Scottish Parliament, 28 May 2009

371 contributions from 74 members. The official report.

Official Report 28 May 2009

Missing Children Alert System

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a Liberal Democrat debate on motion S3M-4245, in the name of Robert Brown, on a missing children alert system. We are reasonably relaxed about timings—seven minutes is just a broad guideline, Mr Brown.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Announcements about timing just before the commencement of one's speech are useful.

Last night I spoke at a hustings meeting on behalf of our candidates for the European Parliament elections. Various candidates from the UK Independence Party and fragments of the socialist parties—a platform of no fewer than ten candidates—spoke about their dislike of the European Union and all its works. Those sentiments are ill founded for a variety of reasons, and the motion, which the Liberal Democrats lodged in the lead-up to the 4 June poll, identifies an example of the value of European co-operation to which I hope that all members can sign up. Lodging the motion was our practical way of marking international missing children's week.

It is thought that about 9,000 children go missing each year in Scotland. Some incidents involve teenagers who have problems at home, some are the result of short-term family tussles that are resolved, and some are the result of misunderstandings. However, a significant number involve real peril for and major harm to the child, and an increasing number have a cross-border or pan-European dimension. We should not forget the significant issue of child trafficking, which is of considerable and increasing concern to many people throughout Europe.

It is well understood that the first 48 hours after a child has been abducted are critical and that an immediate response to the child's disappearance is vital. In October 2007 the European Commission identified the need to develop cross-border mechanisms to combat child abduction. That led to a working paper, which called for agreement on common minimum standards and proposed arrangements involving a pre-alert, a formal request by the state Government with a standardised message to other member states, and a national or local alert in other countries. To be effective, the approach would require an agreed protocol for use, a crisis handbook that contains contact details, and a common channel of communication, and better co-ordination, between child alert mechanisms in the member states, given that it is inevitable that mechanisms are at different stages of development and operate in different ways according to national requirements. A declaration on the approach was adopted by the European Parliament in April this year.

A Commission decision in 2007 required member states to make available throughout Europe, 24 hours a day and seven days a week, the free telephone number 116 000, as a missing child hotline. The hotline is operational in a number of European states and has strong support from the Commission vice-president, although it is not yet operational in the United Kingdom.

The gold standard is the Amber alert system, which has operated in the United States of America for the past seven years. Enforcement agencies, broadcasters and the transport and wireless industry work in partnership to activate an urgent bulletin or announcement in serious child abduction cases. If we adopted the Amber alert system, in a matter of minutes after a child has been reported missing to the police, all police forces would be alerted and television and radio programmes would be interrupted and pictures of the missing child would flash up on screens. Text messages would be sent to all subscribers, and Interpol, Europol and foreign police forces would be put on alert. The entire European Community could work together to find the child. Quite often, such activity is enough to compel the abductor to hand over the child. That has been the satisfactory conclusion in a number of cases.

Liberal Democrats know that the issue is vital and of huge importance to affected families. I hope that members of other parties agree. We are aware that progress has not been as rapid as many people wanted it to be. The mechanism of the EU, working in partnership with the UK and Scottish Governments, should be harnessed to produce an effective system in which this country participates fully. We know that on some subjects the Scottish Government can put aside its coyness about partnership working with Westminster. This must be one such subject. The operation of the full Amber alert system and the 116 000 helpline, and swift communication and co-operation throughout Europe when necessary, will be made easier by a firm commitment at Commission and European Parliament level. The prize, which is beyond price, is the safe recovery of many more abducted children and the relief of many more families.

We know from the well-publicised ordeal of the family of Madeleine McCann of the horrible situations that arise when a child is not recovered, when investigation procedures are perhaps flawed and when action is not as swift or effective as we all hope that it would be. We all want to reduce the chances of such situations arising. We want a European Amber alert system and universal take-up of the free missing child alert hotline, including in Scotland and the UK. We need to ensure that Scotland and Britain are at the forefront of that approach and that it is operational in every country in the EU and in associate countries.

Scotland and Britain have quite well-developed internal mechanisms to deal with child abduction, but problems can arise when there are cross-border issues, given the increasingly globalised economy and world in which we live. The abduction of Madeleine McCann while she was on holiday in Portugal could and might have involved—it is unfortunate that we still do not know whether it actually involved—individuals from other countries. An increasing number of matrimonial break-ups have a cross-border dimension. Nine out of 10 such cases do not lead to huge problems, but it can be difficult to get children back from other countries. We know from the experience of the European arrest warrant, which was backed by Liberal Democrats and other parties in the European Parliament, that the speed of arrest in criminal situations has been greatly accelerated by the ability to have common mechanisms and common action throughout the EU.

The issue is important, and it is not controversial. I hope that the motion, which we debate in international missing children's week, will attract the support of members of all parties. It highlights a valuable approach, which needs the attention of the Scottish and UK Governments in partnership and will lead to a significant and worthwhile difference in the mechanisms for dealing with child abductions.

I have done quite well to finish in seven minutes, Presiding Officer. I move,

That the Parliament supports the establishment of strong cross-Europe working to ensure that there are effective, linked "Amber alert" systems in place to bring European-wide attention to missing children; understands that early action is critical in locating missing and abducted children and that the experience of those countries that have alert systems in place, such as the United States of America, is extremely positive; welcomes the formal adoption of the written declaration on Emergency Cooperation In Recovering Missing Children as a resolution of the European Parliament in April 2009 but regrets that European countries currently fail to cooperate effectively when recovering missing children and that progress has been slow, and calls on the Scottish Government to work proactively and constructively with the UK Government to ensure that all missing children alert systems and cross-border cooperation policies, including the 116 000 European hotline, are operational as soon as possible to bind the country effectively into the European system.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

This is one of those occasions on which I am happy for members' speeches to overrun.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

On behalf of Scottish Labour, I commend the Scottish Liberal Democrats for securing the debate. There is no doubt that the Amber alert system has great merit and would make a difference to the protection of children from people who pose a threat to community safety.

A great achievement of the Parliament is that we can show unity when we give priority to children's safety. We have done that on a number of occasions. I experienced such unity when the sub-committee of the Justice 2 Committee in the previous session of the Parliament considered the management of registered sex offenders. The need to ensure children's safety lay at the heart of the sub-committee's report.

Many parents have experienced that heart-stopping feeling when we momentarily lose sight of our child. The relief that we feel when we find them is indescribable. It must be unbearable for parents who are not so lucky—there are many well-publicised examples, such Kate and Gerry McCann. We need to be convinced that every opportunity is taken to enable a missing child to be found by the relevant authorities. The missing children alert scheme would provide added protection.

Every year some 130,000 children go missing in Europe. We know that the sooner information on a missing child reaches the public, the greater the chance of tracing them. That is why the proposals for an EU-wide alert scheme are to be welcomed. We know that a similar system in the United States works well, as Robert Brown said. Since 2003, that scheme has recovered more than 400 children, of whom 80 per cent were recovered in the crucial first 72 hours. I am aware that the proposed scheme has the majority backing of MEPs, including Catherine Stihler and David Martin, and I hope that we are a step closer to ensuring that any child who goes missing in Europe is given the best chance of being recovered.

As I said, every year, more than 130,000 children go missing in Europe. Most are returned within a week but, on average, each year six children are never found. The pain behind those statistics cannot be described. That should ensure our determination to progress the issue and look at every possible avenue to ensure the safety of our children. There is no doubt that a scheme similar to the Amber alert scheme in the United States would save lives. The European Parliament's initiative is a good example of how Europe-wide action can make a real difference.

The USA's Amber alert scheme operates in 13 states and has successfully saved the lives of many abducted children by breaking into media broadcasts to give details of suspected child abductions and by flashing up messages on highway signs that alert drivers to keep an eye out for children. Robert Brown spoke about the scheme's approach. The criteria that are used to trigger such alerts are as follows: the child should be under 16 and missing; a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent thinks that the child might suffer serious harm or death; the child must have been kidnapped or be suspected of having been kidnapped; and there must be sufficient descriptive details of the victim or the offender to justify the alert.

Having spent 10 years as an MSP, it seems ridiculous and unacceptable to me that such a scheme is not already in place. Many of us have the notion that such a scheme should involve a much more sophisticated approach—I learned that as a result of scrutinising the legislation on the management of registered sex offenders.

We live in a computer age. We use the internet, mobile communications, blogs and so on. Surely we can use such information technology to our advantage to ensure that our children are given every possible opportunity.

The Parliament is at its best when we work together to ensure the safety of our children. I urge the minister to listen to all the parties' points of view and implement a scheme that plugs the gap that exists nationwide before more children go missing. I appreciate the challenges that the minister will face with many of the bureaucracies that exist throughout Europe, but it is extremely important that we progress the issue through this debate and the many other debates that will take place.

I call on members to support the amendment in the name of Richard Baker.

I move amendment S3M-4245.1, to insert after "UK Government":

"and to encourage Scottish police forces to collaborate with their UK and European counterparts".

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

It goes without saying that the abduction of a child is an unimaginably traumatic experience—the worst nightmare—for a family. I welcome the motion, which supports the call that the European Parliament made in September 2008 for member states to develop national child rescue alert mechanisms and to establish co-operation for cross-border searches for and recoveries of abducted children. The response to a suspected abduction of a child must be immediate and co-ordinated, and it is important that the search for abducted children is not constrained by national borders.

Scotland's police forces are at an advanced point in developing a Scottish child rescue alert system. That system, which is being developed by an Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland working group that includes Scottish Government representation, draws on the European Commission's 2008 best practice guidance as well as on the practical experiences of police forces elsewhere in the UK and the National Policing Improvement Agency. The Scottish child rescue alert system should be fully in place by 2010. I think that I can provide reassurance on the point that Paul Martin raised by informing him that, this week, the police successfully finished a cross-UK exercise in which the child was found.

It is worth taking a moment to distinguish between cases of child abduction, which are exceptionally high risk, and the more general problem of missing children. There might be one or two child abductions in the whole of the UK in a year, but estimates of the number of incidents in which children go missing or run away are as high as 100,000 a year throughout the UK. Children can go missing for several reasons, each of which should be a cause for concern for all of us.

We are working closely with our Cabinet Office colleagues in the UK Government to simplify the process for reporting missing children, and there will soon be a tendering exercise for a new Europe-wide 116 000 hotline to become operational throughout the UK. We are also doing further significant work to improve services for young people who place themselves at risk by running away, developing systems for locating children who are missing from education, and working to protect those affected by forced marriages.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the minister clarify when the 116 number will be introduced? Will there be information and publicity about it? Obviously, people will need to know about it in the first instance.

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

As I said, there will soon be a tendering exercise for the hotline to become operational throughout the UK. Robert Brown is correct to say that, for the line to work successfully, people must know that the number is the 116 number. I understand that the 116 number is used throughout Europe, which is why we will have it. I am sure that Robert Brown recognises that, before the child rescue alert system is fully put in place, it is essential that all the operational challenges are properly addressed—most notably, the huge volume of calls that the use of such a system will produce. Thousands of calls are likely to be generated, and it is essential that the police are fully prepared to handle those calls and deal with the follow-up investigations. Robert Brown will appreciate that.

