Scottish Parliament, 14 May 2009

375 contributions from 81 members. The official report.

Official Report 14 May 2009

Influenza A(H1N1)

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. We have a great deal of business to get through today, so I emphasise that "brevity" would be a useful watchword for members around the chamber.

The first item of business is a statement by Nicola Sturgeon on influenza A(H1N1). The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her 10-minute statement, so there should be no interruptions or interventions.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I am very grateful for this further opportunity to update Parliament on the current situation in relation to the influenza A(H1N1) virus.

As of this morning, the World Health Organization reports that 5,251 cases of the virus have been officially reported across 33 countries. There have been 56 reported deaths in Mexico, three in the United States of America and one each in Canada and in Costa Rica. The WHO's pandemic alert remains at level 5, which means that we need to be ready to implement our pandemic plans, should they be needed.

A total of 71 cases have so far been confirmed across the United Kingdom. Here in Scotland, we have five confirmed cases. A further four cases are considered probable, which means that they have tested positive for influenza A, although further testing is required to confirm the strain. There are also 12 possible cases, seven of which are travel related, who are undergoing testing in four national health service boards. All those cases are being treated and investigated on a precautionary basis. They are not confirmed as influenza A, let alone as the specific H1N1 strain.

Since a 19-year-old man in Greenock with family connections to Mexico was confirmed as having tested positive, much of the focus in the past few days has been on further cases in the Greenock area. All four probable cases and many of the possible cases are in, or are connected to, Greenock. As I reported yesterday, the four probables are a three-year-old child, a five-year-old child, the five-year-old child's mother and a 16-year-old girl who is not—as far as we know at this stage—connected to any of the other confirmed or probable cases. Final test results for all four cases are still awaited from the laboratory in London.

Members are aware that the cases of the five-year-old and the three-year-old have resulted in the closure of Ravenscraig primary school and the Ladybird Pre 5 Centre in Greenock. The decisions to close the school and the nursery, in both cases for seven days, were not taken lightly. They are precautionary decisions that have been taken on the basis of expert advice from Health Protection Scotland and Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board, with input from the Health Protection Agency. The close contacts of those two children at the nursery and the school have also been given Tamiflu, and parents have been offered appropriate advice and reassurance. The five-year-old child also attended an after-school club around the time he became symptomatic. The 17 children who attended with him and the staff who were there at the time have also been given Tamiflu. Parents of those children have been asked to keep them off school and away from the after-school club for seven days.

I understand how concerning and, indeed, inconvenient school and nursery closures are for parents. However, I know that parents will understand the reasons for those actions and I take the opportunity to thank them for their patience and understanding. I also thank Inverclyde Council and Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board for their sterling efforts in communicating with everyone concerned and in offering appropriate advice and reassurance.

I stress that these are not precedent-setting cases: if similar situations occur in other schools in Scotland—we obviously hope that that will not happen—they will all be risk assessed case by case. However, there is from England evidence that suggests that very early precautionary closure of that kind—as happened at the school in Paignton—can be effective in disrupting further spread of the virus.

I said last week that our focus at this stage is on containing the virus and minimising further spread. That strategy has been successful so far: we therefore intend to continue with it for as long as we believe it will be effective in reducing spread of the virus. However, as I also said last week, at some stage over the coming weeks we might well require to move from a containment strategy to a mitigation strategy. That is most likely to happen when there is sustained community transmission. We are not yet at that stage, but we are of course monitoring the situation closely.

Our scientific advisors also continue to examine emerging evidence from worldwide and UK cases of H1N1. Although we still do not know enough about the virus to be able to draw definite conclusions, the science is beginning—albeit very tentatively—to point in certain directions. For example, emerging evidence suggests that healthy young adults and children are being proportionately more affected than other groups in the population. Early estimates also suggest an attack rate of around 20 per cent. That compares to seasonal flu attack rates of between 5 and 15 per cent, although I stress that in recent years seasonal flu attack rates have been lower than that, at around 2 to 4 per cent.

Early experience also points to its being an illness with relatively mild symptoms although, of course, we have to be very clear that even mild flu can be unpleasant and debilitating and that, in exceptional cases, flu can cause deaths. All in all, we have to be prepared for an illness that might affect large numbers of people with symptoms that, although mild, might see them bedridden for a few days. Members will appreciate that the impact of that, should it come to pass, on our national health service, our economy and wider society, could be very significant. Even in a normal flu season, the demands on the NHS can put severe pressure on services.

As I have said before, there is also the risk that the virus might mutate and become more virulent during the autumn and winter months. That is why, in parallel with our efforts to contain the virus, we are also working hard with our colleagues throughout the UK to prepare for further developments in its spread and severity, and to seek to reduce and mitigate its impact on the population and our economy as much as we can. Discussions on a web-based and phone-based system to facilitate distribution of antivirals to large numbers of people are very well advanced.

Another key issue that is under active discussion is a vaccine. An important development in recent days has been the identification by scientists of the genetic fingerprint of the European strain of the virus, which is a crucial first step in the production of a vaccine. Obviously, of key concern to all four administrations in the UK is how best we can secure supplies of an effective vaccine as soon as one becomes available. Our clear and shared objective is to secure sufficient supplies to allow vaccination of the whole population, which is in line with the approach that is recommended by scientific advice, including that of the scientific advisory group on emergencies, which has advised that universal vaccination is the preferred approach.

As members are aware, the UK has advance supply contracts in place for a pandemic vaccine. Although those contracts guarantee a supply of vaccine, they can be triggered only in certain circumstances—for example, when the World Health Organization declares a pandemic by moving to alert phase 6. Obviously, we do not know at this stage when or whether those triggers will be reached. However, we do know that if we simply wait until then we risk losing the capacity that manufacturers have available now, which would allow us to build up a stockpile and to get a vaccination programme under way before the winter.

I can therefore advise Parliament that I have decided, after discussion with my colleagues the health ministers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, to secure and purchase early supplies of vaccine. Negotiations with manufacturers are on-going and I hope that agreement on a contract and a delivery schedule will be reached very soon.

It is important to understand that by the time a pandemic is declared, global demand for a vaccine will outstrip the capacity to supply it. Under any scenario, and even after our sleeping contracts kick in, it will be a number of months before we can get sufficient supplies to vaccinate 100 per cent of the population. The decision that we have taken now to utilise spare manufacturing capacity is therefore very important in seeking to secure an early supply in order to allow a vaccination programme that is focused initially on priority groups to get under way as quickly as possible.

I hope that I have, in this brief update, managed to assure members that we remain focused on containing the virus for as long as we can, and that we are equally focused on preparing for the possibility of its further spread.

I will, of course, continue to keep Parliament updated on developments.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

As always, the cabinet secretary will take questions on the issues that have been raised in the statement. We have around 20 minutes for those questions, after which I will have to move on to the next item of business.

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

I am mindful of your request for brevity, Presiding Officer.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement and I will go straight to asking questions. Will she confirm that antivirals have now been transferred to health boards and that that part of the process is complete?

The cabinet secretary talked about securing enough vaccine supplies to treat 100 per cent of the population. I understand that treatment of 45 per cent of the population was being aimed at in discussion with the UK Government. Has the policy changed? Given that coverage will depend to an extent on not only the supply of the vaccine but international markets, is she confident that 45 per cent can be treated in the first instance and that she will be able to secure the 100 per cent coverage that she aims for?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Stocks of antivirals are available with health boards. For obvious reasons that Cathy Jamieson will understand, our larger stockpiles of antivirals are in undisclosed locations around the country. The plans to ensure that adequate supplies of antivirals reach areas as quickly as possible are well developed and well in hand. In partnership with the web-based and phone-based system that I spoke about, health boards and NHS 24 will be instrumental in ensuring that antivirals are available quickly—within 24 or 48 hours of patients becoming symptomatic.

Cathy Jamieson is right to draw our attention to the question whether the aim is 45 per cent or 100 per cent coverage. I will try to make the position clear. The scientific advice and pandemic planning have always made it clear that we should aim for 100 per cent vaccination of the population. That is my and my colleague health ministers' clear objective and policy. Discussions in recent days about 45 per cent coverage have related to the amount of vaccine that we might be able to secure through pre-pandemic contracts. Our objective is to secure as much vaccine as possible before a pandemic kicks in, but how much that will be will depend on manufacturing capacity and on when that point is reached. We do not know whether the World Health Organization will move to alert phase 6 next week or several months from now; that is uncertain. Obtaining sufficient vaccine supplies to vaccinate 100 per cent of the population will take time. Our clear objective is to obtain early supplies as quickly as possible in order to get a vaccination programme under way.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for keeping Parliament updated. Will the vaccination for swine flu be contained in the winter flu vaccination programme? If not, will those who regularly receive the winter flu vaccine be given two vaccines this year?

The Westminster Secretary of State for Health has said that producing the vaccine would take six months to a year, whereas the cabinet secretary says that it will be available in months. Will she update us on that? Universal vaccination is recommended. What will be the approach to people who resist vaccination?

The flu strain currently affects young adults. Could any conditions make some people more vulnerable to it?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The advice is that the vaccine for the H1N1 strain will not be included in the seasonal flu vaccine and, as ministers, we must be guided by the expert advice. A separate vaccine is expected, which we would aim to administer as easily and effectively as possible. If it can be administered at the same time as the seasonal flu vaccine, we would seek to do that, but that would depend on the expert advice.

Mary Scanlon asked about timescales. As I said in response to Cathy Jamieson, obtaining sufficient vaccine supplies for 100 per cent coverage will take a lengthy time, but we are focused on securing a flow of supply as quickly as possible. I cannot say definitively when the first supplies would arrive, but I hope that it would happen before the winter months, because that would allow us to get a vaccination programme under way.

An early priority will be to deal with vulnerable groups. We know the vulnerable groups for the seasonal flu vaccination programme. As we are still learning about the new virus, our thinking about the priority groups for its vaccination programme might change over time. However, the priority will be to obtain the vaccine in order to enable us to start the programme as quickly as possible.

Mary Scanlon's final question was about people resisting vaccination. All vaccination programmes are voluntary. However, as with the seasonal flu campaign, we will work hard to persuade people of the benefits of vaccination.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of her statement and for continuing to keep Parliament updated on the outbreak. I hope that she will understand if I concentrate on the four probable cases, as they are in the home town of me and two other members who are in the chamber this morning.

The cabinet secretary will understand that although only four probable cases exist, many people are anxious. They include all the pupils at Ravenscraig primary school, their parents and their teachers, and all those who attend the Ladybird Pre 5 Centre. Some of them—but not all—are the same people who attend the Enterprise after-school club. A fair degree of anxiety is felt. I associate myself with the cabinet secretary's gracious thanks to Inverclyde Council and Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board for the effective action that they have taken, and particularly for dealing effectively with parents and pupils at Ravenscraig primary school and for making available Tamiflu. Anyone who saw the interviews with parents on television last night, or who read the newspapers this morning, will know that their calm and measured response is not only a credit to the people of Inverclyde, but is enormously helpful to the people of Scotland. In the face of such an outbreak, they understand that precautionary measures are being taken and that this is not a time for panic.

Can the cabinet secretary assist in any way with the timescale for giving more certainty to the Inverclyde community? She says that that will happen as soon as possible, but can she talk about days or weeks? I do not expect absolute precision on when the test results will be known, but a little more precision might help.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I agree absolutely with Ross Finnie that the closure of a nursery and a school at short notice is a difficult situation for anybody to find themselves in. That the closures were so smooth yesterday morning is a credit to everybody who was involved—parents, staff, the health board and the council. I repeat my thanks and congratulations to them all.

It is clear that the situation is worrying for people in Greenock. From what I have seen, I think that they are behaving extremely responsibly and in a measured fashion. We are acting to contain any spread as much as we can and we will continue to focus on that.

Ross Finnie is right to ask me about the timescale, but I cannot be definitive. As I have explained, we depend on the laboratory in Colindale in London—the UK reference laboratory for flu—to confirm cases, so that is not entirely within our control. I hope that the final test results of at least some of the four probable cases will be with us today. It is important to have as much certainty as possible, as quickly as possible, so I assure him that we will press as much as we can for quick results for all the cases.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We come to open questions. I stress that there is one question per member.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement. I was content to hear the positive remarks about Inverclyde Council, but what impact has the suspension last Friday of the council's corporate director of education and social care had on communications and activities between the council and the Government?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The suspension of the Inverclyde Council director is completely unrelated to the swine flu situation. As members would expect, I do not know all the ins and outs of that.

Notwithstanding that, communication with Inverclyde Council has been excellent. The acting director of education has been fully engaged and I spoke with the council's chief executive on Tuesday evening, before we announced the school closure. As members would expect, dialogue has been good. I repeat my thanks to the council for its tremendous work in the past few days to keep parents fully informed of the developing situation.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I congratulate the cabinet secretary on the continuing measured approach that the Government is taking to this problem. We must not allow a situation in which people become alarmed to develop. We have not reached that point, as yet.

First, could I have an answer to the question on registered retirees that I put in week 1? I have not had that as yet. As we prepare to move from containment and disruption to mitigation and a general situation, the issue is important.

Secondly, when I did my report—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Dr Simpson, I stressed that each member had one question.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That was a previous question.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That is one question, Dr Simpson.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The point that Richard Simpson raised in his question is important. I followed up on the matter the first time he put the question. I will ensure that he gets a full written response on the measures that health boards are taking to act on that helpful suggestion.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

In the light of what has been said about the necessity for those who normally receive the seasonal vaccine to obtain the new one, what information campaigns are likely to be put in place to explain the effect of the H1N1 vaccine on the seasonal flu vaccine?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

That is an important point. Obviously, our focus at the moment in our information campaigns is on advising people of the developing situation around this virus, and on giving them commonsense advice on how to protect themselves and the people close to them from it. That is the focus of the information leaflet that has been put through—or is in the process of being put through—every door not only in Scotland but across the United Kingdom.

Obviously, as the situation develops—and, certainly, as we approach a vaccination programme—we will need to ensure that the public are well informed on the matter and, of course, on the relationship between the H1N1 vaccine and the seasonal flu vaccination programme. I give Alasdair Allan an undertaking that that will be done. Even now, we should be sending out a very strong message that the seasonal flu campaign is important and that people should take up that vaccine, notwithstanding any developments around H1N1.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement and for keeping me up to date personally with developments. I echo the thanks that have been extended to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and to Inverclyde Council's education services.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary would agree that special praise should go to Mrs Lind, the head teacher of Ravenscraig primary school; Mrs Allan, the school secretary; and Julie Douglas for her performance and confident leadership. That has given a great deal of confidence and reassurance to parents and it has been recognised by them.

