aimed at gaming and entertainment. Let us for now focus on making the most of what we have. We are well ahead of what is happening elsewhere in Europe, and we can ensure that rural businesses benefit from broadband as it exists at the moment.

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

From the Highlands to the Borders, rural areas need that kind of broadband coverage and, indeed, the momentum of investment that started with the pathfinder north and the pathfinder south projects under the previous Administration.

In discussions that I have had with BT on the first tranche of the roll-out, I have not been made aware of any formal Scottish Government submission to BT to press the need for investment in rural parts of Scotland, including the Borders. Can the minister confirm whether any minister has made a formal submission to BT? If that has been done, when was it done, and will he publish it?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We are involved in clear and open engagement with BT. Jeremy Purvis is welcome to sit in on the session that I mentioned earlier and to help us frame the research that we hope to conduct as a result of that session.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to increase the number of employment opportunities available in North Ayrshire. (S3O-6543)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government remains focused on delivering our core purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth across Scotland, including Ayrshire.

Through our Government economic strategy and our six-point programme for economic recovery, we are using all the levers that we have at our disposal to lead Scotland out of this downturn and to position our economy to take early advantage of the recovery. That includes the acceleration of nearly £293 million in capital expenditure into 2009-10, on top of £30 million in 2008-09, which will support 5,800 jobs across Scotland. Many of those employment opportunities will be in Ayrshire.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

The minister will be aware that, as at February 2009, unemployment in my constituency of Cunninghame South was the highest in Scotland, at 6.3 per cent, compared with the national average of 3.8 per cent. This week, the NACCO Materials Handling Group closed the doors of its fork-lift truck factory after many years in Irvine. Does the minister agree that there is simply no room for complacency in Cunninghame South? Will he consider direct intervention, including the relocation of civil service jobs to the area? The previous Scottish Executive relocated the Accountant in Bankruptcy to Kilwinning, as well as undertaking large transport infrastructure projects.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

In essence, we are continuing to focus on all areas of Scotland, trying to bring them up to a better level and encouraging them to take part with us in a mechanism whereby we activate the local community and local businesses and make the best possible proposition to garner other investment in the area. I look forward to continuing to do that with Ayrshire.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Will the minister join me in calling on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, to use his budget to boost jobs by introducing a trade-in scheme to boost new car sales, cutting VAT on home improvements, and ending the alcohol duty discrimination against Scotch whisky, which is putting jobs at risk in my constituency?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Willie Coffey for those constructive ideas. I am sure that they will get serious consideration at Westminster. We will certainly consider them carefully in Scotland as we make our budget submission to the chancellor.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Questions 11 and 12 have been withdrawn.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it is giving to supporting bus manufacturing. (S3O-6497)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government provides a wide range of support to manufacturing companies, including bus manufacturing companies. That support is delivered through Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Scottish Development International, local authorities and Skills Development Scotland.

We are committed to supporting all manufacturers in Scotland to improve their productivity and ensure that they can compete globally. The Scottish manufacturing advisory service, which is delivered by Scottish Enterprise, is in the process of expansion. Industry-experienced practitioners work with enterprises throughout Scotland to increase the value of their products and businesses and advise them, as required, on lean manufacturing, waste reduction, process efficiency and product innovation.