Child protection has been a key priority for the Czech presidency of the EU, and it will be a key priority for the incoming Swedish presidency. Indeed, fairly recently I attended a justice and home affairs council in Luxembourg as part of the UK delegation at which it was clear that the Czech presidency has given an excellent lead on such matters—on the significant issue of abducted children, but also on tackling the sexual abuse of children on the internet.

In conclusion, the Scottish Government is delighted to play its part in improving provision throughout Europe for at-risk children, particularly those who go missing or are abducted.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I, too, congratulate Robert Brown and the Liberal Democrats on raising such an important issue.

As we have heard, the case of Madeleine McCann and the plight of her parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, have made the public much more aware of the important issue of missing children. However, it is important to remember that Gerry and Kate McCann are not the only parents who have been left inconsolable by the disappearance of a child.

I know that Gerry and Kate McCann have studied best practice in the United States, which is internationally acknowledged to be the world leader in recovering missing children. Since 2003, nearly 400 abducted children in America have been recovered, and Belgium and France have now adopted the American approach. Some 80 per cent of abducted children in the US are recovered within the crucial first 72 hours. Early intervention is the key.

We welcome the European Parliament's April resolution to adopt the written Declaration of the European Parliament on Emergency Cooperation in Recovering Missing Children. We should record that it was my colleague Struan Stevenson MEP who initially proposed the written declaration in the European Parliament, before it was jointly sponsored by Edward McMillan-Scott, who is a Conservative, Diana Wallis, who is a Liberal Democrat, and Labour's Glenys Kinnock. Having spoken to Edward McMillan-Scott this morning, I know that he is particularly appreciative of the support that Glenys Kinnock provided in her capacity as chairman of the all-party rights of the child group.

However, more must be done, particularly in relation to the setting up of a missing child hotline, the Amber alert system and a European child resource and policy unit. The Amber alert system in the United States is named after a nine-year-old who was killed by her abductor. It operates like a severe weather warning, with an alert bulletin that is issued following the suspected abduction of a child. The alerts are distributed by the emergency alert system via commercial radio stations, satellite radio stations, television stations and cable TV, as well as e-mail, electronic traffic-condition signs, LED billboards and wireless device short messaging systems text messages.

In France, a similar system has been adopted. In the handful of cases in which it has been used, it has been 100 per cent successful. Once the local police decide to issue an alert, a centre in the Ministry of Justice in Paris activates it within 30 minutes. Belgium has a similar system.

It is important to note that, in the US, there is growing concern among advocates for missing children that the public are becoming desensitised to Amber alerts as a result of the high number of false alarms. A false alarm is defined as the issuing by the police of an Amber alert without strict adherence to the US Department of Justice's activation guidelines. Any similar system that is adopted in Europe or, indeed, in Scotland will have to ensure that alerts are issued in the correct circumstances.

Children go missing for many reasons. The Children's Society estimates that 130,000 children run away, are ejected from home, are abducted or—worse—are injured or killed in the UK each year. Unfortunately, we have no agreed definition of a missing child. The police make no distinction between missing adults and missing children. Also, despite a guidance note that was issued in 2005, each police force operates a different system. Although not mentioned in the motion, that is another issue that must be addressed.

The European Commission is responsible for the establishment of an emergency number for missing children—the 116 000 number. However, only four countries, which do not include the UK, have adopted it thus far. The McCanns want to see a European children's centre, similar to the centre in Washington, bringing together Governments, the police and the voluntary sector in a united front to progress work on, for example, the elimination of layers of frustrating bureaucracy and duplication of work. Such a centre would provide a single focal point for data collection, drafting of policies and public communication on all aspects of policy.

The Children Act 1989, which was introduced by Margaret Thatcher and was probably the most far-reaching and progressive legislation in Europe, made the interests of the child paramount and gave them the right to be heard in the UK courts and to have independent legal representation. We should be pushing for the introduction of those concepts across Europe.

We will support the Liberal Democrat motion at decision time.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We come the open debate. I will not give time limits at this point.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

We know that people of all ages go missing every day, but there is something about a child going missing that has a heart-chilling effect on loved ones and the wider public. Anyone who has ever had that experience, even if only for a short period of time—which is the experience in most cases—will never forget it. It is the living nightmare of all parents, with all the fears about and emotions around what might or might not be happening to their child. That is what makes the experience feel as if it is never ending; it is almost impossible to bear until the child is found.

For a mum or a dad, the horror of a child going missing for ever has to be the worst nightmare imaginable—it is impossible to come to terms with. Some children simply leave under a cloud. Of those who are abducted, some are never seen again and end up being abused on the black web by a paedophile ring. Others are sold as slaves into the sex trade that flourishes worldwide, including in the UK. As we all know, no country or people are safe from traffickers.

Anything that can be done to ensure that a lost child is found must be done. Anything that the Parliament can do to help connect cross-border agencies must be done—indeed, that can only be a good thing. When it comes to missing children, no border or barrier should be put in the way of finding them and returning them to their homes.

As other members said, the first few hours of a child going missing are vital to finding them. The noise that is created in alerting the wider public to the missing child is profound, as the American Amber alert system has shown. The US system is there for all to see—it is evident what it means to all those involved in finding a missing child. The evidence points to a good number of successful recoveries, so why reinvent the wheel?

Most European countries have now put in place a domestic warning system to protect and recover lost children. However, those systems are simply that: domestic systems that operate within the country's borders. We know from the American experience that cross-border and cross-agency early-warning systems and publicity can destruct even well-organised crime. We must join up the intelligence and information and get it out there early, child by missing child. That must be done on a pan-European basis—indeed, on a worldwide basis, given that the world is growing ever smaller.

We should put in place an alert system that can trace a missing child effectively. I support in full Robert Brown's motion. If implemented, it will save a life of nightmares for families—mums, dads, grans, uncles and aunts—and communities.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Like other members, I am grateful to Robert Brown for bringing the matter before the chamber today.

With the on-going campaign that Gerry and Kate McCann are fighting in the European Parliament to create an effective Europe-wide missing child alert system, the debate could not be more timely. It is impossible to debate the issue seriously other than in the European context. It is clear to me and to other members who have spoken in the debate that if ever there was a case for pan-European co-operation, this is it. The ease of cross-border movement within the EU demands that we take a co-ordinated Europe-wide strategic approach to such an alert system.

Just as in the US, no one state or agency can act alone to tackle child abduction effectively. All European countries must therefore act together to implement an alert system. I am sure that—with the possible exception of UKIP—there will be very little party-political divergence on the matter today or on the campaign for such a system in Europe. The McCanns have made it perfectly clear that a Europe-wide alert system would have improved the chances of finding their daughter Madeleine in the crucial first few hours following her abduction.

As other members have said, the first such missing child alert system was established in the United States, following the abduction and brutal murder of Amber Hagerman in Arlington, Texas. Arlington residents were so shocked at the tragic event that they contacted radio stations in the Dallas area to suggest that they broadcast special alerts if a child was ever to be abducted again.

The Amber alert programme has grown to the extent that it now covers the entire United States. As other members have said, the programme uses strict eligibility criteria to decide which cases should be broadcast. That ensures that members of the public do not become blasé about alerts, which is recognised as something that reduces the efficacy of the programme.

The benefit of such a planned and strategic approach is that it minimises delay in responding to child abduction and thereby maximises the time available directly after an abduction has taken place to locate and rescue the missing child.

The Amber alert programme in the US has been successful in rescuing children from abductors. The US Department of Justice reports anecdotal evidence that perpetrators are well aware of the power of the system and, in some cases, have released an abducted child on hearing the alert.

The advent of new information-sharing technologies offers great potential for information to be broadcast widely and quickly following an abduction. Social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, which are now accessible via mobile devices, offer the opportunity of fast dissemination to large numbers of the public of information, which can include photographic information about an abducted child and any information that is known about the abductor.

I was pleased to learn from Fergus Ewing's speech about the work that ACPOS is undertaking in Scotland on the issue, which is certainly welcome. I hope that the Scottish Government will continue to play its part in working alongside the UK Government and Governments in other European nations to create a system that maximises the opportunity to locate abducted children as quickly as possible.

I welcome Robert Brown's motion. He is right to highlight the success of the Amber alert system in the US and equally right to suggest that we should learn from that success and establish a similar system across Europe. Emerging information and communication technologies offer the opportunity of making child abduction a much more risky prospect for any would-be abductors, which can only be a good thing. I hope that the Parliament will support the motion in Robert Brown's name and the amendment in Richard Baker's name.

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

It can be difficult to be one of the last members to speak in a consensual debate. The fear is that one ends up simply repeating what has already been said—or what has already been repeated. Indeed, my pen has been busy during the debate as I scored out much of my speech, so I doubt that I will make my four minutes.

We should, however, make no apology for devoting parliamentary time to such an important subject because it gives us an opportunity, as a united Parliament, to make clear our commitment to doing all that we can to find abducted children as quickly as possible. Perhaps the debate will have some influence on the Parliaments of other nations in Europe that are not fully signed up to the idea of an Amber alert system. I support having such a system and the call for other European nations to get on board in that regard. In particular, I acknowledge the benefits of the 116 000 hotline number, which will soon, I am pleased to hear, be operational across the UK.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I have heard members talk about the 116 000 number. What is Anne McLaughlin's view of the 999 system? Should it be made redundant or should it be incorporated into the Amber alert system?

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I might well make my four minutes now.

I would probably instinctively dial 999 if a child went missing, and I would expect the operators to put me through to the right people. However, we must remember that not every country in Europe uses 999. I think that the comparable number in Spain and Germany is 112, and it is 997 in Poland, so a person coming into this country will not instinctively dial 999. If we had a pan-European number that every country used, people would use it instinctively if their child went missing.

There are critics of the Amber alert system, as other members have said. However, the thought of what the McCann family and, going further back, the family of Ben Needham, who went missing many years ago, and others have gone through convinces me that even if, as some American critics suggest, only a third of missing children are reunited with their families because of the Amber alert system, it is well worth the effort.

The biggest criticism in the United States appears to be not of the system itself but of misuse or overuse of it. The US Department of Justice issues guidance that should be followed before going to the Amber alert system—Paul Martin listed the criteria. One criterion states that the child must be at risk of serious injury or death. Unfortunately, many law enforcement agencies have ignored that and there have, as a result, been many false alarms. Only 30 per cent of the alerts that were issued in 2004 met the criteria and many of the remaining 70 per cent turned out to be false alarms.

The problem that results from false alarms—John Lamont made this point in his speech, but I cannot score out everything in my speech—is that people become desensitised. Text messages, e-mails or interruptions to radio or television programmes should happen only in an absolute emergency. The public must know that, if "Coronation Street" is interrupted, it is not time to go and make a cup of tea but time to sit up and take notice. If such interruptions happen too often, people will simply switch off and switch the kettle on. None of that, however, is an argument against having the Amber alert system; rather, it gives us an opportunity to learn from the US's mistakes. Perhaps in doing so, Scotland can work towards becoming one of the world leaders in best practice.