Given that we now have a case involving a teenager, what discussions has the cabinet secretary had with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning on further school closures in the secondary sector and on the possible impact on exams? Will she make it clear that appropriate transfer of antivirals has taken place in recognition of the developing situation in the Inverclyde area?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I join Duncan McNeil in thanking very warmly the staff of the Ravenscraig primary school, the Ladybird Pre 5 Centre nursery and the Enterprise after-school club, all of whom behaved very professionally in difficult circumstances. Their contribution was in no small measure responsible for the smooth way in which all this has been handled.

I assure Duncan McNeil that contingency arrangements for exams in secondary schools are all in hand. It is not appropriate for me to go into detail on the personal circumstances of the 16-year-old girl. However, as we understand more about the case, any action that has to be taken will be taken. As has been the case over the past fortnight, our focus is on containing the virus as much as possible. We are in dialogue with all the relevant people with whom the member would expect us to be in dialogue on all the cases.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Before I call the Dave Thompson, I will on this occasion allow Dr Simpson to put his second question because the member who was to put the subsequent question is not in the chamber.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement. I welcome the sensible precautionary action that she and the relevant authorities have taken over the past few weeks. We must ensure that we minimise the risk of the flu being passed on. Has any guidance been issued to parents on contact among children outside school?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Parents will be given appropriate advice, including on restrictions that require to be put on children. As we have said, the risk of passing on the infection tends to be when people are symptomatic. That said, there is some evidence that children can become infectious slightly before they become symptomatic, so the guidance around dealing with suspected child cases is being revised to take account of that. Where their child is symptomatic, parents will be advised to keep them at home and away from other children. That advice is being given more generally. In all cases, it is led by the expert opinion of Health Protection Scotland and the public health teams in the various health boards.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Thank you for your courtesy in allowing me in again, Presiding Officer.

My question is on the sleeping contracts. One of the things that I put into my report of 1999 was that there might be a bottleneck in respect of egg supply. I was laughed at in one cartoon for even suggesting that. Clearly, if we are trying to produce 45 per cent cover, we will need a vast vaccine production. Can the cabinet secretary assure Parliament that the sleeping contracts include adequate production and egg supply for production? Will production be in the UK or are we reliant on European supply sources?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I ask Richard Simpson to bear with me—I will come back to him on that question. I can, however, say that the sleeping contracts guarantee us, and other countries that are party to those contracts, a share of the vaccine supply as it becomes available. Not all countries are party to sleeping contracts. Having such contracts puts us in a very advantageous position. Because they kick in only in certain circumstances—for example, a level 6 pandemic alert being triggered—if we simply wait for them to kick in, we would miss an opportunity to use the spare capacity that we know exists at the moment.

I ask Richard Simpson and others not to get too hung up on the 45 per cent figure. In this pre-pandemic phase, we are determined to get as much vaccine as we can. If that is more than 45 per cent, we will not be limited by that. Obviously, we cannot guarantee that the figure will be as high as 45 per cent. We do not know when we will get to alert level 6, and therefore to the point at which our sleeping contracts kick in. That said, the clear objective is: as much as possible, as early as possible.

Community Courts

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is a statement by Kenny MacAskill, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, on community courts. As always, the cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. I remind members that we are very tight for time today; we have a lot of business to fit in. Brevity in both questions and answers should be the watchword of the day.

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

I am grateful for this opportunity to set out my response to last Thursday's vote. First, I will deal with the factual information in relation to the community justice centre, after which I will address the broader issue of the Government's commitment to replace short prison sentences, where appropriate, with tough and effective community sentences.

I turn to the community justice centre project. There are lessons to be learned from community courts such as those in Midtown in New York and elsewhere. There are clear advantages to having a strong focus on top quality criminal justice services in the most disadvantaged areas that are often the most blighted by offending, which is why we worked constructively with Glasgow City Council and other partners through the Glasgow community justice centre project board on a feasibility study into the costs of building and running a community justice centre, as well as the benefits that such a centre could bring.

The project initiation document, which we will shortly arrange to place in the Scottish Parliament information centre, pulled together the conclusions of the work and highlighted a number of issues. It set out the aims of the court, which are: improved community safety; improved community involvement in the justice system as a whole; taking a problem-solving approach; tackling the underlying causes as well as the actions of offenders; speeding up the delivery of justice in the local area; and more effective payback to the community that has been blighted or damaged.

All those aims are important, but delivering them is not dependent on the creation of a new building. The community court would have dealt, at most, with a couple of thousand cases a year. In 2007-2008, over 79,000 people had a charge proved in the sheriff summary court and a further 47,000 were convicted by justices of the peace.

The cost of the new building, and the running costs thereof, were substantial. What caused us to support the project board's decision was the scale of the revenue commitment just to keep the building open, staffed, resourced and safe. The Glasgow stakeholders considered—as the final programme initiation document highlights—that the final costs would likely be considerably higher than the consultant's estimate of £750,000 per year. The document also said that there would be no cash-releasing benefits or offsetting savings. In the current financial climate, that does not seem to offer best value for money. The project board concluded that the project, at this stage, be progressed in its current form should not.

The chair of the project board wrote to the chief executive of Glasgow City Council to intimate the board's conclusion. The chief executive's response was positive and realistic. He said:

"I appreciate the Board's practical and informed approach to taking the difficult decision not to progress this project further. I note that the Board had some early discussions on how the principles of the Centre could be introduced into mainstream services in Glasgow and that your staff intend to continue that work. I would support further work with the Council and other partners to explore how this could be delivered in the context of the local and national aspirations for reducing reoffending".

We have not abandoned our commitment to better justice-system delivery for the citizens of the east end of Glasgow. We will work further with the council to explore how some of the benefits that have been identified—particularly quicker delivery of community payback, with visible reinvestment in the neediest communities—can be delivered through better joining up of services using existing premises. My officials will have a first meeting with Glasgow City Council on that next week. We will work together to find a practical and affordable solution.

I want to deal more widely with our stated commitment to move from routine short prison sentences that provide free bed and board, to tough and effective community sentences. Our strategy is clear and coherent, and is based on the independent work of the Scottish Prisons Commission. We published it in December, in "Protecting Scotland's Communities: Fair, Fast and Flexible Justice". It has two main strands: a robust regime of community penalties and strong and proportionate management of offenders whose crimes merit prison.

A coherent penal policy is needed. We remain committed to the provision of a modern and fit-for-purpose prison and we are investing a record £120 million in prison capacity each year. Public protection is the Government's first goal. Protecting the public effectively needs prisons that are not overcrowded and which can undertake the necessary work to rehabilitate serious offenders who need to be locked up and detained.

In 2007-08, 76 per cent of sentences were for six months or less. On average, individuals who are given such sentences spend only three weeks in prison. There is no time for the Scottish Prison Service to work with them to tackle underlying drug or alcohol problems: the service can only contain them. The greater the overcrowding, the greater the challenge for the service. The prison population is still rising. There are more than 8,000 people in our prisons, although recorded crime is at a 25-year low.

In terms of long-term public protection, we need to develop alternatives to prison that are robust, that take effect quickly and which offer real payback to communities. That is what we are doing, through the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill, which will create the new community payback order, and through work in partnership with local authorities to improve the standard of delivery on the ground. We are investing an additional £2 million per year in community service and, in conjunction with the Association of Directors of Social Work, we have drawn up revised operational guidance and have carried out training events throughout the country for community service staff. The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill includes provisions for more flexible sentences, which can be kept under review by the sentencer. It also provides a significant new sanction to support tough action on breach: electronic tagging. We are also investing extra cash to improve delivery this year.

We have to prioritise. We need a visible police presence, which reassures good citizens and deters bad ones. That is why the Government took the decision to increase police numbers by 1,000. We need a coherent penal policy and a system that improves management of offenders, Scotland wide.

Resources are not infinite and we are in a recession. We are aware of the financial situation and the pressures that £500 million of cuts from Westminster will bring. We therefore need to target our resources. Sometimes that will mean that desirable extras, such as the community court building, do not proceed. If we fund Glasgow community court, we must make cuts in other areas—£1 million is not petty cash. Last week, the Justice Committee voted to retain Annan justice of the peace court. That decision is not cost free, as committee members are aware, and might cost up to £800,000.

Our priority is safer communities, with a visible police presence and more robust and immediate community sentences, which communities can see and believe in. We need to invest in front-line services, not in new buildings.

I recognise and share members' view that key elements of the community court model, particularly the clustering of support services and the closer links with communities, are eminently worth pursuing. I have asked my officials to work with Glasgow City Council to do just that, in a way that suits local circumstances. I expect that work to generate lessons for wider application. Moreover, when the financial situation improves and pressures are less severe, matters can be reviewed.

I understand local members' desire for investment in the east end of Glasgow and I am happy to reiterate that the Government has shown unprecedented commitment to the east end. However, in the current economic circumstances, the development of the community court building does not offer the best value for money, given the available resources. The building could be delivered only by making cuts in vital police or community justice services.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I say for the benefit of members who arrived slightly late that we are short of time this morning, so questions and answers should be as brief as possible.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement.

Is not the statement an insult to the Parliament? After the Parliament clearly expressed its will that a community court be established in Glasgow, why has the cabinet secretary not reflected on his position but simply trotted out the same arguments against the court that we heard from the Scottish National Party last week?

We all recognise the financial pressures that exist. However, despite the pressures, Glasgow City Council made it clear that it was ready to invest millions in the court, because it thought that the approach would work. Given the cabinet secretary's wider sentencing strategy, the court is surely far more than a desirable extra—it is an essential part of the strategy. If the Scottish Prison Service's £4 million in VAT savings is not to be invested in the court, what will it be invested in? When will the cabinet secretary's target for community sentences to start within seven days be met, if the court does not go ahead?

The cabinet secretary talked about a coherent strategy. Does not his decision show how incoherent his strategy is? How can his plans to treble the number of community sentences have credibility, when the current system is creaking at the seams and he refuses to invest in proposals that are proven to deliver tough and effective community payback?

The Parliament and the Government's own research support the establishment of the community court, so why are ministers standing in its way? Is this not the clearest illustration of the fact that the Scottish Government's justice strategy is not just soft touch, but out of touch?

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

The Scottish Prison Service would not need to make savings here, there and everywhere if we had got the Barnett consequentials to follow on from the Carter review south of the border. If we had been given what was our right and entitlement, the Prison Service would have an additional £120 million per annum, but nothing is said by Labour members about ensuring that Scotland gets its right and entitlement.

The targets are not dependent on a court building. They are not just being rolled out through what would have been the Glasgow community court; they are going nationwide. They concern better systems, not simply new structures. The fundamental point is that, if other parties want to persist with the court building, they should tell us how many officers they want to be taken off the streets, which areas they want to be deprived of a visible police presence, which prison building they want to close, or which construction they want us to delay.

The project is not cost free—it comes at a cost. All the Opposition parties should be mindful that the last time they came to the chamber to force us to do something, they forced the citizens of Edinburgh to have £500 million spent on a tram scheme—£500 million that the country could have spent without the mess that the scheme has created for the citizens of this city. Members should beware of what they are asking for—cuts in front-line services in order to build a community building.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for an advance copy of the statement.

There is a unanimous view in the chamber, even following the statement, that the project is desirable. Last week, there was a clear majority in the Parliament for proceeding and the failure to proceed is a negation of parliamentary democracy. The Conservative group has little confidence in the cabinet secretary on a range of issues. Does he not accept that the defiance of Parliament on this issue raises real doubts over his ability to satisfy the Parliament as to his competence and suitability for office?

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

This is not just the position of the Government. When Clive Fairweather, the former chief inspector of prisons, was asked about the matter, he said that the position was understandable, with money being tight these days. He went on to say that one or two of the details have not quite been worked out. I hope that, rather than simply being put on the shelf, the project could be put to one side to be worked on, so that when a bit more money becomes available we could come back to it. That is what the Government has said. We have not said no; we have said that, as and when the financial climate is better, we will be happy to revisit the matter.

In the interim, if Mr Aitken wants money to be spent on the project, that cannot be done out of VAT, which is non-recurring; it must be done by cutting funds for something else. The choice is simple. If Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems wish to build the community court in Glasgow, they do so at the expense of a visible police presence and the circumstances that are essential for community justice.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Rubbish.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

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

They cannot just produce the money out of their back pockets. That is the reality of life.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

He is talking absolute nonsense.

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

Irrespective of what Mr McLetchie might shout from a sedentary position—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I will stand up and say it: it is nonsense.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

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

We are in a recession, and we have to make these decisions.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of the statement.

This morning, we have seen the sorry spectacle of the cabinet secretary coming before the Parliament with weasel words, saying that the Scottish National Party Government intends to defy the will of Parliament. He does so with the aid of the ludicrously entitled project initiation document, which is what he has based his decision on. That is notwithstanding the release of some £50 million and the action that has been taken, with the unanimous support of the Parliament, with regard to the slopping-out cases. Is the cabinet secretary seriously telling us that the Government cannot find the necessary £750,000 to £1 million for the Glasgow community court?

The cabinet secretary told us that the Government strategy was clear, consistent and based on the work of the Scottish Prisons Commission. Why does he pick out only parts of the Prisons Commission report? Does he no longer accept the commission's conclusion that

"we first need up-front investment in better services in and for Scotland's communities"

if we are to take crime and punishment seriously?

Is the cabinet secretary not seriously embarrassed to tell the Parliament that the Government holds those considered views in contempt? If the Government is not prepared to reconsider its position, should the cabinet secretary not reconsider his position? Is the Government's strategy on justice not now rather a shambles?

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

We accept the conclusions of the McLeish report, and we are delivering record funding. We have put in an additional £2 million to ensure that our community justice front-line services—not simply buildings—can be properly resourced. Clearly, however, we must make hard choices during difficult times.

I recall that Mr Brown opposed the closure not only of Annan justice of the peace court, with a price tag of up to £800,000, but of Rutherglen justice of the peace court. He is keen to ensure that the Government increases expenditure on buildings, but he will not tell us which front-line services we have to take the funding from. We live in a world in which resources are not infinite. Thankfully, we do not have to make up the £800 million of cuts that Mr Purvis would have imposed upon us—and which the Lib Dems have rolled back from.

If members wish to proceed with buildings, they must cut the funding from other budgets. Be under no illusion: those budgets will be for front-line services, and it is police and prisons that we require to fund. We will not cut front-line services simply for a building that we cannot fund at present—but, along with Clive Fairweather, we will work to see whether we can deliver the concept when better financial times come.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We come to open questions. We should have only one question per member, please. I will stick rigorously to that.

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I apologise for being a little late, Presiding Officer—my sprint from the garden lobby might just teach me a lesson.

I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement. The community court is only one part of the fight against crime in Glasgow. As the cabinet secretary said, the Government has shown unprecedented commitment to the east end of Glasgow. Will the cabinet secretary outline some of the other measures that are being taken in Glasgow to make our streets safer?

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

Absolutely. We recognise the particular problems that the east end of Glasgow has. That is why our commitment to 1,000 additional officers, and indeed the splendid work that is being done by Strathclyde police authority and the chief constable of Strathclyde, have resulted in a record police presence in the city of Glasgow. Of course, that could be jeopardised if we have to replace police officers with a building.

We have supported the community initiative to reduce violence in the east end, through the violence reduction unit. We recognise that specific areas have particular problems, not simply criminal justice problems but problems with drink, drugs and deprivation. We seek to work using a holistic approach, and that is what we are doing.

We will have a visible police presence to enforce the law firmly. We will continue to invest in the prison estate to ensure that those who need to be behind bars are put there. That investment is not just for the prisoners; it is to ensure the safety of our hard-pressed officers. We are investing a record amount in front-line delivery services for criminal justice and for tackling alcohol and drug abuse.

If members want to spend money on a building, they should be under no illusion: they cannot also spend that money on other services. What they make us spend on some areas—as with the Edinburgh trams—must come out of other areas. On their heads be it.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

On accepting his nomination as First Minister, Alex Salmond lectured the Parliament, saying:

"The days of Scottish Government imposing its will on the Parliament are behind us, although I daresay that there might be days in the near future when I come to lament their passing."—[Official Report, 16 May 2007; c 25.]

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the First Minister should regret having made that statement?

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

No. If other parties want us to spend money on something, they must tell us what money should be used. That is the point that I have been making throughout. I am happy to make a deal with Mr Martin: if he wants me to tally up how many officers we will have to take off the streets, I will be more than happy to make him an offer. Then, he can make the decision. In the interim, if all that he is prepared to do is to parrot demands for us to spend more on this and that, without telling us where the money is to come from, he will get the answer that he got.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I can tell members that the answer is about 20 police officers. What other steps are being taken by the police to speed up justice?

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

It is about being fast, fair and flexible. The issue is not simply one of buildings; it is one of procedures and ensuring that the police and the Crown are locked on and understand the issues. This is not done deliberately, but there have been instances of people appearing in court for something when it is clear that there are other, outstanding offences that will be rolled up.

When people are sentenced to community service, we must ensure that it is not weeks or months down the line but immediate and speedy. That is one of the lessons that we learned from the Midtown system. We pick up on those lessons, but one does not need a building to be able to deliver them; one does that by having a better policing system, by improving technology and by ensuring that matters move swiftly. Lessons are learned by ensuring that not simply the police, but courts, prosecution and social work move smarter and work together. However, the building is not necessary.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The cabinet secretary has made much of the anticipated costs and why the Government cannot afford to proceed with community courts in Glasgow. However, the Minister for Community Safety has told Parliament in the past that the Government believes that there are costs associated with doing the right thing. Therefore, does the cabinet secretary think that community courts are not the right way to cut crime and reoffending rates?

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

Costs are involved in doing the right thing and that is why we made the substantial investment to ensure that we have 1,000 additional officers on our streets. However, if one makes an investment there, one cannot make it elsewhere. I refer once again to Clive Fairweather—a person with huge experience and, with all respect to Mr Lamont, more experience than him—who recognises the position that the Government is in. He also recognises that matters require to be worked out.

I suggest that Mr Lamont considers and reflects upon Clive Fairweather's views. We realise that the project is not in a position to proceed at present because we do not have the financial culture and climate. That may change. We can continue to work with Glasgow to see what we can do immediately. We can look at the project in due course as money may free up. In the interim, I repeat that if Mr Martin and Mr Baker want to spend money on that, they must tell us which police officers they want us to take off our streets.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

The cabinet secretary mentioned the Barnett formula. Would the decision on community courts have been any different had Scotland received the Barnett consequentials of the money that was released from the reserve to support investment in English prisons?

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

Absolutely. In England and Wales, following the Carter review, £1.2 billion was transferred from reserve to the Ministry of Justice to be allocated for the prison estate. That is a reserve claim—the Scottish Government does not automatically receive equivalent funding through Barnett consequentials. The justification for that procedure and emergency funding south of the border was pressure upon the prison estate. However, lo and behold, at the same time as people are living with the problem south of the border, we in Scotland have problems and pressures in our prison estate, as Conservative members are never shy in coming forward to tell us.

We did not get our Barnett consequentials from the £1.2 billion. Had we done so, the £120 million could probably have delivered not just the community court in Glasgow, but a community court in every jurisdiction in Scotland. However, until such time as Mr Baker is prepared to stand up to his colleagues south of the border and fight the cause for Scotland, we will continue as a Government to be short changed and to face £500 million-worth of public expenditure cuts.

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

I have listened with some incredulity to the cabinet secretary's claim that proceeding with the community court would take police officers off the street. Is he seriously telling the Parliament that he did not budget for the 1,000 additional police officers? Is he also telling the Parliament that, in light of the vote taken last week, providing community-based justice is not a front-line service?

The cabinet secretary referred to the Annan court in his statement, but the Justice Committee also made reference to Girvan and Cumnock justice of the peace courts. Will the cabinet secretary assure me—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That is three questions.

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

—that he will not come back and try to push through measures to close those courts? I apologise to the Presiding Officer.

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

Robert Brown wanted to save Rutherglen as well as Annan, and Cathy Jamieson wants to save Cumnock and Girvan. None of those is cost free and all of them have a tag. Mr Baker wants to spend the money on the community court and we also have calls to spend on Rutherglen, Cumnock, Girvan and Annan. On and on the price tag goes, but it cannot be done.

Do we budget? Yes, and I will tell the chamber where we budgeted. We budgeted for police officers pay and when the police officers' settlement was received the Government honoured the pay deal and did not seek to short change our police officers as was done by a Labour Government south of the border.

We did not budget for the problem with police pensions—we inherited that from previous Administrations—but as well as recognising the obligation that we have to pay our hard-working police officers what they are entitled to, we met our obligations as a Government on behalf of the people of Scotland to meet the pension rights of our police officers. They had to be met: does Mr Baker want us to renege on them?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement and for his continuing support for community courts. [ Laughter. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

As someone who speaks to the people of the east end of Glasgow, I know that they want action. Does the cabinet secretary agree that what is needed for the people of the east end of Glasgow is swiftness of delivery and not necessarily a building?

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

Absolutely. I am glad that Sandra White, at least, has been listening to what I have been saying. What I have stated is not simply the Government's position, but the position of learned and respected people such as Clive Fairweather. We must get on and do something, and that is what we are doing. As Sandra White correctly said, this is not all about a building. It is about working smarter, changing systems, moving faster and ensuring that the system is fair and flexible. Those can be done and they will be done. However, we acknowledge that if and when money is freed up in due course, we will be more than happy to consider the expense of a building. In the interim, whatever Mr McLetchie may say, our priority is police officers in our communities.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Not after the election—the cabinet secretary reneged on it.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order, Mr McLetchie.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the copy of his statement, but not for the quality of his responses to legitimate questions that have been raised by parliamentarians regarding an issue on which the Parliament voted decisively last week.

The cabinet secretary said that £1 million is not petty cash. I agree. Is that the revenue cost that his department assumes for the community court? Is that not £500,000 or £1 million less than anything that was initially budgeted for by the Government? It is one thirty thousandth of our budget, so I am not prepared to take lectures on fiscal prudence from the cabinet secretary.

Finally—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am sorry, but members must ask one question only. I ruled against one member on that point, and I must be fair to all members.

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

We provided £1.6 million to support the £5 million community initiative to reduce violence in the east end of Glasgow, targeting 55 gangs and 700 young men. If Parliament makes us spend £750,000, £1 million or whatever on a yearly basis, projects such as that will be jeopardised. We believe that they—and not simply having a building—will tackle the root causes of crime.

Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill: Stage 1

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3964, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill. I remind members that time is extremely tight, so they must stick rigorously to their allocated time.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I thank the Local Government and Communities Committee for its work in considering the bill and preparing the stage 1 report, and I thank those who gave evidence to the committee. The bill is based largely on proposals that were contained in two Government consultations; therefore, I also thank those who responded to the consultations.

It is now two years since the 2007 combined elections. If time has eased the memories of the events of 3 May 2007, as far as the administration of elections is concerned, it takes only a brief look at Ron Gould's comprehensive 120-page report to bring it all back. The Gould report identified complicated systems and structures, as well as complex legislation and a fragmentation of roles and responsibilities, as a critical barrier to the smooth administration of elections. The Local Government and Communities Committee has considered the Government's response to the Gould report to date. The bill takes our response a stage further, and implements a key recommendation of the report.

The bill will decouple local government elections in Scotland from elections to the Scottish Parliament by moving local government elections to the mid-point of the Scottish parliamentary session. We will achieve that by extending the current local government term of office—and subsequent terms—to five years, which will mean that the next two local government elections in Scotland will now take place in 2012 and 2017. After that, local government terms of office will revert to four years.

The bill will make post-election voter information available in greater detail. It will require returning officers to release information at polling station level, rather than at ward level as happens at present. Decoupling will simplify the election process and reduce the scope for confusion among voters. We owe it to the electorate to do that much; we owe it to our colleagues in local government to ensure that local elections are given the prominence that they deserve and are not diminished by being held on the same day as elections to the Parliament.

Local government is perhaps the level of government that has the most impact on the quality of life for ordinary people in Scotland. The services that councils provide are vital to people in their everyday lives, and those who are responsible for the delivery of those services must be properly accountable. That is why the Government believes that local elections should be held in a position of prominence, separately from other elections.

Local elections should focus on local issues such as schools and services rather than being overshadowed by national politics. Separating elections in that way will strengthen local government's mandate. Unison, in its written evidence to the Local Government and Communities Committee, stated:

"Stand alone local elections will allow the focus of the election campaign to centre on local issues, so creating a real debate on local priorities that really matter to people".

We are aware of concerns that decoupling could lead to a lower turnout in local elections, and that the focus and motivation of those who vote could still be on national or United Kingdom-wide issues. Concern about voter turnout is not new: in the 1974 regional elections in Scotland, 35 years ago, there was a turnout of 50 per cent. The next 11 sets of local government elections failed to reach that figure.

In 1999, the local government elections were combined with elections to the Scottish Parliament, and the turnout rose to 58 per cent. That figure fell back to 50 per cent in 2003, and rose to 52 per cent in 2007. I have used that figure of 50 per cent as a comparison, but I am certainly not suggesting that it should be a target. The maths is simple: even if we hit 50 per cent, it means that half of those who are entitled to vote have not voted. There is, however, no simple answer to that—improving turnout is a fundamental issue that must be viewed beyond the context of decoupled elections.

It falls on all of us—politicians, political parties, local authorities and civic society—to focus on the reasons for low turnout and to give people a reason to turn out in local elections. We need to encourage a greater level of public participation across the board; to raise the profile of local government issues and candidates; and to increase voter interest and the general understanding of the democratic process. We must consider the way in which we use voter education material and campaigns to explain the aims of elections and to motivate individuals to register to vote and use their vote.

The issue is also about access and inclusion. We need to ensure that as many people as possible have access to the democratic process and that they feel motivated to take part and be included in that process. We must identify the groups in our society that are harder to reach, and find new ways to engage with them. In a strong democracy, groups that are less motivated to vote, and so are less likely to vote, deserve to be included in the democratic process as much as the rest of us. I look forward to working with the committee on examining ways in which the turnout for local government elections can be increased.

I have mentioned the importance of information campaigns, and I share the committee's view that improving voter information and raising awareness about elections is vital. In 2007, the vote Scotland campaign was run jointly by the then Scottish Executive and the Electoral Commission. It cost £1.25 million, and was funded by the Executive. The information campaign ahead of the 2012 local government elections will be important—we will work with the Electoral Commission and local authorities to develop an effective campaign.

As part of that, we will need to consider the balance between national and local information campaigns; the committee considered that issue when it took evidence on the bill. Witnesses, including the Electoral Commission and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, argued strongly and convincingly that it was important that local authorities and returning officers should promote local information campaigns. If we are promoting local democracy and local government, local authorities should share the responsibility for driving that forward.

The committee heard that there is a local dimension to voter information that justifies allowing a returning officer the discretion to use a set of messages that reflect the community in which the officer lives and works. Funding for local authority campaigns will form an important part of those discussions at the right time.

The committee heard evidence about the role of the Electoral Commission, which I discussed with members when I appeared before them. The Scottish Government has a constructive relationship with the commission, and, as I told the committee, I would be happy to consider formally extending the commission's role to cover local government elections in Scotland. However, before I sought to bring any necessary proposals to the Parliament, I would want to be convinced that doing so would improve the current situation.

The former Scottish Executive worked closely with the commission on the preparations for the 2003 and 2007 combined elections, in areas such as joint information campaigns and the preparation of training material for returning officers and their staff. I am willing to examine the issue further, but I do not believe that we should legislate for the sake of it if the same effect can be achieved through informal and co-operative means.

With regard to the bill's provisions on increasing the availability of voter information, I am pleased that the committee welcomed the Government's proposals to publish voter information at polling station level. The introduction of the single transferable vote system and the use of e-counting have increased the amount of voting information that is available. The bill provides for the publication in the future of information on the number of preference votes that are cast and transferred at each stage between candidates at polling station level rather than at ward level.

I hope that it goes without saying, but I assure Parliament that we will do all that we can to ensure that the secrecy of the ballot is maintained. Our proposals are designed to increase the transparency of the electoral process; they are not intended to, and nor will they, affect the right of the individual to a secret vote.

Regulations will provide, in a situation in which there is even a slight possibility that a particular polling station is so small that there is a risk that an individual voter could be identified, for the voter information to be amalgamated with that from a neighbouring polling station until the number of votes reaches a minimum threshold. The threshold that we have in mind is 200, which is the level that is used for Scottish parliamentary elections.

The bill is a further important step towards improving the administration of elections in Scotland, and it will implement a key recommendation of the Gould report. It is part of a programme that involves working with others towards the common aim of giving voters the electoral system that they deserve. The bill removes a source of potential confusion for voters and should make the voting process easier for the voter, which must be our aim. Separating local government elections from elections to the Parliament will give those local elections the prominence that they deserve.

It is right that, as we debate the bill at stage 1, we put the voter at the centre of our thoughts as far as the whole process is concerned. All of us have regrets about the 2007 elections, and I am glad that the Parliament now has the chance to begin to put right some of the problems that existed at that time.

It is with pleasure that I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

As the convener of the lead committee on the bill, I am pleased to be taking part in the debate. I thank all those who gave us written and oral evidence and I thank the clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre researchers and my colleagues on the committee.