While calling for an Amber alert system, we ought not to underestimate the amount and quality of work that is going on and the good practices that are being used by our police forces. I spoke yesterday to a police officer who is experienced in missing children cases. Much of what he said has already been discussed in the debate, so I will not repeat it, but he also said that the most crucial aspect of a scheme such as the Amber alert scheme is consistency of approach among forces and other agencies, such as the media. The motion calls for such consistency across national borders. It may not be straightforward to set that up and it may not be easy to get agreement across the nations but—to paraphrase both Andrew Carnegie and the Arctic Monkeys—nothing worth having is gotten easily. For all those children who are still missing and—it is painful to say it, but it needs to be said—for all those children who are still to go missing, we must get the international agreement that the motion seeks, whether it is easy to do so or not.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I call Cathie Craigie to speak, after which we will come to wind-up speeches.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

As other members have been, I am pleased to speak in the debate and to offer my support for Robert Brown's motion and the amendment in Richard Baker's name. I feel the same as my colleague Anne McLaughlin, in that the back shift is always a hard shift to fill in such a consensual debate.

Discovering that their child is missing must truly be a nightmare scenario in the lives of any parent, as other members have said. Some of us in the chamber met relatives of Madeleine McCann two years ago when they came to the Scottish Parliament to highlight their needs and the difficulties that their family had experienced in getting cross-Europe co-operation in the search for their young niece. Although we all saw and felt their pain, in reality we in this chamber can only imagine how it must be for a family whose child goes missing for a prolonged time.

In these days of instant news and modern communications, I cannot understand why countries across Europe and, indeed, the world would not want to see a strong cross-border approach and a visible urgency in tracing missing children. Emergency co-operation in recovering missing children is essential, and I am pleased that Labour MEPs have been working for a number of years on the issue of tracking missing children, and that they fully support the written declaration on emergency co-operation that was launched last month, which calls for an EU-wide alert system. All that is required for that to become the official position of the European Parliament is for 50 per cent of the 785 MEPs in the European Parliament to sign up to the written declaration. It looks like that will be achieved without any difficulty.

We know from other countries in the world, where alert systems like the American Amber alert system exist, that such systems have been proved to be successful in recovering missing and abducted children. However, the voluntary approach that has been taken so far by the European Parliament is not working across Europe. While incidents of children going missing in Britain and other European countries continue, we must work together on that. I think that we can do that, which will help in tracking down missing children.

There is no benefit in my repeating what other members have said, so I will not take up my full four minutes. I conclude by saying that children cannot look after themselves, so we—parents, grandparents, policy makers, politicians and Governments—must act to adopt the simple and effective approach that will help when a child goes missing, which is the Europe-wide alert system. I encourage the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government and other European Governments to achieve such a system sooner rather than later, in the UK and beyond.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

As has been said, the debate has been consensual. That is the case for one simple reason—although we in the Parliament have our differences now and again, we are all caring people and we recognise that we have a clear duty to look after society's most vulnerable people.

We should not exaggerate the problem—there is not a paedophile around every corner—but we must acknowledge that the problem exists. We require also to recognise that we live in a shrinking world, with all the enjoyment and advantages of that, but also with the result that dangers exist that might not have existed 30 or 40 years ago.

It is important to stress that we can do only so much. As has been said, about 130,000 children go missing in the UK every year. It is easy to categorise them under several headings. Children or teenagers might walk out of the house in a strop. Some disappear for a few hours then return and others might disappear for a few days or months, after which they usually return. Others might not return, but come to no harm. To deal with the problem of people becoming blasé, we must target the most vulnerable—young children such as Madeleine McCann. I recollect only two such instances. One is the tragic incident that involved Madeleine McCann and the other is that of a young boy who went missing on the island of Crete and who has not been recovered. There is no doubt that if the appropriate mechanisms were in place to highlight and publicise missing children in the first couple of hours of their going astray, the chances of recovering them would be much greater.

We should disregard cases—traumatic though they may be—in which a child is abducted by an estranged spouse, and concentrate instead on children who are abducted for obscure purposes that are never explained or, to be frank, for horrific sexual purposes. With sincere eloquence, Gil Paterson highlighted the horrors of every parent's fears about a child going missing, which we must recognise.

If we kept narrow the parameters for the cases to which the system applied, that would inevitably result in fewer cases being reported and would avoid the problem that Karen Whitefield, John Lamont and others were right to raise—that the public might become blasé and turn off because too many cases were publicised. If we concentrated on cases for which immediate notification would produce a result, the system would be of tremendous benefit.

I took some comfort from what the minister said. As Paul Martin said, it is surprising that we have not gone further down the road. International co-operation is important under several headings, and co-operation on missing children has perhaps been overlooked. However, action is now being taken and we are now going down that route. That can only benefit people who find themselves in the horrific circumstances of the McCanns.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

We have had a good and informed debate on a serious and important issue. I join all the members who welcomed the decision of Robert Brown and the Liberal Democrats to bring the subject to Parliament. Society and Governments have no more important role than protecting our children and pursuing effectively those who are responsible for crimes against them, which rightly provoke revulsion whenever they take place.

It is important to have at our disposal every tool to achieve those aims. The proposed missing children alert system could make a difference in locating children who have been abducted. That is why the written Declaration of the European Parliament on Emergency Cooperation in Recovering Missing Children is an important step forward. As Cathie Craigie said, it is supported enthusiastically by Labour members of the European Parliament and across the parties, as we have heard.

Several members have referred to the impressive and encouraging examples of such work in the United States and in other parts of Europe. To establish an Amber alert system throughout the continent, Governments and police agencies will be required to work more closely together. As Anne McLaughlin said, making progress on such work can be difficult and, at times, frustratingly slow. However, every effort must be made to persevere with the initiative, because of its potential. It is good that at least an initial scheme is working in England and Wales, but we should examine examples from abroad of full systems that are operational and consider how we can make similar progress in Scotland. The UK-wide exercise that the minister mentioned is encouraging and we want to build on such work.

How best to achieve such a scheme will be debated. That might be through a Europe-wide scheme or through national alert schemes that communicate effectively with one another. Missing Children Europe has argued that having schemes that work within national boundaries but communicate with one another would focus attention in the country in which a child went missing and in the countries that border it.

John Lamont was right to say that we must ensure that the system is effective, which will take careful thought. Karen Whitefield said that it is important to consider how to implement schemes so that people are not desensitised to them when they have been in place for a while. Bill Aitken also referred to that. Those points were well made and need to be properly considered as schemes are developed.

The crucial point is that a system should, however it is achieved, work across borders. Effective collaboration between police forces is needed. I read in some of the debate about the proposal that some people are sceptical about how well police forces from different countries will work together. The key point is that police forces will increasingly have to collaborate more effectively as more free movement takes place in an expanding European Union. That thinking drives our amendment, which I hope Parliament will support.

Such co-operation is crucial not only in recovering missing children but in tackling other important areas of crime, particularly in alerting police forces when people with serious criminal backgrounds move into their jurisdictions—that issue has arisen here. Better joint working needs to happen, and implementing the missing children scheme should be part of that process. However, we know that that initiative alone will not be enough to make the progress that we want in order better to protect our children from crime.

We welcome the pilot in Tayside that will allow parents and guardians to ask the police whether new partners or other adults who have easy access to their children have convictions for child sex offences. That follows successful pilots south of the border and Paul Martin's campaigning work on Mark's law. The horrific offences against children that were detected through operation algebra and the successful prosecution of those who were responsible show the challenges that the police face in preventing and detecting such crimes.

It is a sad and sobering thought that more children will go missing in our country, but that is the bleak reality that we must face. We must do all that we can to deal with such appalling situations wherever they occur. The debate has shown that Europe-wide adoption of alert schemes would make a difference. The Scottish Government must work with the UK Government and Scottish police forces must work with their counterparts throughout the UK and Europe to progress that vital initiative. I am happy to endorse the motion in Robert Brown's name, which we will support at decision time.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I thank Robert Brown for lodging the motion. I continue to be encouraged by the progress that is being made in developing systems in this country for rescuing abducted children and in supporting services for missing children more generally. As my colleague Fergus Ewing indicated, we are fully supportive of, and engaged in, UK and Europe-wide initiatives. I point out to my colleague Gil Paterson and to Parliament that the European Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings became binding in the UK on 1 April this year. The Scottish Government, for its part, is running awareness events on child trafficking. In March, we issued guidance on safeguarding children who may have been trafficked and we are working with local child protection committees.

When we discuss discrete pieces of work such as the child rescue alert system or the 116 000 hotline for missing children, it is important that we offer the context on how those solutions fit with the range of work that the Government is undertaking in child protection. As members would expect, child protection is a top priority for the Government. Over the past couple of years, we have worked to shift the emphasis of those services in order to place increased focus on the need to intervene earlier and more effectively. That approach runs through everything we are doing through the policy frameworks with which members are familiar: the early years framework, "Equally Well" and "Achieving Our Potential". Getting it right for every child provides us with the foundation for delivering all the work that is covered by the frameworks and by all children's services. The approach recognises the crucial role that universal services play in supporting and protecting children, and the need for clear links between them and specialist professionals.

Members will be aware that in February this year I tasked a national multi-agency working group with considering how best to revise the 1998 guidance document "Protecting Children—A Shared Responsibility". It is important that the guidance that we provide to professionals is an accurate reflection of evolving national policies. We all recognise the importance of driving forward improvements in practice as quickly and consistently as possible. The review is a major opportunity to revisit and optimise every aspect of Scottish child protection provision. I intend that a revised guidance document will be available for consultation in the spring of next year.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

My question concerns the definition of a child. In his speech, Bill Aitken suggested that we are concentrating on young children. I accept that false alarms are an issue, but will the minister confirm that we are dealing with children of all ages, in both the domestic and the international categories?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Indeed. Robert Brown will be aware that there is some dissent over the definition of a child and on the age at which children become adults. For the purposes of our involvement in the child alert system, we are taking the view that any young person under 18 can be defined as a child. Normally in Scots law, a child is defined as someone under 16, so we are fitting in with our European brethren on that front.

If we are to intervene earlier and more effectively to protect our children—in those instances in which children have gone missing or where there are other concerns about their welfare—it is important that we take seriously our responsibility for ensuring that our young people get the help that they need, when they need it. For members of the public, that may mean a call to the police, the local authority, the national child protection line or the soon-to-be-established 116 000 hotline for missing children. For professionals, it will mean sharing information, considering risks and taking appropriate and proportionate action to ensure that our young people are safe and supported. It is the Parliament's role to ensure that practitioners and individual members of the public feel sufficiently supported and empowered to take on those responsibilities.

A wide range of work is under way in this critical area, and excellent progress is being made. However, we cannot be complacent, as much remains to be done. I am confident that the approach that we are taking is the right one and that we can continue to make changes that will have a real and positive impact on the lives of our children and young people.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

We are happy to accept Richard Baker's amendment, which adds to the motion.

Monday 25 May was international missing children's day, the aim of which is to encourage and offer solidarity and hope to the thousands of parents around the world who have no news of their missing children. For many, it was a poignant reminder of the 9,000 children who are reported missing—just in Scotland—every year. As the Minister for Community Safety said, across the world hundreds of thousands of children go missing each year.

As others have said, if we are to be successful in recovering a missing child who is in danger of harm, the first 48 hours are vital. It is, therefore, crucial that the authorities have every tool that they need at their disposal during that time. That is why it is vital that the Scottish Government move to support a system like the Amber alert campaign in the US. Paul Martin may be more familiar with the internet, computers, Facebook and so on than I or even Bill Aitken, who referred to the issue—given our age—but I agree with him that advances in computers must make it much simpler to replicate the American system. I am, therefore, pleased that the Minister for Community Safety has confirmed that the new ACPOS system will be operational in Scotland by 2010.

Now that the UK is part of an open Europe, it is no longer possible to tackle all forms of criminality at local level. I echo the succinct remarks of Edward McMillan-Scott, MEP for Yorkshire and Humber and the European Parliament's Vice-President, who said that currently European countries fail to co-ordinate effectively when attempting to recover missing children. The system needs to be more robust and, crucially, faster.

In April 2008, Mr McMillan-Scott launched a cross-party sponsored Declaration of the European Parliament on Emergency Cooperation in Recovering Missing Children. After receiving the support of 418 MEPs, it was formally adopted as a resolution last month. The pilot system that is now in development is based on the successful US Amber alert system, which has recovered a huge number of children. The same system forms the basis for the UK child rescue alert system, which is managed through the missing kids website.

I was interested in what John Lamont said about the Amber alert system in the US, where people may be becoming blasé or desensitised because of the number of events or incidents that are reported; we heard about them being flashed up on road signs and across computers. It is important that we address that issue. The Minister for Community Safety explained the four different criteria that must be used to make the system robust. If, as John Lamont indicated, there is evidence that people are becoming desensitised in the States, we must be careful to ensure that that does not happen here. I agree that the scheme must be well publicised to be successful. People need to know about the systems that are available; when they enter the country, they should know to call 116 000, rather than 999. If everyone knows that one phone number is in use throughout Europe, that can only be good.

The UK child rescue alert system aims to set up or enhance child alert mechanisms in all member states; to increase the compatibility and co-ordination of child alert schemes; and to foster co-operation between national law enforcement authorities and judiciaries, in order to help transmit alerts rapidly and to develop structures and procedures that are aimed at resolving cross-border cases of child abduction much more efficiently and effectively. Several measures are already in place, including, as I have said, the 116 000 freephone European missing child hotline, which has been mandatory for member states since 2007 and is now operating in 10 countries although not yet in the UK.

Earlier examples of European co-operation on cross-border law enforcement show that it has been successful. Perhaps the minister's officials could investigate the Daphne III programme, which has been funded by the European Commission and is being tapped into by a number of European countries to give them funds to develop their schemes for recovering children who have been abducted or reported missing. The introduction of the European arrest warrant has also reduced extradition times from European Union countries from 18 months to 43 days. It is my hope that a new Amber alert type of system can be similarly effective.

Europe is in agreement, and the principle of an Amber alert system has already received cross-party support in Parliament through the motion that Kenneth Gibson lodged last year. I urge the Scottish Government to work with the UK

Government to support the development of a similar system that will work across the UK and across Europe and to ensure that existing alert systems and cross-border schemes, such as the 116 000 European hotline, are successful. Many members have referred to the McCann case. It is vital that we ensure that such cases are not inflicted on parents in the future.

Supporting Scottish Business

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4246, in the name of Jeremy Purvis, on supporting Scottish business. I call Jeremy Purvis to speak to and move the motion.

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

I was heartened to see the reference in the Government's amendment to the benefit to the Scottish economy of the joint European resources for micro to medium enterprises—JEREMIE. Modesty prevented me from spelling out the initiative in detail in my motion, but the reference is to the same scheme—the European Union's JEREMIE scheme—and its applicability and benefit to Scotland's businesses.

Putting aside the nuance of pronunciation of the name as well as the temptation for us to vote for the Scottish National Party's amendment, our proposition is simply that the SNP has acted too slowly and used assertion in place of action. Nine months on from when we first raised the issue with the Government, it can offer only further consideration and study of the scheme in Scotland. That is disappointing not only for us but for the many hundreds, if not thousands, of small businesses in Scotland that could benefit from such a scheme.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Given the fact that Mr Purvis has had nine months to think about the issue, how many millions of pounds do the Liberal Democrats propose to allocate to the scheme? What proportion of those funds would come from the European Investment Bank and what proportion would have to come from the Scottish Government?

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

I will come to that in a moment when I talk about the Welsh scheme as a possible base on which Scotland can build.

Last week, under a Labour motion, we debated the number of people who have lost their jobs over the past year. The benefits claimant rate in Scotland has increased by 50,000 over the past year—which is chilling enough—and more than 1,000 people in my constituency have lost their jobs. That is devastating for the local economy in a rural area of Scotland. During that time, the Government's economic recovery programme has had, as its highlight, accelerated investment to

"support over 5,000 jobs in the Scottish economy over the next year."

However, we have had no further detail on that figure.

When I got home last night, I re-read the Government's economic recovery plan, because I had received a glossy leaflet from the SNP for the forthcoming European elections. That leaflet boldly stated:

"Our Economic Recovery Plan will protect 20,000 jobs".

There is no reference in the recovery plan to the figure of 20,000, so I ask the minister to explain exactly the derivation of that figure. It is clearly misleading in its reference to the SNP's economic recovery plan.

We have argued that a JEREMIE scheme and debt support should be included in the Government's economic recovery plan. We make that plea within the context of the European Investment Bank's new changes, in light of the European recession. For 2009-10, the total investment by the European Investment Bank has gone up to €72 billion, which includes an additional €15 billion for this year. At the December council meeting, the Commission permitted aid grants of up to €500,000 per business, in addition to lending, if businesses can demonstrate that their difficulties are the result of the recession.

Many small and medium-sized manufacturing businesses throughout Scotland would benefit from such aid. Indeed, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism met me and representatives from the textiles sector just this week and we debated that point. In drawing up its budget, the Government knew that it had increased flexibility not only to supply grant in aid support but to move ahead with Scottish Enterprise on debt support lending for small businesses. However, the Government wrote to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities indicating that, although it had that flexibility, it did not have any resource for that within its budget, which had just been passed. That was the Government's own budget that it had put together in the context of having more levers at its disposal.

The JEREMIE initiative, which uses structural fund mechanisms, is being used in Wales. Gavin Brown's point will perhaps be addressed by looking at Wales's EIB draw-down and use of structural funds. In the year ending October 2008, there were 316 deals under Finance Wales for debt support lending worth £33 million. There is concern that the interest rate in Wales is higher than it should be—I acknowledge that. Nevertheless, Wales has an established system that Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Government have eschewed. It does not take five months—or, indeed, nine months—to study the applicability of such a system to Scotland, so what could be the potential blocks?

We heard from the First Minister yesterday, on Radio 4's "Today" programme that the dead hand of the Treasury was preventing the Scottish Government from drawing down European Investment Bank funding. EIB funding on a United Kingdom-basis—which includes Scotland—of €600 million has been made available to HBOS and the Royal Bank of Scotland for lending to support small businesses. Indeed, Jim Mather and Peter Mandelson co-launched that funding. Much as I am tempted to picture the image of mind-mapping meeting Machiavelli at that launch, that was all well and good. However, in November, John Swinney said that more needed to be done on debt support lending, as it was the top priority for small businesses. Not only did he say that more needed to be done, he said that it needed to be done over the coming years. That is why we are frustrated that there has been no action on debt support lending.

The dead hand of the Treasury has also not prevented €400 million from being drawn down from the European Investment Fund since the SNP came to power. That money has been used for three public-private partnership projects: one in Dumfries and Galloway, one in the Forth valley and the M80 extension. The SNP seemingly threw off the dead hand of the Treasury to fund PPP schemes that were all signed off under the present Government. That is rather curious, especially as the Scottish Parliament information centre has indicated to the Liberal Democrats that there has been no application to use money from the European Investment Fund to support small business lending.

The money is available. If it is simply a matter of the financial rules governing the way in which the budget is constituted, as John Swinney told the European and External Relations Committee recently, surely the two Governments at Holyrood and Westminster can work together to ensure that small businesses receive the debt support lending that they need. That is what we require. The funding seems to be available for PPP projects under the SNP but not for small businesses.

We hope that, as a result of the pressure that the Scottish Trades Union Congress and small businesses have applied, and the pressure that we hope the Parliament will apply today, we will see changes in the Scottish Government's approach.

Tentative moves have been made. A proposal to use EIB funding has been included in Scottish Enterprise's operating plan for the coming year, and Scottish Enterprise has said that it will consider it. The difficulty is that Scottish Enterprise has been considering it since last summer. That difficulty has been compounded by the fact that the Scottish National Party changed Scottish Enterprise's remit so that it focuses only on high-growth and large companies.

There is no equivalent of Finance Wales in the Scottish economy because of the environment that the Scottish Government has created. In addition to the difficulty that has been caused by the fact that the SNP has been extremely slow to draw down money from the EIB, we face a situation in which the infrastructure that the SNP has created in Scotland will cause difficulties in delivering initiatives on the ground.

If the Scottish economy is to recover from the recession, supporting our manufacturing sector must be the top priority. The driver for that, nine months on from when the issue was first raised with the Scottish Government, is still the provision of debt support lending for small businesses. We need action on that and we need clarity on the way forward from the Government. Yesterday's statement by the First Minister that the dead hand of the Treasury is preventing us from taking such action is not sufficient—we need action and we need it now.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the serious difficulties faced by the Scottish businesses struggling to access the funds that they need during the economic downturn, with the double squeeze of late payment and tighter lending a critical concern for small businesses in particular; notes that the Welsh Assembly Government is using European Investment Bank (EIB) funding to help small businesses bridge funding gaps, supporting the expansion of 800 businesses and creating up to 15,000 jobs across Wales; regrets that the Scottish Government has not introduced a similar initiative in Scotland; further regrets the Scottish Government's inaction and delay in utilising the EIB funding available to it; believes that SNP ministers should use every lever at their disposal to help Scotland's economy, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward a statement before the summer recess containing new plans to use EIB funding to support small businesses so that they do not continue to be at a competitive disadvantage to their Welsh counterparts.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Before I respond directly to the motion, it is important to put the debate in context and to look at the root cause of the current economic conditions and the liquidity crisis. The credit crunch stemmed from a huge and unstable sub-prime mortgage market in America, which was a function of the regulatory race to the bottom that took place in the UK and the USA, and the resultant moral hazard that saw business being written off in the interests of short-term profits.