Whether to decouple the local government and Scottish Parliament elections, and the debacle of the 2007 elections, are issues that the committee has considered in great detail. Ron Gould produced a comprehensive report and, following its publication, we conducted our own inquiry into the issues, on which we reported to Parliament in June 2008.

Among our many recommendations, we endorsed the view that the Scottish Parliament and local government elections should be decoupled. It was clear from the evidence that we took that, although there have been differing views over the years, there is now broad agreement that the elections should be separated.

However, some concerns were raised with us, which we have highlighted in our report. The first of those is about turnout, which is an issue that we also considered as part of our inquiry into the 2007 elections. People were concerned that if the local government elections were held separately, turnout would fall. However, we recognise that the issue of turnout is broader than just the decoupling of elections. In evidence, Dave Watson from Unison said:

"All of us—civic society, politicians, political parties and local authorities—need to focus on the reasons for the low turnout by doing much more work to make people want to turn out in local elections."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 25 March 2009; c 1884.]

We welcome the indication from the Minister for Parliamentary Business that he would be happy to engage with the committee on that, and we look forward to working with the Scottish Government on the issue. I hope to hear—today or soon—how we can take that work forward.

Our report shows that we are concerned about voter registration. Of course, that is a reserved issue, so we are calling on the Scottish Government to continue to work with the UK Government to increase levels of registration.

As we are all painfully aware, there was a lot of voter confusion during the 2007 elections. In our inquiry into those elections, we pointed out that the high level of rejected ballots in the Scottish Parliament election should not eclipse the high level of rejected ballots in the local government elections. It is clear that there needs to be further information about how the STV system works.

Ron Gould said in his report:

"In essence, the local government elections are not simply about ensuring a reasonable number of voters show up at the polls on polling day. More important is that they engage with the campaign in a meaningful manner and make a knowledgeable decision on their ballot paper."

There is a consensus that there needs to be an information campaign to raise awareness about the importance of local government elections and to educate people on the method of voting.

We have asked the Scottish Government to consider the role that the Electoral Commission can play in any information campaign, given that it does not have a statutory role in relation to local government elections in Scotland. Given the need for a good information campaign, it is also important that there is sufficient funding. Tom Aitchison, the chief executive of and returning officer for the City of Edinburgh Council, told the committee that he remembered being allocated somewhere in the region of £15,000 to promote public awareness in 2007, which does not seem sufficient funding for a city the size of Edinburgh. He told us that he would

"strongly support any move towards making more resources available generally for election management in Scotland and specifically for public awareness to encourage people to vote and so get a better turnout."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 25 March 2009; c 1865-66.]

Given how vital public information campaigns will be in helping people to engage with the process and educating them about the STV system, the committee has recommended that there should be a meaningful discussion with local authorities over the funding that would be required, and that that funding should be reflected in the next Scottish Government spending review.

Funding is also an issue when it comes to e-counting. After 2007, the word "e-counting" should send a shudder through most of us in the Parliament. However, we need e-counting for local government elections because of the counting method that is used for STV elections. Again, that raises the issue of costs.

The Association of Electoral Administrators was concerned about that, given that the Scotland Office will not be contributing as it did in 2007. William Pollock from the association said:

"It is likely that the costs would increase because the economies of scale that are achieved with a combined election would not be achieved with decoupling. Under the current arrangement, the costs will fall on the local authority if the matter is not addressed."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 25 March 2009; c 1868-69.]

The minister told the committee that a cost cannot be put on an e-counting system yet because the Scottish Government has to go through a competitive tendering process. As with the other costs of the bill, it is not clear how much local government will have to find on its own and what money it will get from central Government.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Will the member take an intervention?

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I ask the minister to respond when he sums up. Sorry—I am pressed for time.

The costs of the bill have been a general concern for the committee throughout its scrutiny of the bill. The committee expects that the Scottish Government will provide information on how the costs will be split between the Government and local authorities as soon as possible.

The other main provision in the bill is to allow voting information down to polling-station level to be published. I am sure that we all agree that it will be helpful to us to have information such as the number of preferences cast and the votes transferred between candidates at each stage. Equally, I am sure that we all agree with the minister that a secret ballot is fundamental to democracy and that any changes must protect that fundamental right. We agree with the minister that this is a balancing act that we have to get right. The Electoral Commission appears to agree that using a threshold of 200 votes will help to protect a voter's anonymity. As we say in our report, it is clear that the proposal in the bill to publish voter information at polling-station level is welcome, provided that adequate measures are put in place to ensure the secrecy of the ballot.

I have spoken about the potential costs of public information campaigns and the e-counting system, and I return to the issue of costs. I thank the Finance Committee for its report to us on the financial memorandum to the bill. We raised a number of issues arising from that report with the minister.

The main issue is the uncertainty over what the split of costs will be between central and local government. Although the minister has promised to nail down the costs for e-counting as soon as possible, and to try to pre-commit that money before the next spending review, we have not received the same commitment for other costs. We are aware of concerns about the need for all of this to be adequately funded, and we have recommended that the Scottish Government should take account of those concerns in determining local government funding requirements for the next spending review.

I have spoken about the concerns that we have highlighted in our report. We have made a number of recommendations, particularly with regard to the important area of funding. I hope that the Scottish Government will address that issue.

However, as I have said, there is broad agreement with the aims of the bill. The committee recommends that Parliament should agree to the general principles of the bill.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I have been informed that one speaker will not be taking part in the debate, so we are not quite as tight for time as we were. Nonetheless, we do not have a lot of time available.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I speak in support of the bill on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party. I thank the Local Government and Communities Committee for the report, and the minister for his opening remarks and the constructive style that he adopted. Although Labour believes that it is not always necessary to hold elections on separate days, we recognise that voters found the use of different voting systems on the same day in the May 2007 elections confusing. That is why we support the basic principle of decoupling the elections to local councils and the Scottish Parliament.

As the minister reminded us—those painful memories—there was so much wrong with the conduct of the previous set of elections to both bodies that it would be wrong to argue that the sole or main cause of the voter confusion was the fact that the elections were conjoined. There were other matters at stake, too.

As many reports have highlighted, and as many people have commented, we are all responsible for many aspects of what is now largely regarded as a debacle of an election. There was much wrong with what happened on that day, such as the different electoral systems at play, the party descriptions, the construct of the ballot paper and the failure of the electronic voting systems. That is why we had an independent review of the elections by Professor Gould. One of the outcomes of the review is that we are now debating a mechanism that will decouple the two elections, with effect from May 2011.

Like others, I believe that a price will be paid for decoupling in terms of voter turnout. In 2001, the Scottish Executive introduced the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill, which provided that council elections should coincide with Scottish Parliament elections. The coupling of the elections in 1999 and 2003 did not seem to produce problems; as we all know, the electorate did not have much to say about the coupling of those elections in 1999 and 2003.

The decision that was taken then was correct, in the prevailing circumstances, before the introduction of proportional representation to local government and barely halfway through the first session of the Parliament. The decision had one of the desired effects, which was to increase turnout for the local government elections in subsequent years. The minister has already mentioned that.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

The member talks about accepting the independent Gould report, but why did the Labour and Liberal Executive, when it introduced the bill to couple the elections, ignore both the McIntosh report and the Kerley report, which had recommended decoupling?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Because we thought that the bill that we introduced offered a better way in which to hold elections. It increased voter turnout, attention and participation and was therefore beneficial. As I was trying to say earlier, the introduction of different electoral systems, among many other reasons and difficulties, led to the debacle in 2007. Had that not happened, I do not believe that we would be here today trying to decouple the elections.

Let us consider the statistics—and the minister was quite right to point out some of these issues. In the non-combined elections held between 1974 and 1995, turnout was 7 per cent lower than the average for combined elections held since 1999. The average turnout was 45.9 per cent in the non-combined elections but 53.3 per cent for the combined elections held since 1999.

The first elections, I would argue, were undoubtedly better days for our fledgling democracy than today. However, we might therefore expect to see a considerable—and perhaps more than would be commensurate—fall in voter turnout as a consequence of decoupling. That is not a prospect that we should dismiss lightly.

Earlier speakers have addressed the imperative that voters should be confident in the electoral system. We must all encourage greater voter turnout. In Labour, we believe that that is a matter of social justice and basic enfranchisement. We must address it. The highest turnout at the previous election was in the affluent Eastwood constituency, with a turnout of 63.38 per cent, and the lowest was in Glasgow Shettleston, which has well-documented levels of social deprivation, and where the turnout dropped to 33.43 per cent. That is why we must target our efforts at increasing voter involvement; there should be a comprehensive information and education programme. As others have suggested, that should be a priority and it must be undertaken by the Electoral Commission on our behalf.

We also support the proposal that the next council elections should be held in 2012 and 2017. After that, we agree that local government elections should revert to a four-year electoral cycle, with elections taking place halfway through a session of the Scottish Parliament.

We also believe that the Parliament should consider listing or grouping candidates by party alphabetical order, as opposed to the present system of arranging surnames alphabetically. There is strong anecdotal evidence that candidates at the top of the alphabetically arranged list on the ballot paper fared better than those at the bottom of the list. We support many of the measures in the bill, but I throw that idea into the discussion.

As we know, significant changes have already taken place: there have been separate ballot papers; there will be a longer period between the close of nominations and the date of the election; and changes in the law governing the conduct of elections will come into force at least six months before the date of the election.

I will close now as I am running short of time. We need a clear commitment from the Scottish Government, which Duncan McNeil has asked for, to meet the costs that are involved in holding the elections separately.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I call Jim Tolson.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

This is a difficult—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

But—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Carry on, Mr Tolson.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

I did wonder, but the order of speakers is in your hands, Presiding Officer.

This is a difficult debate, not because there will be much argument between the parties in the chamber but rather because there is so much consensus. I welcome that consensus, and the fact that Mr McLetchie has allowed me to carry on in his place; however, that does not make me a Tory—thank God.

Whether or not we come from a background in local government, as I do, I am sure that the first point on which we can all agree is that the credibility of local government in Scotland is essential if the wide range of services that it delivers is to be respected by all Scotland's people. The principal issue in the bill is the decoupling of the Scottish local government elections from the parliamentary elections. I am long enough in the tooth, at least in my local government experience, to recall the concerns that arose in 1999 when the first elections to the Scottish Parliament were held on the same day as those for Scottish local government. People were concerned that that would be damaging to local government. Arguments similar to those that we are having today raged about the loss of focus on local government issues when the focus of the electorate and the press would be on elections to the new Parliament. And so it proved.

Now, three elections to the Scottish Parliament later, it is virtually unanimously accepted that having the Scottish Parliament and local authority elections on the same day is just not working. Local government issues are not getting the press profile that they deserve, and the coupling is causing some confusion because of the different voting systems. It is also diminishing the respect that people have for local government.

However, it is fair to say that the views on decoupling are not all one-sided, and Liberal Democrats have been among those who have expressed concerns about the move at various stages. Those concerns include concerns over voter turnout. Some respondents to the Scottish Government's consultation on decoupling were concerned about a range of electoral administration issues, but their most notable concern was that lower voter turnout was a likely result.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

I am sorry, but I am rather tight for time. I beg Mr Brown's pardon.

Voter turnout was not the only concern that many people had over a decoupled election; they also had concerns over the cost of decoupling to the public purse. Some respondents to the Scottish Government's consultation on decoupling raised concerns about the cost. The financial memorandum to the bill outlines two options to estimate the total additional costs of decoupling to all local authorities combined. The estimate is between £4.5 million and £5 million. I raised concerns at the Local Government and Communities Committee that the cost could be more like £8 million. I guess that time will tell.

Liberal Democrats were the only respondents to oppose the concept on the basis of issues surrounding voter turnout, cost and the burden on local authorities. However, at our spring conference 2009, the Scottish Liberal Democrats voted in favour of decoupling. The tight vote at our conference showed that, contrary to some opinion, councillors were not going to vote automatically for a longer term simply to keep themselves in office. Rather, feedback that I have received from many of my Lib Dem councillor friends is that they shared many of the concerns that I mentioned a few minutes ago.

Decoupling is not the only aim of the bill. It will also make provision for the publication of electoral data down to polling-station level. That will provide interesting and useful information—not just for political geeks like me, but for other agencies and individual members of the public, so that they can gain a better understanding of how the votes were cast in their area. However, as Duncan McNeil and others have said in relation to secrecy, that is not to say that any individual's vote, or small group of people's votes, should be identifiable. The Liberal Democrats accept the premise that voter information should not be released if the polling station has had fewer than 200 votes cast.

I turn now to the Government's role. The Government does not respect the autonomy and accountability of local government. The SNP has tied local authorities into unrealistic manifesto promises, complicated single outcome agreements, and, worst of all, its greatly discredited so-called historic concordat. The decision-making abilities and spending priorities of local authorities have been continually constrained by the Government's impositions.

We are cautious not to burden local authorities further with unachievable or impractical responsibilities. Again and again, we hear Mr Swinney say that, no matter what extra burdens he places on local government, local government signed up to a financial deal in the concordat that gives no extra money to meet those extra commitments. Well, for Mr Swinney and for the Scottish Government, that just does not wash.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Will Mr Tolson please give way?

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

I am tight for time, but the minister will have a chance to respond when he sums up.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I wish that he would give way—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order. Mr Tolson, you should address the motion.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

Liberal Democrats have long fought for the autonomy of local government and for recognition of the importance and significance of governance at that level.

The SNP claims that it devolves responsibility to local authorities, providing them with the appropriate means and powers. Last year, Brian Adam claimed:

"The historic concordat is about respect, not central control."—[Official Report, 11 December 2008; c 13392.]

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. A moment ago, you ruled that the member should stick to the motion that is under debate. He is straying from that and obviously did not hear you. Perhaps you could remind him.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I take the point of order. I was going to tell the member that he must address the motion to agree the first principles of the bill and link his remarks to the bill.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

I will move on, if it is your wish that I do so.

The Liberal Democrats will support the bill at stage 1 in today's vote. However, the Government must consider carefully the genuine concerns that have been raised by many people in evidence to the committee, in the chamber and elsewhere. Only by providing genuine support, including financial support to local authorities, will the bill achieve its true aim of returning to local government the respect that it deserves.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Now—I am sure that it will have been worth waiting for—I call David McLetchie.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. The voice of the righteous cannot be silenced for long in Scotland's Parliament.

"I told you so," is often a rather smug and self-serving comment that is neither endearing nor charitable. However, there are rare occasions on which it is fully justified, and this is one of them. Those of us who have long supported the decoupling of Scottish Parliament and local government elections are entitled to say, "I told you so," to the dispossessed parties of the ancien régime. The Conservatives are entitled to say it because the decoupling of the elections has been a commitment in our two most recent manifestos and because, in the previous session, the measure was promoted in a member's bill by a Conservative MSP that had the support of the SNP. In respect of that, I acknowledge and pay tribute to the work of Tricia Marwick, who will speak later in the debate.