In the UK, there was a failure of stewardship by the Treasury, the Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England, which must have known that institutions were borrowing short term and making long-term loans—in some cases without having any confidence in or proof of the ability to repay—and that that could only end badly and untidily.

That is what happened, and there has been a ripple effect on the international financial market, which has contributed to the general slow-down in the economy that has had a direct negative impact on every business and household in Scotland.

In that context, and in the light of the action that we have already taken, I take serious issue with the terms of Jeremy Purvis's motion. It ignores the fact that this Government has shown leadership and commitment from the beginning of the downturn. The Scottish Government has acted quickly and decisively in support of Scottish businesses and households. We accelerated our housing investment and brought forward our spending on structural fund programmes before the rest of the UK. In addition, a cash injection of some £95 million in European funding will be directed towards Scotland's economic recovery through programmes to develop the workforce, safeguard and create jobs, and regenerate communities. A total of 129 projects across Scotland will benefit from £70 million in new allocations from the European regional development fund and £24.7 million in allocations from the European social fund.

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

Will the minister explain how much of that money was not already in the indicative plans for the funding round up until 2013? How much additional resource has been drawn down from the European Union?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The money that I have mentioned is additional resource—it is a fresh cash injection.

The 50 new ERDF projects, which will focus on business growth, urban regeneration and rural development, will support the creation of almost 8,000 jobs. The 79 new ESF projects are expected to help 75,000 people to gain or sustain employment opportunities through training and skills development. Overall, we have developed a comprehensive recovery programme that is focused on all the levers and resources that are available to this Government. We took immediate action.

In addition, we have worked across the Scottish public sector with the common purpose of marshalling all our resources to ensure that Scotland moves quickly to recovery and on to increasing sustainable growth, and emerges fitter, more focused, more cohesive and more competitive than before. Our latest update on the recovery programme, which is to be published in June, will demonstrate that that continues to be at the heart of all that we do, but it does not and cannot stop there.

Through meetings between the Cabinet and our social partners, we are working collectively on what more we can do to support the recovery. Equally, through our series of sectoral engagement sessions, business breakfasts and meetings with different business groups across the country, we continue to listen to what companies are telling us about the reality of the downturn and what they need. As members of the Parliament are well aware, we are pushing the UK Government to take the right action to support recovery and not to choke off emerging growth through swingeing budget cuts that will result in a huge reduction for the Scottish budget. The UK Government's deflationary cuts could see approximately 9,000 people losing their jobs across key sectors of the Scottish economy.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

The First Minister and other ministers bring up those cuts all the time. Should the additional £500 million that is necessary come from increased borrowing by the Treasury or from a tax increase?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Treasury has the same charge that we have—to optimise the economy. It must optimise the economy at UK level, just as we must do at the Scottish level. However, we will not optimise the Scottish economy if we adopt a deflationary approach in the middle of a recession.

Our active pursuit of the best interests of the people of Scotland continues. From our first day in office, we have been clear that our purpose must be to focus our resources and powers on increasing sustainable economic growth. That goal is supported by our economic strategy, which aims to bring the private, public and voluntary sectors in Scotland together in common cause. We have done that and are continuing to do it, and the people have responded and are continuing to respond. Instead of altering our strategy or our resolve, the current economic downturn has demonstrated the importance of the whole of the public sector acting to support economic growth.

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

Will the minister give way?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I have already taken an intervention from the member. I need to get some important messages on the record.

People can clearly see that if there are good ideas and opportunities that we can adopt to help us to achieve our goal, we will listen, we will consider and—when it is the right thing to do—we will act. The Scottish people would not expect anything less of us.

Back in April, the First Minister announced that the Scottish Government would work towards the creation of a Scottish investment bank, which would pull together Scottish Enterprise and ERDF funding to support businesses with growth potential and thereby help Scotland to make a strong economic recovery. Work is under way to consider whether the resources that might be available to the Scottish investment bank could be augmented through a loan from the European Investment Bank, with a view to creating a JEREMIE fund for Scotland. Scottish Government officials are already engaging with the Treasury on that issue and will have further such engagement, as those additional funds would enhance our scope to support business growth. Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Government officials are also working together to deliver that objective.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I have only 30 seconds left.

We should be clear that Scottish Enterprise is already making such interventions. The Scottish investment bank will initially comprise £150 million of resource, which represents several years' worth of investment at the current spending rate. Although an EIB loan might be positive for Scotland, it is right that we take care and sufficient time to consider whether and how best to pursue that proposal.

The delivery of the SIB is one of a number of activities that we are undertaking. Others include speeding up the payments that we make to businesses, 91.6 per cent of which are now made within 10 days, and the delivery of the small business bonus scheme, which is providing much-needed relief to all Scotland's small businesses and reducing fixed costs for many new start-ups. We will continue with the process to which we are committed because we want Scotland to be fitter, more cohesive and better able to achieve the sustainable economic growth that we seek.

I move amendment S3M-4246.2, to leave out from "regrets" to end and insert:

"further notes that the Scottish Investment Bank, announced by the First Minister on 21 April 2009, will initially bring together approximately £150 million in public sector resource to support company growth in Scotland; also notes that, following this first step, the Scottish Government will look to enhance the scale and impact of such financial support to growing Scottish businesses including the potential to secure significant additional funds from the European Investment Bank through the establishment of a Joint European Resources for Micro to Medium Enterprises (JEREMIE) fund for Scotland, and considers that, among other measures that the Scottish Government has introduced, its small business bonus scheme has helped the tens of thousands of Scottish firms now exempt from paying local business rates."

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the opportunity to open on behalf of Labour. Although the title of the debate is "Supporting Scottish Business", I am keen to put on record our recognition of the important role that businesses play in supporting employment across all our communities. Whether large or small, businesses play a hugely important role in our society by providing services, developing skills for the wider economy and driving economic growth and prosperity.

In the present climate, all businesses face huge challenges in accessing finance, which is affecting their ability to make the longer-term investment decisions that we know they need to make day in, day out if they are to provide the employment and prosperity that we all want them to provide. Throughout my constituency, companies of all shapes and sizes are growing frustrated with the difficulties that they are experiencing in obtaining credit. I know that bodies such as the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and the STUC are constantly providing the Scottish Government with ideas and suggestions on measures that might help. I have met most of the major banks over the past few months and they stress that money is available, but I am sure that everyone agrees that circumstances have changed significantly and that the experience of businesses in the front line is not always that money is available.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

Will the member give way?

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry, but I want to move on.

That is why Governments, whether here in Scotland or at UK level, must do everything that they can to get the system moving, and why I think there is merit in the motion and the amendments.

Although I said last week that I like Scottish solutions to Scottish problems, we should never be apprehensive about considering initiatives from other countries, especially those that face challenges similar to ours. I recognise that the Scottish Government has been considering the concept of a Scottish investment bank for some time and has apparently been considering a proposal similar to the Welsh model that is outlined in the Liberal Democrat motion. However, it would be useful if the minister, in summing up, outlined whether—I think that he said a little about this in his opening speech—any assessment has been made on adopting such a model. Why has a Scottish investment bank been chosen ahead of any other proposed models? Such detail is important, which is why our amendment would require the Scottish Government to provide further detail on the development of the proposed Scottish investment bank—a proposal which, let me put on record, I have supported for a number of years.

Even before the First Minister made his announcement at the STUC annual congress in April, the concept of a Scottish investment bank conjured up many different ideas and solutions. The first question that might be posed is whether an SIB would indeed be a bank. The Scottish Government has perhaps already given the answer, in that a Government spokesperson acknowledged that the SIB would not be a bank in the accepted sense. As a vehicle of economic development, the proposed Scottish investment bank would not be subject to the control of the Financial Services Authority. No matter what they do next, ministers need to demonstrate how the new body would bring in additional investment—or, better, how it would use existing finances to create jobs—and state clearly what advantage the new body would offer over and above the current separate funds that it would pull together. Businesses will ask, what will this mean for me? What difference will it make? What will that difference look like for my business?

During Labour's debate last week, our call for the Government to examine the ProAct scheme in Wales was well received by the Parliament. Given the importance of Government responsiveness in the current climate, I hope that the minister has done some work since last week and is prepared to say in his summing-up speech something more about whether the Government is seriously considering such a scheme. Today's motion from the Lib Dems also recognises the importance of the Government acting quickly and calls on the Scottish Government to come back to the Parliament with more detail before the summer recess. It is important for all of us that our debates—whether from last week or this morning—are responded to by the Government as quickly as possible. Perhaps in summing up the minister could also outline what steps the Government has taken with the economic recovery programme.

This debate will provide a valuable and important opportunity for members to talk about their experiences within their constituencies. MSPs need to tell the Government what the current situation means for their businesses and remind the Scottish Government of the need to provide detail on the announcements that it has made. The debate provides not only an opportunity for members to discuss the issues but, more important, a platform for the Scottish Government to provide more detail on the announcements that it has made to the STUC outside the Parliament. I hope that the Government will take that opportunity this morning.

I move amendment S3M-4246.1, to insert at end:

"and to provide detailed information about the Scottish Investment Bank proposal announced by the First Minister at the STUC conference on 21 April 2009."

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

The Scottish Conservatives welcome the opportunity once again to discuss the economy and how best we can support businesses throughout Scotland.

As we heard from Mr Purvis earlier, there have been some terrible figures recently. Over the past year, the claimant count for unemployment has increased by 53,000. BDO Stoy Hayward predicts that 5,000 businesses could fail this year and 5,500 could fail next year. In the past week, various other bits of news have come out. Last Friday, it was revealed that the UK economy suffered a 1.9 per cent contraction compared with the previous quarter, which is the worst contraction since 1979. In addition, the Treasury survey of business forecasts gives gloomier predictions than the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided in his budget. Whereas Mr Darling predicted that we would borrow to the tune of £606 billion over the next four years, the independent forecasts predict that the figure will be £679 billion—a difference of some £70 billion. Just yesterday, news of potential problems for businesses emerged, because the oil price has started to creep up, with oil now at a six-month high of $62 per barrel.

As I said last week in Labour's debate, we will consider seriously any positive proposal from any party that could help businesses in Scotland. This week, our position is no different. The Liberal Democrat motion on using European Investment Bank funding in the way it is used in Wales merits serious consideration. However, I suppose that the difference between us and the Liberal Democrats—this is also probably the difference between the Government amendment and the Liberal Democrat motion—is that we believe that the proposal needs to be given serious consideration rather than requiring the Government to report back before the recess on its plans to make such a proposal happen. There is a debate to be had on whether the proposal is the right thing for Scotland and whether it should happen before we require the Government to come back to us on how it will happen.

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

I understand why the member makes that point, but does he appreciate that we have put our proposal to the Government not just today but over the past nine months? That is why we now want more urgency in the response from the Government, which has already had too long.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

We agree that the Government ought to be pushed on whether the ProAct proposal and the EIB suggestion are viable schemes that should happen. However, as I asked Mr Purvis in my intervention, we need to consider what size of scheme would be appropriate for Scotland. I do not think that he answered that. As I understand it, the Welsh scheme is worth £150 million, but only £75 million of that comes from the EIB—about £60 million comes from the Welsh Assembly Government. If a large sum would be required from the Scottish budget, we would need to think carefully whether the money would be available and where it would come from. Would the scheme involve more than £150 million, given that Scotland is bigger than Wales?