All of that pre-dates the 2007 elections fiasco, the recommendations of the Gould report and now the unanimous recommendation of the Local Government and Communities Committee on the bill. Moreover, it was not just the Conservatives and the SNP who "told you so". The previous Scottish Executive was told by no fewer than three independent committees during its eight years in office that decoupling was a sensible measure to put into effect.

First, we had the report of the commission that was chaired by Sir Neil McIntosh on local government and the Scottish Parliament, which was published in 1999. It recommended that

"the local government elections should be timed to take place at the mid-point of the Parliament."

It said that combining the two elections would

"mean that the local elections would tend always to be held under the shadow ... of the parliamentary election and that national issues will dominate local elections even more than they tend to do ... The result is to weaken the democratic mandate of local government."

Next up, only a year later, came the report of the renewing local democracy working group, which was chaired by Richard Kerley. It said:

"coincident elections would tend to reduce the electorate's focus on local government issues. Conversely, separate elections would ensure that local government issues are at the heart of local government elections: this seems to us an essential part of democracy and democratic renewal".

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

rose—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Here comes the old regime.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Attacking the smugness of the new partnership in the Scottish Parliament between the Tories and the SNP.

Does the member believe that every local councillor who lost his or her seat under Thatcher lost it as a direct result of his or her local ability, the fact that they were not a good councillor or the conduct of the council? Was it not simply the case that national issues prevailed in those local elections?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

In those days, the results of local elections were undoubtedly down to a mixture of the two—I fully acknowledge that—and we all know the consequences. That was recognised in the reports that the previous Scottish Executive received from the independent committees. The last one to which I referred was even chaired by a former Labour member of the City of Edinburgh Council.

That excellent advice was received from those two committees—so what happened? The advice was promptly ignored by Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Even then, that was not the end of the matter. Six years later, we had the report of the Arbuthnott commission, entitled "Putting Citizens First: Boundaries, Voting and Representation in Scotland". Yet again, after a thorough examination of the issues, the report recommended a decoupling of the Scottish Parliament and local government elections. In a remarkably prescient section of the report, given what was to come the following year, the Arbuthnott commission stated:

"decoupling the elections would reduce the complexity of voting, potentially reduce voter confusion and help keep the numbers of invalid votes to a minimum. It would also reduce administrative complexity in the planning, management and counting of the elections, and enhance the transparency of the electoral process, especially allowing attention to be focused on local issues."

Nevertheless, the report's recommendations were in vain. Still, Labour and the Liberal Democrats would not listen. No matter how many independent committees told them to do otherwise, they persisted in the view that coincidental elections were desirable. For them, it was a case of putting citizens last. We then had the experience of 2007 and the Gould report, and—miracle of miracles—they changed their minds. We are therefore very much entitled to say, "We told you so." In fact, just about everybody told them so. It is a pity that it took the 2007 fiasco to change their opinion.

Some of the same closed minds have tried to perpetuate the myth that there was nothing wrong with the single transferable vote system at the conjoined elections in 2007 and that all the failings were to do with how the Scottish Parliament elections were organised and the design of the ballot paper. That is totally untrue, as Duncan McNeil pointed out, given the unprecedented number of rejected ballot papers in the council elections.

All of that underlines the importance of ensuring that we do not stop simply at decoupling. It is important that we have proper voter education campaigns to ensure that, as far as possible, everyone understands how to cast a valid vote in accordance with his or her preferences. We also need an imaginative public information campaign to inform voters of the functions of local government and the importance of the services that our councils provide to communities and individuals, in an endeavour to encourage more focus on local issues in local elections. As the committee's report makes clear, however, that is not being adequately addressed at present.

The bill has had a long gestation period, but we are finally about to do what we should have done 10 years ago. If the bill is passed, it will be another three years before we re-elect our councils. That is three years in which—finally—to get it right, to do our utmost to maximise voter participation and to give local government in Scotland its due place in the sun. I support the motion.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

It is a personal pleasure to speak in this stage 1 debate on the decoupling of local government and Scottish Parliament elections. As David McLetchie has said, for eight long years the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats set their faces against reason and democracy in refusing to decouple the elections. However, today we have heard no apology or admission that they were wrong, nor an admission that the coincidence of the elections contributed to the debacle of the elections in 2007.

The decoupling of the two sets of elections is a long-standing commitment of the Conservatives as well as the Scottish National Party—I freely acknowledge that. However, it has taken an SNP Government to produce the bill, just as it took an SNP Government to abolish the tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges, to provide free school meals and to provide free prescriptions by 2011. Those are all measures that were proposed by the SNP in opposition and opposed by the previous Labour and Liberal Democrat Executive.

I never understood the stubborn refusal of Labour and the Liberal Democrats to decouple the two sets of elections. There seemed no logic to that refusal, which flew in the face of all the evidence. In 2001, I spoke in the debate when Labour and the Liberal Democrats brought to Parliament the bill to combine the two sets of elections. I said then:

"The Executive believes that the bill will increase the turnout at local elections. That is no doubt true, as parliamentary elections currently attract larger turnouts. However, such turnouts will not confer any additional democratic legitimacy on local government. ... The serious flaw in the Executive's argument is its naive suggestion that an artificially inflated turnout provides an increased mandate for local government. It is quite clear that the reverse is true, and that will have a cost in the form of a democratic loss for the very local authorities for whom the bill is intended. The local agenda will be overshadowed and overtaken by the coverage of national elections. No member of this chamber could seriously argue that local authority issues will even surface, far less be given a decent hearing, in the press mêleé of the parliamentary election campaign. Councillors will not be able to make their case for election or re-election as they will be completely displaced from the agenda by MSPs seeking to make their case."—[Official Report, 20 December 2001; c 5031.]

That was the argument for not having coincident elections, but it was rejected.

Had it only been the Opposition parties that opposed coincident elections, I might have understood the refusal of Labour and the Liberal Democrats to decouple the elections, but that was not the case. In 1999, the report of the McIntosh commission recommended that the two sets of elections should be separated and that local government elections should be held at the mid-point of the parliamentary session. The report of the renewing local democracy working group that was set up by Wendy Alexander and chaired by Richard Kerley recommended in 2000 that the two elections should be separated. In the face of all that evidence, the Executive announced that it would legislate to bring the two elections together.

In 2006, the Arbuthnott commission recommended decoupling—I was going to use a quote from the commission's report about the potential for confusion, but David McLetchie has already put it on the record.

During the passage of the Executive's Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004, which introduced single transferable vote proportional representation, my reasoned stage 3 amendment to decouple the elections was defeated. David Mundell's proposed local government elections (Scotland) bill, which sought to decouple the elections, found support among the Scottish National Party but went no further.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats ensured that, in 2003 and 2007, the local government elections and the Scottish Parliament elections were held on the same day. The debacle of the 2007 election was, in part, caused by the insistence of Labour and the Liberal Democrats to introduce a new form of voting for the local government elections even though those elections were to be held on the same day as the Scottish Parliament elections. Everyone told them that there would be difficulties in introducing a new form of local government elections in that manner, as little information about the changes would get through to the voters, which would lead to confusion. As David McLetchie so eloquently said, they were telt.

As the Gould report made clear, separating the two elections will minimise the potential for voter confusion. We are convinced that combined elections are a disservice not only to local councils and candidates but to the electorate. The disservice that Labour and the Liberal Democrats did to local government over the eight years deserves at least an apology, although I notice that the Liberal Democrats have put forward as speakers in this debate two members who were not even in the Parliament from 1999 to 2007.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I should point out that the two Liberal Democrat members who are present today are the party's local government spokespeople.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

I have no doubt that that is the case, but Iain Smith was the local government spokesperson who set his face against the decoupling of the local and parliamentary elections, and I would have loved to have heard him say in today's debate, "I am sorry, Mrs Marwick. I am sorry, Mr McLetchie. All of the arguments you made were absolutely right and I was wrong." It would have been nice to have heard that apology, but it is no surprise that he is not here to offer it.

It is important that we go forward, but there should be an admission of guilt on the part of the guilty people. I am delighted that an SNP Government has introduced this bill, and it goes without saying that the minister will have my whole-hearted support at 5 o'clock.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate, and I support the general principles of the bill. It is important that we learn the lessons of 2007, but we should also look to the future rather than rehearse the arguments that were made in the run-up to the 2007 elections, as some other speakers have done.

There is no doubt that elections are very much at the heart of politics and close to politicians. I participated in my first election campaign in 1982, and I have always enjoyed elections. I enjoy the process of engaging with voters, competing with the other political parties and the build-up to election day itself, which is the climax of the process, when people turn out and vote and the results are declared.

It was, therefore, a matter of great pride to me when I stood for the first time as a constituency candidate in the Scottish Parliament elections in 2007. That pride diminished somewhat as I witnessed the events of the day. I stood in polling stations and watched voters being confused by the number of ballot papers that they had to complete and the different electoral systems that they had to deal with, and I saw them leaving the voting booths and being horrified when they were told that they had not completed their ballot papers correctly. As the day and the night unfolded, it became clear that there were thousands of uncounted ballot papers in the Scottish Parliament elections and that, as others have said, there was an unusually high proportion of spoiled ballot papers in the local government elections.

Clearly, lessons had to be learned. From that point of view, I think that decoupling the elections is the right thing to do, as that will allow voters to be clear about the elections that they are participating in. Following on from that, it is logical that we will have to introduce a new cycle of elections, and it is correct that the next local government elections should be in 2012 and 2017 and that, thereafter, they should revert to a traditional four-year cycle.

There has been a great deal of discussion about voter turnout. One risk of decoupling the elections concerns the impact on voter turnout in 2012. We should remember that 2012 will be the third year in a row that the public will have participated in elections: this year, we have the European elections; next year, we will probably have a UK general election; and the following year, we will have Scottish Parliament elections. I should correct myself—that means that the elections in 2012 will be the fourth time in a row that people will have been asked to vote, but that just strengthens my point.

It is therefore important that we address the issue of voter education and try to increase voter turnout. Having witnessed the STV system at work in 2007 and in subsequent council by-elections, I am clear that there is still some confusion about the system. I have seen voters appearing at the polling station a bit worried about the process of casting their vote in this new system. We have to overcome those fears by embarking on a proper programme of voter education.

There are also important issues about the differences in turnout across the country. I recently watched on BBC Parliament some of the rerun of the coverage of the 1979 general election—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

One of the best.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I know, it was a really disappointing day.

One fascinating fact about that election was that, in some constituencies, the turnout was close to 80 per cent. I will resist the temptation to make a comment about Margaret Thatcher but, over the past 30 years, turnouts have decreased somewhat. In some areas of the country, particularly those areas that have high rates of social deprivation, there are extremely low turnouts. That means that only certain groups of people are participating and having their voices heard. We have to make sure that we reach out to the silent minority.

We must address the issue of the ordering of names on the ballot paper, which Andy Kerr talked about. There is statistical and anecdotal evidence that those who appeared higher up the ballot paper had an advantage over someone with whom they were running on a joint party ticket but whose name appeared lower down the list. For example, if a party had a Crawford/Whitton ticket, the Crawford candidate would be favoured. As we approach 2012, we do not want there to be a rush of people changing their name to "Anderson", say, in order to appear further up the ballot paper. That is a serious issue, and I ask the minister to say in his summing-up speech whether it will be dealt with in the bill or in further legislation.

Important issues are at stake, at the heart of which is the enhancement of the democratic process. I support the general principles of the bill.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Every member will have their own experiences of the Scottish Parliament and local government elections of May 2007. Many people might assume that, by definition, because they were elected and as a result hold a place in their respective chambers, everything was fine in those elections. To make such an assumption is to do the voting public a gross disservice.

The Local Government and Communities Committee's report on the bill states clearly that the elections that were held on 3 May 2007 gave serious cause for concern because of their creation of fault lines in engagement with voters. The number of rejected ballot papers in the 2007 local government elections was significantly higher in comparison with the corresponding numbers in the 2003 and 1999 elections, although we must bear in mind that the 2007 local government elections were held under an STV system.

The responses to the Scottish Government's consultation show that there is a high level of support for decoupling local government and Scottish Parliament elections to address apparent voter confusion. As other speakers have said, there is a crossover between the conclusions of the Gould report and the research that was conducted by other organisations. The Gould report was quite clear in advocating that Scottish Parliament and local government elections be separated. The high number of rejected ballot papers in 2007 caused much concern about the integrity of the process. That issue is dealt with in studies by the Electoral Reform Society, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Scotland Office, and in the Scottish Government's response to the Gould report.

The important principle as far as the electoral process is concerned is that the two sets of elections should not be held on the same day. In a vote on 10 January 2008, the Parliament expressed its will that local government and Scottish Parliament elections should be decoupled.

As was stated when the Parliament debated the Gould report on 9 October 2008, if we wish to provide some background to the debate, we need only examine "Scottish Council Elections 2007: Results and Analysis" by Bochel and Denver, published by the University of Lincoln in 2007. That research states that there was an increase in the number of rejected ballot papers in the 2007 local government elections compared with previous local government elections, although the increase was not as great as that in the 2007 Scottish Parliament election. In the opinion of Bochel and Denver, given that most people were unfamiliar with the use of an STV system in multimember wards, a rejected ballot paper rate of 1.83 per cent did not seem unreasonable.

The fact that the evidence that was given to the committee centred on turnout is reflected in its report. In his evidence, Tom Aitchison of SOLACE noted that pre-2007 returning officers were split down the middle: some believed that decoupling would allow local issues to be focused on at local government elections, whereas others argued that the two sets of elections should continue to be held on the same day.

The committee's key recommendation is that the UK and Scottish Governments should continue with their efforts to improve levels of voter registration. I note that a public campaign is under way to get voters to register. In his evidence to the committee, Tom Aitchison said that between 3 and 5 per cent of potential voters do not register to vote. In paragraph 48 on page 10 of its report, the committee mentions the need

"to educate voters about the STV voting system and that such campaigns should be adequately funded".

I will not go into detail on the weighted inclusive Gregory method of calculating the distribution of seats or votes—I thought that Mr McLetchie would deal with that.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Can the member clarify whether he is referring to the non-specific or the specific Gregory proposal?

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I will leave that to the minister to decide.

The committee's report refers to the clear linkages between voter information at polling stations and e-counting. I welcome the fact that the committee broadly agrees with the Scottish Government's intention to decouple the elections, even though it provides a few caveats about the associated financial costs falling to local authorities.