Another important question is whether the proposed scheme—I asked the same question about the ProAct proposal last week—would actually make an impact. The Welsh JEREMIE fund was launched on 24 April, so it has been running for only three or four weeks. Do we know whether the scheme has made a difference thus far? Will helping 800 businesses and 15,000 jobs actually be realised, or is that merely aspirational?

Another legitimate question is how quickly the proposed scheme could be implemented. Whereas ProAct was implemented in about three months, the chairman of Finance Wales has said that the JEREMIE fund was planned for quite some time. Those legitimate questions need to be asked before deciding whether the proposal can or should go ahead.

We will support anything that we believe will genuinely help Scottish businesses. We pushed the Scottish Government to accelerate the small business bonus scheme, which is helping 146,000 businesses across Scotland. We argued strongly for a town centre regeneration fund to the tune of £60 million, which will also be positive in helping many towns in Scotland.

I have one point that I hope the minister will pick up. The Scottish Government has increased the speed with which it pays contractors by introducing a 10-day rule, which the minister said is complied with in, I think, 91 per cent of cases. However, as the minister knows, every contract with the Scottish Government involves a supply chain that involves subcontractors and, very often, sub-subcontractors. What can be done—I suspect that legislating on the matter would be difficult—about the Government's contracts with its main contractors? Can clauses be inserted into any fresh contracts to make it clear that the 10-day rule applies all the way down the supply chain? That simple measure could be implemented quite quickly, at the stroke of a minister's pen, and applied to all future contracts. That would ensure that viable businesses did not go to the wall purely because of cash-flow issues. Those are the kinds of measures that we want to see. I hope that the minister will respond to those points in his speech.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Members may care to note that, provided that they do not get into tedious repetition, time is very much on their side.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

It is always a pleasure to consider motions from our Lib Dem colleagues on financial or economic matters. Uniformity is so dull in this drab world, yet the Lib Dems present us with a new set of proposals almost every month. It is unfortunate that the new proposals frequently contradict those that they submitted previously, but that is no matter. To give pleasure to others is a great gift that we should cherish, not criticise.

The 2p in the pound reduction in income tax, with its consequential loss of £800 million a year to Scottish public spending, has been safely kicked into the long grass and we have turned our attention to how we should use that newly restored public expenditure to help our small businesses.

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I did not think that I had said anything very controversial.

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

It is a pre-emptive strike.

The member referred to revenue loss. He will be aware that, in the coming financial year, the council tax freeze equates to £420 million of revenue loss. Why is that not part of the public sector cuts that he says other parties are proposing?

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Can I presume that the Lib Dems would have trebled the council tax rise to make up for the £800 million loss that they are taking out of it? We had a worthy debate this morning on missing children; in the second debate, we are looking for the missing Lib Dem economic policy.

Far from being idle, the Scottish Government has led the other countries in these islands by taking such measures as are available to it to support our businesses. The small business bonus scheme has been an outstanding success.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Does the member not accept that the debate is about our reaction to the economic crisis, and that the small business bonus scheme was built on the 50 per cent reduction that was introduced by the previous Scottish Executive, entirely before the economic crisis hit Scotland and Great Britain?

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

That is not entirely true, Mr Rumbles. I give our Government great credit for forecasting the problems. It could see the mismanagement of the British economy. The world economic crisis is one thing, but Britain had an especially bad record in the lead-up to it by spending when we should have been saving. As a result, we do not have the money to tide us through the recession. I give the Scottish Government a great deal of credit.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

No one else does.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

No, Mr Rumbles. That is why the Lib Dems have 16 MSPs and the SNP has 47.

Many small businesses claim that the small business bonus scheme is a major support in keeping them afloat during the current recession. Businesses with a rateable value of £8,000 or less have had their business rates removed entirely, while other businesses, with rateable values up to £15,000, have had them significantly reduced. That has enabled businesses to offset other bills, while—according to a survey—9.5 per cent of businesses have used the saving to take in extra stock or to train staff.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I accept that the small business bonus scheme is helping to offset bills, but does the member share my concern about research for the Federation of Small Businesses that suggests that only 5 per cent of businesses say that it has led to job-related investment—in other words, that it has increased employment?

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I share that concern, but it is early days for the scheme. It is clear from various surveys that the future of Scotland depends largely on small businesses prospering, so I congratulate the Government on putting its efforts into ensuring that, during the financial crisis, small businesses—while perhaps not increasing the number of staff—are not going out of business. That is important. However, I thank John Park for raising the issue.

We have accelerated European Union funding to fund construction work in Scotland; launched business club Scotland to help businesses to capitalise on major sporting events in Scotland; doubled support for the Scottish manufacturing advisory service; and taken the first steps in creating a Scottish investment bank. The latter project has used European regional development fund money. However, as Gavin Brown said, there are technical reasons why a bid for European Investment Bank funding may cause problems, and it is wise to wait until those have been sorted out before going down that route.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

No action, then.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Careful action rather than impetuously going into a situation that could cause us trouble later on.

We have also utilised European money to help businesses by obtaining £355 million of investment from the European structural funds since 2007.

I do not wish to be complacent, but the motion, which uses phrases such as

"regrets the Scottish Government's inaction and delay"

while praising the actions of the National Assembly for Wales, does not reflect the reality of the situation. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Scotland's economy continues to weather the recession better than that of the rest of the UK, with lower unemployment, a greater rate of economic growth and a larger percentage increase in retail sales.

The truth that the motion sadly avoids is that, although the Government is taking heroic steps to protect our economy, we will never be able to do that efficiently until we repatriate economic power from London to Scotland. We could do so much more to protect Scottish jobs and bring about the circumstances in which Scottish businesses can prosper if we could release control of our economy from the dead hand of a Westminster Government that has outlived its sell-by date and limps along in a state of permanent political paralysis.

I know that it is Lib Dem policy to continue to hang on to the coat tails of a United Kingdom that is on the verge of being downgraded by reputable credit rating organisations because it is so close to becoming a banana republic in the hands of Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. That is the choice of the Lib Dems. However, I cannot understand how they can continue to refer to democracy in their party name, while strenuously trying to prevent the Scottish people from being given the choice, in a referendum, on whether to control their own economic future.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate on supporting business. The debate comes at a crucial time for the Scottish economy—150,000 people throughout Scotland are unemployed, and business has an important contribution to make in taking people out of the dole queue and getting them back to work in Scotland's communities.

There are 279,000 businesses in Scotland, employing 1.9 million people; 99 per cent of those businesses are small and medium-sized enterprises that each employ fewer than 250 people. They make an important contribution to the Scottish economy.

The debate follows on from last week's debate on supporting employment. Many of the themes that we spoke about then—supporting business and building a stronger economy—are relevant to this morning's debate.

Businesses are looking for measures that will improve their cash flow, and economic stimulus. The banks clearly have a crucial role to play in improving cash flow. The £3 billion package that was announced earlier in the year, with £250 million to SMEs, has an important role to play. In order for that money to make a difference, we would like it to flow down from the banks into businesses.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I agree with the member about small businesses and cash flow. Does he agree that the banks have to look to themselves when they are telling small businesses that if they want an overdraft, they will be charged 4 per cent?

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

There is a crucial role for the banks to play in ensuring that the money that has been committed to SMEs—£250 million—gets down to the SMEs. I congratulate the UK Government on what it has done to shore up the banking system and introduce measures that will free up working capital.

Last month, the minister proposed a Scottish investment bank. Even after this morning's speech, we still need more detail on that. I am unsure whether the £150 million that has been announced is really a bank or whether it is three pots of money brought together from different funds to be pumped into the Scottish economy. We need more detail on those plans.

The Lib Dem motion talks about draw-down from the European Investment Bank. The Scottish Government needs to tell us whether a Scottish investment bank would link into a scheme such as that. The banks have an important role to play in freeing up money to improve working capital and feeding into the important work on improving payment cycles, which will release much-needed cash for businesses.

We need to consider all these issues in the wider context of economic stimulus. If businesses are to make progress, they will need stimulus from Government.

Last week, the minister told us that he had spoken at 96 events throughout Scotland on how to improve the economy. One thing that people throughout Scotland will have been telling him is that the Scottish Futures Trust has been an abject failure in getting projects into the pipeline and in creating capital investment, in order to create jobs and support business. With the Scottish Futures Trust, the Scottish National Party has not only turned the tap off but thrown the plumbing system away.

We need more detail of the economic plan. If we could get the 7,800 apprentices that were committed to in the Scottish budget, and if we could see them helping businesses and boosting the economy, that would be a help. John Park mentioned the ProAct scheme in Wales, which is supported by the Trades Union Congress and the FSB. The scheme offers short-time working, to keep people in employment at this difficult time, and it is worthy of consideration.

There has been an element of "Groundhog Day" about today's debate. A number of speakers have pleaded with the Government for more detail, just as we asked for more detail last week. It is clear that business needs stimulus and communities need jobs. The pace of progress has been slow. It is time for the minister to get a move on.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The motion from the Liberal Democrats seems to be at odds with reality. That is nothing new. The motion

"regrets the Scottish Government's inaction and delay"

and it says that Scotland is at "a competitive disadvantage" to our Welsh counterparts. However, the statistics show the opposite. Scotland's economy continues to weather the recession better than that of the rest of the UK. Economic growth, unemployment and retail sales are all more favourable north of the border. That is not crowing; it is an attempt to show that trying to balance angels on the heads of pins, as the Liberal motion tries to do, is not addressing our potential.

As of March this year, unemployment in Wales was 7.7 per cent. The UK average was 7.1 per cent, but the figure in Scotland was 5.9 per cent. The figures speak for themselves. Figures released this week show that the number of company insolvencies dropped between 2007-08 and 2008-09. Although the figures are incomplete, we are cautiously optimistic that the Scottish Government's stimulus packages—even though we have control of only some of the levers of power—are beginning to have an effect.

James Kelly talked about economic stimulus, and I would like to point out how small and larger businesses are being helped by this Government's programme. No one has mentioned homecoming. [Laughter.] Well, it is a pity that Tory members have not mentioned it. If they came to my part of the world, they would see that, with the stimulus of homecoming, the order books are full. Visitors are coming in large numbers. Many people are coming from other parts of the UK as well, because they see the benefits of coming to Scotland rather than going to the expensive euro zone.

We should consider the stimulus that has been created by the proactive work of this Government to engage with the European Union on the development of renewable energy. Many small and medium-sized businesses that are involved in research and development have been helped by co-operation with the UK's system of renewables obligation certificates—a system that we very much welcomed—and by the Scottish Government's insistence on aiming at high targets.

Engagement with the EU has allowed us to ensure that the EU regards Scotland as important in the development of renewables. The European recovery programme can deliver a large amount of money for the Aberdeen offshore wind farm and for the starting of work on the North Sea grid. All those things help Scottish businesses.

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No, thank you, but I will mention something that Mr Purvis might consider.

In copy from the Press Association this morning, the Liberal Democrats in the National Assembly for Wales say that they have delivered Finance Wales to support businesses. However, I think that it must have been the Assembly that delivered it, because the Liberals are not the Government. The fact is that the Government in Scotland is delivering on that kind of approach. We should therefore pay more attention to Mr Mather's amendment, which describes the approach that we are adopting.

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

Will the member take an intervention now?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Very briefly.

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

The member will surely be aware that Finance Wales was established in 2001, when Liberal Democrats were in the Welsh Assembly Government. He will also be aware that JEREMIE was introduced subsequently.

Does the member agree that the Highlands and Islands Enterprise budget for 2009-10 is challenging? The budget is already heavily committed, with little capacity to fund major new investment opportunities. It will therefore be highly important to maximise income from EU funding and revenue receipts. That information comes from the HIE operating plan that has just been signed off by Jim Mather.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I have read HIE's plans for the coming period, and I have great faith that the Government will ensure that they are carried through. HIE's focus will help the renewables industry, for example.

Jeremy Purvis claims that the small business bonus was created before the recession, and that Finance Wales was as well. However, it is how things work during the recession that is important. We should note that around one in eight businesses in Scotland—13.6 per cent—said that savings from the small business bonus were helping the business to stay afloat during the recession. If that means that businesses now have the potential to develop, that is a big bonus for us.

There is another area that the Liberals have ignored, even though we had a debate on it a couple of weeks ago. I am talking about fuel duty. How many businesses are affected in our part of the world by having to pay over the odds in fuel duty? When a Liberal motion appeared, the SNP supported the idea of achieving a derogation, as existed for the centre of France. Did the Liberals help the SNP to make the point in Westminster when we presented our regulatory approach? No, they did not.

People should stand up for Scotland and be consistent. The Liberal Democrats apparently believe in maximum devolution and in fiscal powers coming here, so they should support the idea of getting funds back into Scotland. The Treasury is taking £191 million more in fuel duty and VAT this year than it took before. That money could have been invested in many small businesses here.

Members should acknowledge that the Government is already utilising European money to help businesses. European structural funds have already provided £355 million in investment to nearly 500 companies since 2007. That investment will be vital in helping those companies to survive the recession and to climb out of it. That is why the SNP amendment is well worth supporting.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank members for their contributions this morning. We have been talking about an issue of fundamental importance: how we can support the Scottish economy. We have had debates on that topic in the recent past. In particular today, we have been talking about support for Scottish business.

I hope that the minister will be able to respond to the issues that members have raised. The structure of the Scottish investment bank is evolving, and I urge the minister to ensure that progress on it is much quicker than it has been on the Scottish Futures Trust. Letters, acronyms and words are out there in the public debate but, as we wander about constituencies in different regions of Scotland, we see hardly any evidence of progress on the ground. I was brought up in an engineering tradition in the city of Glasgow, and there was an idea that steel in the ground made a statement. Today, we have to demonstrate that we are committed to investing in public infrastructure. The commitment has to come from the Westminster level and from the Scottish Government level.

In some of the contributions this morning, there has been a bit of intellectual sophistry on the question of who takes responsibility. I have heard some nationalists say that the Westminster Government has sole responsibility for the economic crisis, and yet in Scotland we are immune because we have a remarkably robust economy. Now, I do not think that the ground rules were established in 2007—or even in 1997, if I wish to concede some intellectual ground. However, we have to be honest about the measures that we want to be put in place.

There are dividing lines in the chamber. There are those of us who, like me—and, I think, the Government—believe in fiscal stimulus and think that contributions should be made so that we do not repeat the mistakes that had an impact in the early 1980s on areas such as the one that I represent. At that time, no one tried to identify ways in which people could be kept in work or retrained to access other work and no thought was given to ensuring that there was a level of public investment that would encourage the economic activity that is necessary for consumer spend. All the evidence that we in the Parliament have taken in the past six months has been about the need to find ways to inject money into the economy to increase spend.

However, I part company with the Government when it comes to the assumption, driven by focus group assessments, about the figure of £500 million. That figure has been repeated like a mantra, and we might even hear it at First Minister's question time later today. However, those who talk about that figure avoid talking about the £900 million that the present Scottish Government has had made available to it through draw-down from the Treasury, which was not available to any previous Executive and has helped to deliver some of the social commitments that the Government understandably wants to reassure the public about.

A second area in which I part company with the Scottish Government involves the way in which the UK Government has intervened in our major financial institutions. There should be no debate about that. The Government did what it had to do. We have a difference of opinion about how we organise business and our institutional structures, however.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

With regard to those banks, for which economies does he think that they were too big to fail? Which economies would be most adversely affected?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

That question would have more resonance if the Government had not changed the grounds around the iconic economies that it has identified in speeches over the past four or five years but which it no longer mentions. Back benchers still identify them, though, and a recent back-bench motion said that Scotland should aspire to be like Slovenia. I stand up for Scotland more than that. I think that we can be bigger and better than Slovenia.

Margaret Curran and I have parliamentary seats that cover the east end of Glasgow, and we recently held an economic summit in the Queenslie industrial estate to talk to small businesspeople and individuals who are involved in the public and voluntary sectors there. Some simple and basic themes emerged during our discussions. I agree that the Government is making progress with regard to some of them, but I would like to recommend some immediate action that the minister could take.

Now is not the time to be complacent about the emerging apprenticeships crisis in Scotland or to lack the drive that is needed to address the issue. We must sustain young men and women who are in apprenticeships at present. The mistake that was made in the 1980s was to ignore them.

As other members have mentioned, we must ensure that there is a good cash flow for small businesses. That is a consistent theme, which we must deal with.

We must address the question of how we use public procurement to try to change the economic and social fabric of the communities that I represent. That is a matter that is close to my heart. The Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive developed substantial infrastructure projects that have, thankfully, been continued by the Scottish Government, such as the M74 project and various projects around the Commonwealth games. We need to ensure that those projects deliver employment opportunities for local communities. Often, companies from Scotland and elsewhere bring their existing staff to work on such projects rather than creating opportunities in the local communities that need them most, which could be easily done.

Members have raised some fundamental issues. We need reassurance on the Scottish investment bank. If it is an amalgamation of two or three funding streams, that is fine—I do not really care about that; what I am interested in is when it will be established, what it will do and whether it will make a difference with regard to the challenge that we face.

I will happily work with the Government on the issues of public procurement and upcoming local works programmes to ensure that people in the east end of Glasgow can benefit from them.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Many of us have grave concerns about the current economic state of the country, and I welcome the fact that, once again, the Liberal Democrats have brought an important issue before us.

We have debated this issue in many motions and in many terms in recent weeks and months. Today's debate began to identify some of the key proposals that might deal with some of the problems. However, it has also been used to perpetuate some myths, and I would like to talk about a few of them at the outset in an attempt to scotch them once and for all.

The first myth is that Scotland is somehow insulated from the worst rigours of the recession in a way that other parts of the United Kingdom are not. It is true that statistics can be used to show that Scotland has been slower to enter recession, but I strongly believe that it is the nature of the Scottish economy that made that the case—it was always going to be thus. Scotland's economy is disproportionately dependent on the public sector. Without wishing to enter into any arguments about whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, members will understand that an economy that is dependent on the public sector will be slower to enter recession than one that is more dependent on the private sector. However, the sad consequence of that is that, although we are slower and later to enter recession, there is a strong likelihood that we will also be slower and later to emerge from that recession. That is why the issues that we are discussing today are important. We need to think now about that recovery phase and put in place measures that will underpin the rise in our economy at that point.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member accept that, although we have higher levels of employment in the public sector in Scotland, the public sector is an important economic driver? I refer the member to the Ministry of Defence aircraft carrier contracts that are coming to Scotland. The Scottish public sector might be lagging behind because of the Scottish Futures Trust, which has meant that infrastructure projects that should have been started have not been.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I absolutely agree with the member. However, the simple fact is that, as we enter the recession, public expenditure that has already been allocated is more significant to the Scottish economy during this current year and, therefore, underpins the economy at a time when shrinkage is taking place. Sadly, the problem is that, once recovery begins, the green shoots—if I may be allowed to use that phrase—will appear too late in Scotland, and public expenditure will be depressed, which will mean that the Scottish economy will suffer from a lack of resource at a time when growth is beginning to develop in other places. However, I agree that well-placed public expenditure remains extremely important through that phase.

It is fair to welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrats have made a positive proposal.

However, I am concerned that the proposal to move forward with the funding proposal in a short timescale might be dangerous. I believe that urgent action is necessary, but reckless action can sometimes be counterproductive. I therefore find it difficult to accept that the proposal should be in place before the summer recess.

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

We have been stressing our proposal for nine months, and consideration of it is in the operating plan of Scottish Enterprise. We are asking for the Government to accelerate the process so that it can make a statement before the summer recess with a definitive position on whether it will be introducing it. I think that that is reasonable.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It would be reasonable if we knew how much this was going to cost. At the moment, nothing that we hear from the Liberal Democrats tells us what it will cost.

We have before us a proposal for a Scottish investment bank which, as James Kelly and Frank McAveety pointed out, is simply an assembly of existing funds that have been drawn together to produce a figure of £150 million. I do not believe that that is evidence of new money that is being made available.

Jeremy Purvis says that the Liberal Democrats have been stressing their proposal for nine months. It would be churlish of me to say—but I will do so anyway—that, nine months ago, they were also proposing an £800 million tax cut in Scotland, which would have made the proposal slightly difficult to fund.

I welcome the fact that the proposal has been made in the Parliament, but I will support the Scottish Government's position, which allows us to devote more time to considering the issue.

I sometimes worry that the Liberal Democrats are a bit like the goldfish of popular mythology, because, every time that they come to the chamber, they swim around the pond once again and everything is new to them—every proposal is made without any context, because they remember nothing about what they proposed the time before or the time before that. However, I understand that experts believe that goldfish have extremely good memories, and remember a great deal about what goes on about them. Sadly, this debate has clearly shown that Jeremy Purvis does not have the same quality.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I call David Whitton.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was so wrapped up in listening to Mr Johnstone that I almost missed my turn.

I speak in support of the Labour amendment and confirm that we will also support the Liberal Democrat motion. As has been said, this is the second week running in which we have debated in Opposition time elements of Scotland's economic performance. Last week, during a Labour-inspired debate, we raised the issue of the wage subsidies that our colleagues in the Welsh Assembly have introduced. Commenting on those, Mr Mather said:

"We are keen to do whatever we can to empower Scottish businesses to take the fullest advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead."—[Official Report, 21 May 2009; c 17698.]

However, what has been exposed today by the Liberal Democrat motion and Mr Purvis's speech is hardly a ringing endorsement of those sentiments.