I welcome the committee's report and the broad principles that it contains. I record my thanks to committee members, clerks and those who provided evidence for their efforts to ensure that we have a robust voting system for future local government elections. I welcome the opportunity to scrutinise the bill, and I urge all members to support its general principles at decision time. I look forward to future local government elections in Scotland being stand-alone elections.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

As we have heard, the bill has two policy objectives: to decouple Scottish Parliament and local government elections by moving local government elections to midway between Scottish Parliament elections; and to make post-election voter information available in greater detail. Like many other members, I will mainly address the first objective, but I put on record my support for the second—although I echo the minister's caution about the need to retain voter confidentiality.

As many members have said, the Parliament has already debated decoupling, and I readily admit that I did not support it then. I still do not believe that having two elections on the same day need be a disaster. In fact, some local authorities that support decoupling are nevertheless seeking to hold by-elections on the same day as this year's European elections. As the committee discussed, future council elections could coincide with Westminster or European Parliament elections. As we heard in evidence, even in cases in which such elections are a few weeks apart, problems could be caused, both for the organisation of the elections and for voters. However, I was pleased to hear that witnesses from SOLACE, the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland and the Association of Electoral Administrators are already considering such eventualities.

Although I might still not be convinced that decoupling is a good move, I am convinced that it is now unavoidable. I do not need to go back over the debacle that occurred in 2007, to which references have already been made, as I am sure that no member will ever forget it. The fact that some voters went to the polling station, cast their vote and then found that it was not counted resulted in a huge loss of confidence in the electoral system. The risk that voter turnout would fall further as a result of that lack of confidence had to be addressed. The proposed change shows the electorate that we are taking their concerns seriously and, most important, that we have acted.

Once I had accepted that decoupling should go ahead, my next concern was that the bill should address any problems that might be associated with it. I have mentioned the possibility of other elections occurring at the same time as local government elections, and I appreciate that that issue is being considered. However, I am also concerned about the funding of a separate set of elections. It is clear that savings could be made when the two sets of elections were held on the same day. The minister has presented to Parliament a financial memorandum that puts the cost of holding separate elections at between £4.5 million and £5 million, but I would appreciate it if he could confirm my understanding—which I expect is that of other committee members—that that figure does not include the cost of the e-counting system.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I can confirm that that figure does not include the cost of the e-counting system. I can also confirm that, after discussions with local authority representatives and people who are involved in electoral administration, they have accepted the argument that local government's baseline already includes £1.9 million for that, although it falls into the next spending review period. We are committed to funding the e-counting system.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I thank the minister for that intervention.

The committee was clear that the cost of e-counting cannot be discussed in detail at this stage because of commercial confidentiality issues, particularly if there is likely to be a bidding process. I accept that up to a point, but I am pleased that the minister recognises that the issue still has to be discussed.

I agreed with the minister when he told the committee that the STV system requires e-counting. However, we should not forget that 2012—which is when local government elections will take place if the bill is passed—is also the year of the Greater London Authority elections, and it would be unfortunate if they were used to inflate the cost of e-counting or if they created problems in the right equipment and personnel being put in place. Committee witnesses had obviously considered those issues, but I hope that the minister provides more reassurance in that respect.

It is essential that the Scottish Government clarifies how the costs of local government elections will be apportioned between it and local authorities. The Finance Committee was right to raise concerns about talk of savings. After all, if we are to restore voters' confidence in the electoral process, we have to get things right in 2012, and any attempt to make some inconsequential savings risks sending out the wrong message.

As for the issue of voter information, which has been mentioned, it is vital that voters understand the STV system. As other members have pointed out, mistakes were clearly made on ballot papers in 2007, and some votes were counted only after a certain amount of flexibility was allowed. People need more information, and I hope that the proposal to introduce information staff at polling stations, which I think is a good move, will be supported.

I have acknowledged that decoupling is one response to the problems of 2007. Asking people to come out and vote more often will require electoral registration officers and the political parties to put in more work; after all, we all have a responsibility to guard against further falls in turnout at elections. Although I must stress that the proposal needs to be properly resourced, I support the bill's general principles.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

People's faith in individual politicians can be undermined by many things—indeed, the potential in that respect is almost limitless—but their faith in the whole democratic process can be undermined by only a relatively small number of doubts. One fear is that all politicians are on the take, and the other is that their vote has not been counted. As far as the first fear is concerned, I do not need to elaborate on the disaster movie that is unfolding elsewhere. As for the second, the experience of 2007 is certainly instructive.

We have rehearsed many times both here and in committee the huge organisational problems that occurred in May 2007, when the local government elections took place on the same day as the Scottish Parliament elections. The bill seeks to restore public confidence in the electoral system by making the crucial simplification of decoupling local and national elections and ensuring that they take place on different days.

Although the bill's primary concern is local government elections, I believe that, given what happened on May 2007, it will have a significant impact on the running of parliamentary elections. For example, in my Western Isles constituency, 446 of the more than 13,000 parliamentary votes that were cast were spoiled; in other words, 3.27 per cent of those who tried to vote had their votes disallowed. For the local government elections, the figure was 310. As in other areas, the amount of votes rejected in 2003 was, in comparison, tiny. For example, in 2003, only 74 ballot papers were rejected in the Scottish Parliament elections and only 78 in the council elections.

The Local Government and Communities Committee took a lot of evidence on the very significant discrepancy between the 2003 and 2007 elections. Although the coincidence of council and national elections on the same day does not explain the whole problem, it certainly explains part of it. In 2007, many votes were disallowed because those who were casting them simply did not understand the difference between the two voting systems. That said, it is interesting to note that the 4.25 per cent figure for rejected constituency parliamentary ballot papers in Scotland as a whole was significantly greater than the percentage in the Western Isles, which perhaps confirms that, as many of us already knew, the people of the Western Isles constitute an unusually politically sophisticated electorate. I am therefore happy to support these moves to decouple local and parliamentary elections and to move back local elections until, eventually, they are held at the midpoint of the parliamentary term.

To those who fear that, cut loose from national elections, council elections will suffer from low turnout, I have to say that I do not accept the argument that election turnout should be boosted at all costs. We desperately need to revive our local economy, and that cannot be achieved without a genuine public debate about local rather than merely national political issues. Holding elections on the same day simply to inflate turnout artificially creates a democratic deficit as local issues are crowded out by the coverage of parliamentary elections. I believe that there is a consensus on that view; indeed, I am glad to see that Mr Tolson has become part of that happy consensus, no matter which tortuous and convoluted route he has taken to get there. The current coupling of local and Scottish parliamentary elections means that local elections receive almost no media coverage in their own right and the record of local councils goes almost undiscussed.

I welcome proposals to publish voting information from local government elections in more detail. Under the proposed measure, individual votes will remain anonymous and extremely useful information will be made public.

I hope that members will endorse the bill's principles in order to simplify the process and make Scotland's local government elections more transparent. If the experience of 2007 is not enough of a reason for decoupling elections, I do not know what is. However, it should be said that the picture in 2007 was not one of universal chaos. In fact, the greatest immediate problem that arose in the Western Isles as the votes were being counted was that the helicopter that was due to pick up the ballot boxes from Barra and Uist did not leave Inverness because of erroneous reports of fog, delaying the result by 12 hours. We can and should constantly strive for the perfect electoral system—and we shall have reached perfection if we can devise a system that also provides accurate weather forecasts. Until then, the bill provides a very valuable start; I support its principles.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

This interesting debate has highlighted a number of issues that need to be addressed. First of all, though, I thank the Local Government and Communities Committee for its report.

As Jim Tolson made clear, the Liberal Democrats will support the bill's general principles. Last year, I said that, on balance, we did not support decoupling, but following a debate and a change in policy at our most recent party conference, and primarily in response to the clear view of the majority of our councillors, we will not oppose the bill's principles.

I acknowledge that, between them, Arbuthnott, Kerley, McIntosh and Gould have provided a body of evidence to support the view that, in the words of the Gould report,

"combined elections are ... a disservice to the local councils and candidates"

and

"to the electorate"

and that they should be decoupled. Unison and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities also believe that a greater focus on local issues would be advantageous in increasing the scrutiny of local government and advancing the understanding of its role. However, as Mary Mulligan made clear in her thoughtful speech, the choice between combined or stand-alone elections is far more finely balanced than some members have suggested this morning.

Having been a councillor for 15 years, I can say that I was happy to have combined elections, because national and local elections are, after all, intertwined. Indeed, when I was canvassing, it was always clear that council issues were at the forefront of people's minds when they were considering how to vote. What is equally clear is that any move towards decoupling involves a trade-off, which, in this case, is most likely to be a decline in voter turnout.

The Liberal Democrats are proud of the electoral reform that introduced STV, which has resulted in a number of welcome changes, and we feel that any additional changes must strengthen and advance the modernisation of Scotland's local democracy. The electoral process must be credible, fair and transparent.

I would like to hear the minister say more about what he proposes to do to ensure that the decline in voter turnout is not simply accepted as inevitable.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Will Alison McInnes give us some of the Liberals' ideas for increasing voter turnout?

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunities to do that at another point.

The Scottish Government

"recognises that moving the local government elections will mean more needs to be invested in improving turnout, and there are a range of options to explore which could have a positive affect, including for example increased voter awareness campaigns and examining alternative methods of voting."

I hope that gimmicky new ways of voting will not be considered, because that would risk further confusion. I am not persuaded of their merits.

In responding to the consultation on decoupling, Fife Council said:

"The Council are particularly concerned at the possible impact on turnout arising from a decoupling of the elections"

and

"are keen to ensure along with the Scottish Government that there is an investment in improving turnout and a range of options be explored".

The bill does not address that at all, which is surely a significant shortcoming.

Paragraph 25 of the Local Government and Communities Committee's report says:

"The Committee looks forward to ... examining ways in which voter turnout can be increased."

The minister has outlined some ideas on that. I hope that those ideas will be thoroughly scrutinised and that conclusions will be reached well in advance of the elections. That work is urgent.

The Liberal Democrats are concerned that additional costs could be forced on local authorities as a result of the bill. That must not be allowed to happen. The minister has said:

"there will inevitably need to be a centrally-funded awareness campaign from the Scottish Government in 2012."

However, he stopped short of quantifying the funding for that. He went on to say:

"We will need to discuss with local authorities what amounts they are prepared to commit to the 2012 elections."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 1 April 2009; c 1894.]

It is wholly inadequate to propose decoupling the elections without guaranteeing that the extra costs will be met.

SOLACE raised concerns about the ability of the printing and e-counting industries to deliver technical support, given the number of elections that will be held in May 2012, when there will be the London mayoral elections and the local government elections in England as well as the proposed local government elections in Scotland. I therefore strongly support the committee's recommendation in paragraph 48 of its report.

The electoral process must be strong, fair and transparent. Liberal Democrats want to see strong, effective and efficient local councils with clear mandates. We do not want to burden local authorities with extra costs, so adequate funding for the running of the elections and awareness-raising campaigns must be provided up front.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

The bill is vital. I do not think that the Parliament will get great credit for introducing it or for getting things right, but there would be catastrophic consequences for all of us if we got things wrong and the elections were not decoupled.

Decoupling the local government elections and Scottish Parliament elections has long been dearly held Conservative party policy. However, I will not dwell on that, as my friend David McLetchie probably used up the entire gloating quota not just for today but probably for next week and the week after that as well.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

We will remind the Conservatives of that.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

There are things that we can remind Mr Kerr about, too. We will come to them later.

There is overwhelming support for decoupling. I understand that there was no division in the committee on supporting the general principles of the bill. We have heard about recommendations from the McIntosh report, the Kerley report, the Arbuthnott commission and, obviously, the Gould report. Individual local authorities, COSLA and Unison want the elections to be decoupled. Some 32 of the 33 submissions to the Scottish Government's consultation said that the move would be good and should happen.

The Liberal Democrats' submission was, of course, the only submission that said that decoupling should not happen. However, I am pleased to hear that they now support the general principles of the bill; indeed, they voted in favour of it at their spring conference. The Minister for Parliamentary Business may wish to get the bill to stage 3 as quickly as possible, so that we can pass it before the Liberal Democrats' summer conference, in case they take a different view at it. It would be nice to pass the bill with support from everyone in the Parliament.

We have heard about the benefits of decoupling. It will mean less voter confusion. We have heard the figures. Some 146,000 ballot papers were rejected in the Scottish Parliament elections, and more than 40,000 ballot papers were rejected in the local government elections. Let us not forget that, although the figure for the local government elections was not as disastrous as that for the Scottish Parliament elections, those 40,000 papers represented a three-fold increase in the number of rejected ballot papers.

Gould was clear about less voter confusion being a benefit of decoupling the elections. On page 36 of his report, he stated:

"The combination of elections in Scotland added complexity to the voting process."

He also said:

"Another problem with combining these elections has to do with the confusion it creates among the electorate ... it is clear that some voters were confused by the combined elections using two electoral systems and two ballot paper marking requirements."

It is clear that we can reduce voter confusion by decoupling the elections.

Several members have touched on another benefit of decoupling the elections—it would give local government greater prominence. The local government elections have been overshadowed by the Scottish Parliament elections. I would not want to be a local government candidate in Kirkintilloch, for example, when a person such as David Whitton is running the show in the area. There would be no chance of getting any coverage when somebody like that was running their campaign. Similarly, I would not want to be a council candidate in the Edinburgh Pentlands constituency trying to compete with David McLetchie for headlines.

In all seriousness, it is critical that local issues are raised in local election campaigns. To pick up on a comment that Alasdair Allan made, the council administration's record has to be discussed during a local election campaign. I suspect that the national press will still focus on national issues—that point was reasonably made by Andy Kerr—but local newspapers in Edinburgh and Glasgow, for example, are more likely to focus on council administrations in those places if only local government elections are taking place. The profiles of candidates and councillors will be raised and the electorate will be engaged on a deeper level. Ultimately, our councils will be made more accountable.

Some disadvantages of decoupling have been pointed out. Of course, voter turnout is the potential Achilles' heel of decoupling. Most members have quite reasonably raised that issue. However, it is important not to focus only on the overall voter turnout figures. Gould made a point well when he said:

"In essence, the local government elections are not simply about ensuring a reasonable number of voters show up at the polls on polling day. More important is that they engage with the campaign in a meaningful manner and make a knowledgeable decision on their ballot paper."

That is important. It is also worth noting that voter confidence in the system is low, and if we do not go ahead with decoupling, we will risk a far bigger drop in voter turnout at the local government elections.

Decoupling the elections has been a Scottish Conservative policy for some time, and it has gained momentum. After 2007, the elections simply have to be decoupled. I am pleased that all the parties have indicated that that will happen. We need to decouple the elections as soon as possible, so that we can get the education systems in place well in advance of 2012 and so that the elections in 2011 and 2012 are a big success.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

It is clear that we are talking about democracy in action. The "Oxford English Dictionary" says that democracy is

"Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them ... or by officers elected by them".

Others take a slightly different view. The English playwright and philosopher Bertrand Russell said:

"Democracy is the process by which people choose the person who'll get the blame."

The former American President Woodrow Wilson said:

"I believe in democracy, because it releases the energies of every human being."

However, Winston Churchill, who was never short of an acerbic comment or two, said:

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

I find myself disagreeing, not for the first time, with a former Conservative Prime Minister.

In preparing for today's debate, I typed words to do with voting into an internet search. The results were remarkable. For example, 57.7 million results were listed under "voting register", 14 million under "voting UK", 12 million under "voting systems" and 8 million under "voting age". I also found an intriguing list of voting methods. John Wilson referred to that issue, but I found more than two. I found Copeland's method, the Kemeny-Young method, the Schulze method and even the Bucklin voting system, which is named after an American senator from Colorado. Those are of no concern to us today, as we are considering the voting method in the Scottish Parliament and local government elections, which might come to be known as the Crawford method—who knows?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

That is giving me ideas.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

As long as it has not given Mrs Crawford ideas, the minister will be okay.

The minister called for improved administration of the elections, which was a key part of the Gould report. Nobody would disagree with that. Duncan McNeil, the convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee, pointed out the cost implications of decoupling, which is an important point that must be borne in mind. We need a clear commitment from Mr Crawford on that. In response to Mary Mulligan, he said that there is already £1.9 million, but the financial memorandum estimates the cost of decoupling to be almost £5 million. I see that the minister disagrees—he will have his chance to sum up in a moment. The Scottish Government provides money to local authorities. The cost of running each decoupled election will be the same as the cost of running a combined election, so a clear commitment on cash is necessary. Mr Tolson made that point, too.

Like Gavin Brown, I note that, although the Liberals were opposed to decoupling, we now hear from Mr Tolson that their party conference has changed the party's view. That is a bit like the Liberals' income tax policy—it is all over the place, but a late conversion is always welcome. Mr McLetchie boasted of having the gift of second sight—"I told you so," he said. However, the people of Scotland told the Tories not to introduce the poll tax to Scotland, but they did not listen. I distinctly remember the same Mr McLetchie stating 10 years ago that he wished that devolution and the creation of the Scottish Parliament had not happened, yet only last week the same Mr McLetchie—an MSP these past 10 years—appeared on television saying that devolution had given back to the Tories their electoral credibility.

Tricia Marwick can always be relied on to launch an attack against the Labour Party, and she did so again today. She demanded apologies from the Labour and Liberal parties, yet there was no hint of an apology for the SNP's role in the confusion on polling day 2007. The Gould report specifically commented on misleading party descriptions, so perhaps the minister or Mrs Marwick will apologise for the use of the description "Alex Salmond for First Minister" on ballot papers, which was blatant manipulation.

I do not agree entirely with Mrs Marwick that local issues got lost in the joint elections of 2007. A Liberal plan to impose fortnightly bin collections in East Dunbartonshire was a major issue in my constituency—sad to report to Mr Tolson and Alison McInnes that the result was nine Liberal seats lost. I understand that the SNP-led administration in Fife is proposing a similar plan. Mrs Marwick has been warned.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

Will the member take an intervention?

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

Will the member give way?

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

They are queuing up to make interventions. I will take Mrs Marwick.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I do not want to get into bin collections.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

On the issue of bin collections, David Whitton's remark is totally and absolutely untrue, and I would appreciate it if he withdrew it.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Mr Whitton, carry on speaking about the bill, please.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

If the allegation is untrue, of course I withdraw it. Clearly, the SNP has learned lessons from East Dunbartonshire.

In case SNP members think that I always attack them, I say that Alasdair Allan gave a thoughtful speech on the reasons why we had so many spoiled ballot papers. That issue probably warrants further investigation.

Labour supports the decoupling of the elections as proposed in the bill. We support the move to hold the next two council elections in 2012 and 2017, and we agree that ministers should have the power to make orders to allow the publication of electoral data to polling station level. However, if fewer than 200 votes are cast, the district should be exempt.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I thank Duncan McNeil and the other members of the Local Government and Communities Committee for their positive approach. I am glad that Duncan McNeil repeated some of the key themes that I addressed in my opening speech. Andy Kerr was his usual consensual and thoughtful self. Mr McLetchie and Mrs Marwick gave an accurate historical perspective, particularly in relation to the road to Damascus that former members of the Scottish Executive have travelled. Jim Tolson was Jim Tolson. Mr Whitton was stuck in his wheelie bin and, perhaps after his speech, that is the best place for him.

Mr McLetchie and Mr Kerr raised issues to do with turnout, although from slightly different perspectives. David McLetchie talked about the number of spoiled papers in the local government elections. The figure was 1.83 per cent, but if we compare that with Northern Ireland, where the figure was 2.1 per cent, we might think that the situation was better in Scotland. However, the Local Government and Communities Committee was right to comment that the figure masks the point that some papers were marked with a single X. It is important that we consider those issues in the work that we do during the summer. The Government will issue a further consultation in the summer on information campaigns and ballot designs.

Andy Kerr was concerned about the ballot paper. I can tell him that the Electoral Commission is working on proposals for ballot paper design. We will take that into account in our consultation in the summer, along with any other administrative recommendations that arise.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Will the minister include the Royal National Institute of Blind People in any discussions about the design of ballot papers?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

To be fair to the previous Executive, the RNIB and other groups representing disabled people or communities that are challenged in accessing the voting process were consulted previously. We will do exactly the same.

E-counting was mentioned several times during the debate. STV elections require e-counting if the results of a full-scale election are to be delivered in an acceptable timescale. It would not be appropriate to wait for a week for the results from a manual counting system, as happens in some parts of Ireland. In 2012, e-counting will therefore be necessary. In fact, we will have to use that method whether or not the elections are decoupled.

Strictly speaking, the e-counting proposals are not related directly to the bill, but I will make a couple of points on the issue. We will not know the cost of the e-counting system until we know the outcome of the tender process. The cost will fall in the next spending review period, but we are committed to funding e-counting for STV local elections. Details of where the money will come from must be left to the next spending review, when the issue will be the subject of discussions between the Government and COSLA at the appropriate time. We will provide information on the costs of e-counting as soon as possible after the procurement process, including information on the split between local authorities and the Government.

We have started discussions with the electoral management board for Scotland and we are planning the e-counting process. There will be a joint process at every stage, from planning through procurement and on to implementation. I met the convener of the board, Tom Aitchison, last week to discuss e-counting and a range of other election issues. As I am sure all members are aware, the e-counting system must be tested thoroughly—perhaps to destruction—before the next election.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

So that we are absolutely clear, are you saying that the Government will meet the costs of e-counting for local elections, even though the bill says that it might cost £5 million? We know that we are going into the next spending review, but are you giving a commitment to provide local authorities with what it costs to carry out electronic counting?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Remarks should be made through the chair.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Sorry.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Let me be clear on costs: the £4.5 million to £5 million relates to the cost of decoupling; the e-counting process is separate from that. As I said, the Government is committed to funding e-counting for local STV elections. I could not be plainer about our position.

Several issues were raised about the wider costs. The financial memorandum identifies areas of additional cost that will fall to local authorities as a result of the provisions of the bill—not including e-counting—and estimates those costs to be between £4.5 and £5 million, of which £1.9 million is assumed already in local authority budgets. The estimates have been agreed with the electoral management board for Scotland, which includes members of COSLA. The Finance Committee called for evidence on estimates, and the local authorities that responded all confirmed that the estimates were reasonable. However, expenditure on the 2012 local government elections will fall in the next spending review period. The estimates will form the basis of discussions with local authorities when the time comes to consider the next spending round. The Government is committed to funding the additional cost of decoupling, but I cannot say any more on that at this stage, because the funding details must be left to the spending review.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Unlike other members who have spoken this morning, I am not wholly convinced that decoupling the elections is the right way to proceed. However, I am prepared to support the general principles of the bill to allow further discussions. Will the minister assure the chamber that, before stage 3, we will have full details of the financial implications for local and national Government should the bill be passed?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I do not know where Cathie Craigie was during the earlier part of the debate, but I cannot make it plainer than I have done already.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I was here.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

If she was here, it is obvious that she was not listening—I am not going to repeat the information yet again.

As the convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee and John Wilson commented, today's debate has focused in great detail on voter turnout. As I stressed in my opening speech, we recognise the importance of improving turnout—we all have a role in that. Voter turnout figures compare the number of people who vote with the number who registered to vote. I say to Mr McNeil that I share the Local Government and Communities Committee's concern that not all of those who are eligible to vote are on the voting register, and so the real turnout figures are likely to be worse than recorded at present.

It is important to know the true position before we move on to improve overall turnout. I agree with the Local Government and Communities Committee that increasing the number of people who are registered to vote is important. Registration is reserved to the Westminster Government, but we will work with it to find ways to improve levels of voter registration. That will cost money, and we will need to consider the funding of registration work with local authorities and Westminster. Funding for electoral registration makes up part of the Scottish Government's budget allocation from Westminster; the element to cover registration is passed on to local authorities as part of their settlement, but it is not ring fenced. That was one of the questions raised with me during discussion of the bill in committee.

All members have spoken about turnout. As I have outlined, the Government will work with the Local Government and Communities Committee to try to improve turnout. We also need to work with the electoral management board, the Parliament and the Electoral Commission. Voter turnout is a problem for everyone, and we all have a role to play. Alison McInnes said that we should not use gimmicky ideas. I say to her that that does not stop us from using our imaginations to improve turnout. Perhaps members on the Liberal front bench would like to think about that. For example, we could suggest to employers that they put reminders to vote in employees' pay slips or put messages on screen savers that say, "Today is voting day." With imagination, lots of different methods could be used. Although they might be a wee bit gimmicky, they could make a difference to turnout. I am not saying that we will definitely do the things that I mentioned, but we need to chuck into the basket everything that we possibly can to try to make a difference.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The Local Government and Communities Committee and the minister agree that we need to use imagination to maximise voter turnout. Has he applied his imagination to how he can work with the committee to examine what happens in other countries, which might have better systems to engage young people, for example? What other examples can he share with us? How does he see the Government and the committee working on the issue in the coming weeks and months?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

That is a good question that I am more than happy to address. The Government and the committee can do a great deal jointly, whether it is holding joint seminars or offering people opportunities to speak to us in joint evidence-taking sessions. There is no reason why a parliamentary committee and the Government cannot work together.

When I read about Denmark's voting systems, I was struck by how it regularly gets its turnout as high as 85 per cent. I looked into why that happens, and found that Denmark involves its young people at a much earlier stage, not just in politics but in civic life and volunteering. We have to start from an early base when trying to change voter turnout in this country, although it might take a generation before we get there. The most interesting statistic about Denmark in that context is about the level of support for political parties.

Denmark is about the same size as Scotland, and its biggest political party has a membership of 65,000. The Labour Party in Scotland and the SNP together cannot manage such a membership. In fact, I doubt whether all of us in this Parliament could manage it together, although we might not be far off. As Duncan McNeil said, we can take a lesson from other countries in how to drive up voter turnout.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Just to help the minister with his imagination, I tell him that we have a good voter education programme in this Parliament, with primary and secondary school pupils visiting practically every day. Perhaps an element could be included in that programme to encourage visiting pupils to cast their vote at 18.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

We should try to bring on to the menu everything that we possibly can to see what works—there is no question about that.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Certainly, but I have some closing remarks to make, so I will have to watch my time.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

Does the minister agree that if we want to engage youngsters at school, one way would be to reduce the voting age to 16, thereby engaging young people in civic education when it actually matters, rather than waiting until they leave school before giving them the vote?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

No.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Unlike Mr McLetchie, whom I hear grumbling about voting at 16, the Scottish National Party has been wholly committed to voting at 16 for a very long time. Indeed, had we the right to debate the franchise and voting age in this Parliament, we would have been able to introduce as part of the bill reducing the voting age to 16. I am grateful to Tricia Marwick for her intervention.

This morning's debate has shown that there is general support for the bill. That reflects the supportive comments that we received in response to the two Government consultations on decoupling and voter information. The events of 2007 were a cause for concern for all of us who believe in democracy and the right of the electorate to participate in elections, safe in the knowledge that their vote will be counted. It is right that we learn from the problems of two years ago, but it is also right that we move on. The bill and this morning's debate demonstrate that we are moving on.

Decoupling will remove the potential for confusion in the polling booth, and will make it clear to the voter who and what they are voting for. It should also give prominence to local elections, which should matter to local people and be determined on local issues. Our saying this morning in Parliament that we want to strengthen the mandate for local politicians is a healthy sign.

The second strand of the bill relates to voter information. The bill will not affect the right of the individual to vote in a secret ballot. However, the bill's measures will allow us in the political parties to increase through our actions ballot numbers and turnout. We should be able to manage our processes better as a result of that information. I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate. It has been a very constructive morning.

Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill: Financial Resolution

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is consideration of motion S3M-3629, in the name of John Swinney, on the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill financial resolution.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill, agrees to any increase in expenditure of a kind referred to in paragraph 3(b)(iii) of Rule 9.12 of the Parliament's Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act.—[Bruce Crawford.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The question on the motion will be put at decision time.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 1 was not lodged.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government when it expects the first tranche of funds from the town centre regeneration fund to be disbursed. (S3O-6952)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We aim to complete the first tranche of town centre regeneration fund assessments around late July, with a view to releasing offers of grant to successful applicants soon after that. Disbursement of funds will vary by project.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the minister agree that the very process of applying for those funds is of benefit to any towns that choose to do so, because it encourages them to think about how their area can best be improved? Does he agree that towns should also seek to build on such plans by identifying a range of funding for growth and regeneration?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I agree with the member entirely. The process helps people to develop a vision for their town centre. I hope that when people make applications they do not just look at individual projects that might qualify for funding but use the opportunity to consider the longer-term vision for their towns and town centres. I know that the member has a special interest in Cumbernauld, where, I am sure, people will take that opportunity.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The minister is aware of my keen interest in the town centre regeneration fund, particularly given that it might affect Maryhill and Possilpark in my constituency. I realise that, at this point, the minister will not want to commit himself to particular projects that might or might not be funded. However, given the undoubted popularity of the fund, have the minister and his colleagues considered—at this admittedly early stage—the possibility of the fund being continued into future years?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is too early for us to consider that prospect, but if the member asks me the question again when we get into the budget cycle, I might be able to give her a more definitive reply.

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

There can be little doubt about the effect of out-of-town developments on communities such as Wick and Thurso in my constituency. If the centres of such towns are to survive, they will need investment. Will the minister assure me that he and his officials will be proactive in seeking suitable financial bids from towns such as Wick and Thurso? Will appropriate community councils be trawled as part of the process? Will he assure me that remote areas will not be left to lag behind areas nearer Edinburgh and Glasgow? Finally, will he assure me that the issue of match funding will not necessarily stand in the way of this type of investment?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I advise members that a supplementary question really should be one question, not four.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I shall do my best to answer the questions briefly.

First, there is no requirement for match funding, but projects that manage to have some leverage from other sources of funding, such as the private sector or other parts of the public sector, will score extra points in the assessment.

Secondly, on towns in remote areas, the advisory committee that we will appoint—I hope to announce the details in the next two weeks—will have a specific remit to ensure that, in the allocation and approval of projects, we get a reasonable spread throughout the country and in the size of the towns involved. We do not want all the money to go to large towns only, to small towns only or to medium-sized towns only; we want a reasonable spread, so that, as far as possible, we invest the money on a fair but effective basis throughout Scotland—including, no doubt, in Dumfries and Galloway, Presiding Officer.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to help students who wish to study abroad as part of their degree courses. (S3O-6966)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

As a Government, we are committed to the principle of free access to higher education. Last week, I announced that we were extending tuition fee support for students at Scottish universities who take part in recognised overseas exchange programmes from the 2009-10 academic year. Previously, such support was available only to students who took part in the European Erasmus exchange programme.

The extension of support will benefit some 300 students a year, helping to tackle some of the financial barriers to students' participation in exchange programmes in countries such as Australia, Canada, China, New Zealand and the United States.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

I congratulate the minister on assisting Scottish students to access international education exchanges and work placements, which will expand horizons, develop skills and ensure Scotland's contacts with increasingly global business and knowledge economies. Will she also encourage that exchange process to be a two-way process that results in an influx of ideas and knowledge, which will benefit Scottish businesses and educational establishments and allow talented young Scots to experience best practice from wherever it is found?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I thank the member for his question. I remind him that we probably benefit more from international students coming to study here than from our students travelling abroad. That is why we announced the extension of tuition fee support for our students.

As part of my visit to China, I embarked on the creation of a joint research programme involving Scottish and Chinese universities, which will include an exchange of PhD students with the aim of awarding joint PhDs. Two-way traffic is definitely on the menu of our support for students, which involves both supporting Scottish students who travel abroad and, importantly, welcoming the many students who come here to study.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

How will the Government ensure that students from lower-income backgrounds will be more able to take up exchange opportunities, given that universities report that they are the students who are least likely to take up such opportunities?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

One of the things that we have done is provide support for a European officer for the National Union of Students for the first time, to ensure that, if there are barriers, they are identified and overcome. One of the reasons why we introduced the £300,000 package to help with tuition fees is that, increasingly, students from poorer backgrounds could not afford the £1,000-plus fees that were being charged by some universities in America and other places. The measure has already started to support the students that the member identified.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether any Barnett consequentials resulting from the recently announced increase in funds for child protection in England will be used to improve child protection services in Scotland. (S3O-6935)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No Barnett consequentials result from that announcement. The funding that was recently announced by the United Kingdom Government to support the recruitment and retention of social workers, in response to Lord Laming's recommendations, forms part of existing budget allocations identified through the 2008 to 2011 comprehensive spending review. It is not new funding. Decisions by UK ministers on the allocation of resources for services in England have no bearing on funding that is already in place to support child protection services in Scotland.

Local authorities take responsibility for managing resources in their area in order to meet the needs of vulnerable children.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

In light of what the minister has just said, worrying Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education reports and concerns raised by Unison Scotland that reviews of child protection services will miss the point totally if they do not address the root problem of too few resources, will he confirm that the Scottish Government will look to put extra resources into resourcing social work staff and gaps in front-line services, so that, for example, all at-risk children have a named social worker? That issue was identified at the time of the report on social work services in Aberdeen.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I remind the member that record resources are going into local government for it to deploy and that Scotland already has the most robust child protection inspection regime in the UK, which focuses the actions of agencies on the protection of our most vulnerable children. However, we are not complacent and we are well aware of the need for continuous improvement. Members will be aware that we are reviewing the national child protection guidance, which was first issued in 1998. I do not expect resources to be a limiting factor in the roll-out and application of that guidance.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Does the minister share my concern about the length of time that some vulnerable and young children stay in the home with a parent who abuses drugs or alcohol? Will he consider introducing time limits in that regard?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The guidance that I mentioned will cover three subjects in particular. We will introduce a common overall approach to the most significant operational aspects of protecting children from harm. It is clear that a key issue to address is children who are affected by parental substance misuse. We also want to embed best practice. In particular, we want to support the implementation of the getting it right for every child agenda for children's services as it applies to children who are at risk, with the emphasis on children who are affected by parental substance misuse.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of recent changes to the central heating programme, how it is addressing the issue of fuel poverty. (S3O-6960)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The energy assistance package replaced the central heating and warm deal programmes on 6 April. It takes a more holistic approach that tackles all three sides of the fuel poverty triangle by helping to maximise household incomes through benefits and tax credit checks; reducing fuel bills by providing advice on wise energy use and how to access social tariffs; and improving the energy performance of the poorest-performing Scottish homes by providing a package of measures for those who are most vulnerable to fuel poverty. I am proud that, for the first time, the initiative includes intensive support for low-income families with young or disabled children.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I have been contacted by several elderly constituents who are concerned that they do not meet the Scottish Government's criteria for energy assistance. What is the Government doing to help those people, who are not eligible for a new heating system under the energy assistance package but who are still highly vulnerable and require assistance?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

All pensioners in households in which central heating has never been installed and pensioners in energy-inefficient homes who receive a passport benefit or who are aged 75 or over are entitled to benefit from stage 4 of the energy assistance package, as well as the first three stages.

The purpose of redesigning the programme was to target it more at the pensioners and families who most require assistance to make their homes more energy efficient and who are at the lower end of the income scale. It would be inappropriate to use scarce resources to provide free central heating systems for some of our retired bankers, for example, who receive substantial pensions.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will allocate in full the £45.3 million arising from housing spending in the United Kingdom budget towards more affordable housing for Scotland. (S3O-6892)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Ministers will decide in due course how the consequentials from the UK budget are to be allocated.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I note that, once more, the minister dances around and does not give a direct answer. What excuses will he give for the fall in the number of homes that Scottish housing associations build? All stakeholders attribute that fall directly to the Scottish National Party's decision to cut the grant for new affordable homes.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Since Helen Eadie praised herself as a great socialist, I remind her of what Nye Bevan said about the language of priorities and of how we decide priorities systematically. When Mr Swinney makes his announcement on the consequentials, he will base it on the Government's priorities in achieving our strategic objectives on poverty and the economy.

As for the specifics of housing association starts, completions and approvals, when the official figures for last year are published on 26 May, I would like the member to revise her opinion. Perhaps she will be a bit confused when she learns the facts.

We announced just this week a record number of approvals—more than 8,100—for new housing association houses. The Labour Party never achieved such a figure.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. If the minister knows the answer to a question—as was just implied—is he not duty bound to give the chamber that answer?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The member is fully aware that ministers are responsible for the contents of their answers.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister ensure that the available money goes to Scotland's housing association sector, which is well placed to deliver good-quality and affordable homes?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We are doing everything that we can in that respect.

As for the figures, ministers must abide by the statistics code, so I am not allowed to give any numbers until they are officially published by the Government's statistics service.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I welcome the commitment that the minister gave at a parliamentary reception last night to our internationally acclaimed 2012 homelessness target. Does he realise that the City of Edinburgh Council has said clearly that it cannot meet that target with the level of resources that it receives? Will he not only allocate at least £45 million extra to housing this year but ensure that Edinburgh receives a large portion of that?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Edinburgh is close to my heart and is high on our priority list, which is why we announced a 30 per cent increase in the council's allocation earlier this year and why we will seriously consider the council's application for the totality of the £50 million that we are making available for council housing. That is in contrast to the zero sum that was made available for council housing in the previous Administration's eight years.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

Will the minister give the assurance that he will use some of the funding to which Mrs Eadie referred to plug the gap that his Government has created by increasing the per-unit burden that it has forced on registered social landlords? Will he consider that point in relation to the £4.6 million capital allocation burden that has restricted Fife Housing Association's ability to deliver affordable houses?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am not saying that I expected those questions, but I have done research on Fife. For equivalent periods, in comparison with the previous Administration, this Administration has increased by 20 per cent the investment funding to housing associations in Fife, and the number of actual and planned units that housing associations in Fife are to build and complete has increased by 22 per cent. We are doing well by Fife, as we are by the rest of the country.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made across Scotland with private landlord registration. (S3O-6890)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Since April 2006, 142,939 applications for registration have been made under the landlord registration scheme. Of those, 91 per cent have been approved by local authorities.

Local authorities have a range of powers to enforce landlord registration. More than 800 late application fees have been applied, more than 600 rent penalty notices have been issued, 10 landlords have been refused registration and one landlord's registration has been revoked.

Local authorities are working with landlords to ensure that they are aware of their responsibilities and to help them improve their standards.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I thank the minister for his detailed reply. He will know that the Parliament introduced the relevant legislation to tackle the problems that irresponsible and bad private landlords cause. However, Shelter Scotland, responsible landlords and the Scottish Association of Landlords tell us that, three years after registration started, one in four landlords is still not registered. Given what the minister said, what further action will ministers take to ensure that local authorities act against unregistered landlords? Responsible landlords are telling authorities where the unregistered landlords are. Is the minister still discussing with his Westminster counterparts how housing benefit could be used to assist in the enforcement of registration?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

First, I will make the facts clear. It is not the case that one quarter of landlords are unregistered; 85 per cent of landlords are registered. We inherited something like 9 per cent coverage from the previous Administration.

At my most recent meeting with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I raised the issue of registration, because three local authorities are falling behind the rest and bringing down the national average figure. Through COSLA, I am encouraging those authorities to step up their effort, because our ambition is to have 100 per cent registration before long.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That concludes general questions. Before we come to questions to the First Minister, I know that the chamber will wish to join me in welcoming two distinguished guests to the gallery: His Excellency Fakhraddin Gurbanov, the ambassador of Azerbaijan; and His Excellency Kairat Abusseitov, the ambassador of Kazakhstan. [ Applause. ]

First Minister's Question Time

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1686)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland with a particular focus on jobs and economic recovery. As we all saw from the unemployment figures this week, the position in the economy remains exceedingly serious. It would be foolish indeed to predict an early upturn. However, there have been some good indications in some of the recent statistics. For example, figures that were published last week show that new orders in the construction sector in Scotland rose in the first quarter of 2009 whereas, unfortunately, those south of the border fell by 9 per cent.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

This afternoon, the Parliament will spend time debating Scotland's relationship with the United States of America and Canada. Back on 23 January, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice did his bit by visiting Canada. The visit coincided with the knife crime summit here at home. Does the First Minister think that his Cabinet Secretary for Justice's time was better spent in Canada than at the knife crime summit in the Parliament?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As Iain Gray knows very well, Fergus Ewing, the Minister for Community Safety, was at the knife crime summit, where he talked about the substantial action that is being taken against knife crime in Scotland. For example, more than 2,000 knives have been taken off the streets of Scotland since May 2007 and there are now tougher prosecution guidelines. There is also the action of Strathclyde police's violence reduction unit that sees police officers in Scotland taking action day and daily to keep their communities safer.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

All those things were, of course, discussed at the knife crime summit. The question is about the priorities of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Not everyone was sure that the visit to Canada was the top priority. We have secured, under freedom of information, an e-mail from one of the cabinet secretary's civil servants who was involved in planning his Canada trip and getting him slipped—relieved of parliamentary duties. It says:

"I am just a little concerned that after all the hassle"

that we have had

"getting him slipped we only have a few minor things for him to do on the Friday".

Friday was the very day of the knife crime summit and the e-mail was written less than two days before the trip. That Friday, the victims of knife crime were in the Parliament trying to ensure that others would not have to suffer the same pain and loss. Why on earth did the First Minister allow Mr MacAskill to skip that for a junket in Canada?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Victims of knife crime were at the summit, as were police officers and the responsible minister. The leader of the Opposition was not at the knife crime summit. Those who came together had an excellent discussion and analysis of how to tackle the scourge of knife crime in Scotland. The Government is taking forward a range of initiatives that include tougher sentences and getting knives off the streets. No one would doubt the determination of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on those matters.

Let us talk a bit about the violence reduction unit and the valuable work that is being done to crack the gang culture in Scotland. In 1997, there was no funding whatever for the unit; in 2006-07, there was £500,000. There was none under the Tories and very little under Labour and the Liberals, but there has been £1.8 million since the Cabinet Secretary for Justice took office and took action against violence in Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I thought that Mr MacAskill, as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, was the minister responsible for dealing with knife crime.

It is fair to say that, in the end, Mr MacAskill managed to fill some of his Friday in Canada: he made an official visit to a pub. It was the Duke of Somerset in Toronto, and he met Steve MacTavish, the clan chieftain of Toronto. He then got in a decent three hours' rest before his appointment with the "Great chieftain o' the puddin-race" at a Burns supper. He would have needed his rest because the organisers warned in the e-mails that, on arrival, he would be

"plunged instantly into a very crowded cocktail party".

No worries, though, because after the formalities

"the evening lapses into informal jollity. It's going to be fun."

For too many Scots, the word "plunge" evokes not cocktail crowds but death or injury by a blade. Mr MacAskill should have been at the knife crime summit. Will the First Minister apologise for the fact that his responsible minister chose jollity and junketing instead?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Parliament should be ashamed of an Opposition leader who treats one of the most serious subjects in Scottish society in the way that he has done today.

The knife crime summit with the responsible minister was an excellent idea and brought people together, but it is about more than just one-off summits. The proposed Scottish sentencing council is designed to give victims of crime a voice for the first time throughout the judicial system in Scotland.

The knife crime summit was informed by the responsible police officers. Police officers in Scotland are able to attend such summits because, compared with the 16,234 officers in March 2007 and the 15,000 officers under the Tories, we now have 16,675 officers. Under this Government and its Cabinet Secretary for Justice, record numbers of police are keeping the streets and communities of Scotland safe from harm.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

It is true that I was not at the knife crime summit. Mr Salmond was invited to the summit too, and he was not there either. I assure him that Labour members take the issue very seriously. Some 45 per cent of homicides in Scotland involve a blade, but 71 per cent of convicted knife thugs do not go to jail and 65 per cent of those who go to jail get less than six months—and the First Minister wants to set them free.

This is how seriously we take the issue: Labour believes that a person who carries or uses a knife should go to jail. The Tories believe that, too. If the First Minister agrees with us—right here, right now—then knife criminals will know that they are going to jail. It is his call. Will the First Minister support mandatory jail sentences for knife crime, so that we can deliver what the people of Scotland want?