The First Minister made a grandstanding announcement about the creation of a Scottish investment bank at the conference of the Scottish Trades Union Congress—by coincidence, the very organisation that championed such a move in the first place—but what is the reality? Mr Mather has had at least a week to speak to his counterparts in Wales about wage subsidy policy, but has he done so? I think we should be told. No doubt he will tell us during his winding-up speech.

What are the chances that something will happen soon to access investment from the European Investment Bank? Various figures have been thrown around. Mr Mather's boss, Mr Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, told the European and External Relations Committee on 28 April that there was potential for some JEREMIE funds for Scotland—that is, funds from the joint European resources for micro to medium enterprises—and that he hoped to have some news before the end of June. However, he had no answers as to why Scotland is lagging behind Wales in looking for solutions to our economic difficulties.

Sustainable economic growth is supposed to be the SNP's number 1 priority, or its lode star, as I have heard Mr Mather describe it many times. What is the Scottish investment bank, which the First Minister was so keen to brag about? As we heard, the SNP's version is simply a rebranding of three funds—the Scottish co-investment fund, the Scottish venture fund, and the Scottish seed fund. It is just like the Scottish Futures Trust—another organisation that flatters to deceive but has so far done nothing to stimulate the Scottish economy. The Scottish Government has admitted that the new organisation is not a bank in the accepted sense but a vehicle for economic development. I thought that we already had one of those called Scottish Enterprise but, just when we needed it the most, it was neutered by the SNP. The Scottish Futures Trust—that other much-advertised vehicle for providing funds for public infrastructure investment—has not even left the garage. Indeed, it should be a candidate for the new scrappage scheme.

Never mind the election leaflets about a recovery plan that will create 20,000 jobs, the dramatic drop of about £1 billion in public investment means that the Salmond-Swinney slump has taken more than 20,000 jobs out of construction and allied industries in Scotland. I predict that there will be no wage subsidy intervention. Mr Mather says that we have to ask questions about the cost, yet only last week he said that the Government did not want a repeat of what happened in 1980s, when skilled workers were allowed to leave the oil industry. Mr Mather, I fear, is not the minister for the economy but the minister for excuses.

We heard other excuses from SNP members this morning. Dr McKee said that Scotland's economy will not recover until it is free from the dead hand of the Treasury. I say to him, "Look to Ireland and Iceland and be careful what you wish for." Rob Gibson said that Scotland has a lower unemployment rate than Wales, but he did not mention the 1,000 young Scottish apprentices who are out of work but were promised by the SNP that they would be able to finish their apprenticeships.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does the member have an estimate of the number of citizens of the Republic of Ireland who wish to rejoin the United Kingdom as a consequence of the financial situation?

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

That is one of the more bizarre interventions that I have come across. I think I can just pass on it.

We all know about the job losses in Scotland's banking sector, which were caused by irresponsible management and the global credit crunch. Our two biggest banks are involved, as is a leading building society. At the weekend, Labour called for an ad hoc committee of the Parliament to be established to consider how the banking and financial services sector is dealing with the situation and preparing for the upturn. Scotland is still a force in finance and one of Europe's leading players in the field, but we need to know what strategy our major banks are employing and what HBOS assets Lloyds is considering selling off, if any, as a result of European regulations.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

For how long has Mr Whitton held the view that the Scottish Parliament should conduct a banking inquiry?

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

My colleague Mr Park is reminding me from a sedentary position that he called for such an inquiry some three months ago.

Perhaps Mr Brown and his colleagues are just catching up with us, as usual.

I hope that the other parties will agree to our proposal because getting a clear idea of what is happening in the financial sector is a key ingredient in helping Scotland through our current economic difficulties. The SNP could start by putting some detail into its Scottish investment bank proposal, as my colleague Frank McAveety requested, and showing a little more urgency in its dealings with the European regional development fund programme.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

It has been interesting to hear opinions from members throughout the chamber. The majority of speakers have been supportive of cohesion and the support programmes that the Government and the Parliament have delivered, notwithstanding the negative speech that David Whitton just made.

We have programmes in place that meet the current challenges and help families, employees, businesses and other organisations. I am pleased to take this opportunity to reinforce the Scottish Government's commitment to do everything in its power to support Scottish businesses and enterprise in the current economic situation. We are undoubtedly in difficult times, and that is why is it is more important than ever to recognise the crucial role that the SME sector plays in increasing sustainable economic growth throughout Scotland. Indeed, it is that recognition and our awareness of the need to reflate our economy that led us to accelerate £293 million of capital spending into 2009-10, on top of the £30 million into 2008-09. It is estimated that that accelerated spending will support 5,800 jobs in the Scottish economy in the next year.

In the meantime, we are ensuring that all Government activity, including planning, regeneration and public procurement, which Mr McAveety mentioned, helps to support economic development. As I mentioned earlier, we have expanded the small business bonus scheme, which has helped the owners of some 64,000 Scottish business properties and saved the average small business about £1,400 a year. We are also allowing businesses that do pay rates to spread the annual increase over three years.

Through Skills Development Scotland and the Scottish Funding Council, we are strengthening our partnership action for continuing employment initiative to help businesses and individuals who face redundancy.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the minister share my concern that more than 1,000 apprentices have been made redundant since February and only a third of them have found opportunities to complete their training? We raised that last week because there seems to be little progress on it, despite the First Minister's personal guarantee that that would happen.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The answer is in the First Minister's personal guarantee and the Government's commitment to address the issue.

We have also invested £2 million in our small business loans scheme to help SMEs to cut fuel bills with interest-free loans. In April, as I mentioned, the First Minister announced that the Scottish Government would work towards the creation of a Scottish investment bank. As I state in our amendment, we are keen

"to enhance the scale and impact of such financial support to growing Scottish businesses including the potential to secure significant additional funds from the European Investment Bank through the establishment of a Joint European Resources for Micro to Medium Enterprises (JEREMIE) fund for Scotland".

We are therefore already actively investigating the potential to tap into resources that are available from the European Investment Bank.

As well as collaborating with the UK Government on improving access to finance for Scottish businesses and working together to benefit businesses, we are using all the levers at our disposal to help put Scotland on a course to economic recovery and eventual success.

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

The SNP's election leaflet says that its recovery plan creates 20,000 more jobs. What is the source of the claim that the Government's recovery plan is creating 20,000 more jobs? It is not in the recovery plan that the Government has published.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

That might well be a localised leaflet aimed at Mr Purvis in recognition of his own willingness to take £800 million out of the budget at a time when the Westminster Government was going to take out £500 million and without having any compensating bookkeeping entries in place.

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

Will the minister give way?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I think that we have heard enough from Mr Purvis. [ Interruption. ]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

One moment, minister. Mr Purvis, behave yourself.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I was in no danger, Presiding Officer. There was no paper clip attached to the leaflet that Mr Purvis threw.

The Government has continued to develop and expand its programme for economic recovery, and we remain keen to hear the views of our social partners to ensure that we are best placed to take advantage of Scotland's strengths. The First Minister recently invited a group of six business representative organisations and the STUC to give combined pre-Cabinet presentations to the Scottish Government on ways of working together to ensure that Scotland is well equipped to deal with the current recession and to emerge from it in a strong position. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has been and is still engaging directly with businesses around the country, especially SMEs, to listen to their experiences of the downturn and find out what support they need from the public sector.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Did any of the six business organisations that the minister referred to comment in their presentations on the fact that the Scottish Futures Trust is just not working?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I have my notes here. The presentations focused on procurement, business liquidity and connectivity.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

We hear what you are saying, Jim. Keep talking.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I will leave it to the Presiding Officer to comment on that.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Please do not make comments from a sedentary position, Mr Rumbles.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I certainly take on board Frank McAveety's suggestions about sustainability, jobs, cash flow, public procurement and positive localism and feel that his thinking is very much converging with our own. Like us, he is keen to ensure that we do not deflate during the recession.

Last week, we had a very important meeting with the Scottish small business consultative group at which we discussed how we might develop some of the approaches that we have been piloting in Argyll and Bute of encouraging communities and local industrial sectors to come together and create the kind of localism that Mr McAveety highlighted.

It is of course important to look at what is happening in other jurisdictions, but it is equally important not to indulge in over-hasty followerism. We must focus on the integrity and complete effectiveness of the Scottish economy. It is crucial to take incremental steps and to ensure that each of those steps is thoroughly and carefully considered.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am slightly concerned that the minister is coming to the end of his allotted time without taking the opportunity to correct the record. In his opening speech, he said that the ESF money that had been committed—he referred, I believe, to £95 million—was new money, but the SPICe briefing that the European and External Relations Committee received a couple of weeks ago clearly says:

"the Scottish Government also made explicit that the structural fund support had been front loaded in an effort to support economic development and create new jobs in an effort to tackle the current economic downturn. This means the spending had been brought forward from later years of the programme."

In other words, it is not new money, but accelerated money.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I have no difficulty in agreeing with the member. I can clarify that the money has been brought forward.

We welcome the proposed banking inquiry, because we believe that it will expose a failure of stewardship by the Financial Services Authority, the Treasury and the Bank of England in not calling the banking sector to account and in creating the conditions that allowed the sector to indulge in these excesses.

I will leave it at that.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

This has been a useful and interesting debate on an important matter. It is sad that more members have not wanted to speak in it; it has meant that some of the closing speeches have been longer than some of us might have expected. Members should feel free to intervene.

I will try to cover some of the points that have been made. I am pleased that in his winding-up speech Mr Mather confirmed that the ESF money, welcome though it is, is accelerated funding and not new money. Many of the actions that the Government has claimed will stimulate the economy have been funded by money that it has been able to bring forward from outside sources. For example, thanks to the UK Government, the Scottish Government has been able to accelerate capital funding, which is welcome. Moreover, it has been able to accelerate ESF funding because the European Union has allowed it to. These economic stimuli have come about not as a result of action by this Government but as a result of action by other agencies that the Government has been able to participate in. We welcome its participation in those actions, but the fact is that we are not talking about new money.

The Government has failed to ensure that its budget—the £32 billion under its control—is being spent in a way that best develops the economy. For example, the Scottish Enterprise budget, which is used to support business in general and to invest in new businesses, is being cut in real terms over the next two years at a time of economic recession. Moreover, as Jeremy Purvis pointed out, HIE's budget is under severe strain and, indeed, is likely to fall as a result of a fall in income from its other activities. As a result, its budget for supporting businesses also faces a real-terms cut. Those are examples not of the Government bringing forward money to stimulate the economy but of a Government cutting money that it should be using as a stimulus.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Does the member welcome the transfer of funds to Skills Development Scotland and business gateway and the fact that the councils are now completely involved in running our economy?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

This is not money that is being transferred to other bodies; it is like-for-like funding that is being cut. That money is in the HIE's business programme, which is published today, and Scottish Enterprise's business programme, which was published a few weeks ago. In any case, if the minister wants to talk about skills, I should point out that our colleges and universities will also experience cuts in like-for-like money over the next couple of years.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Does Mr Smith agree that Skills Development Scotland, which the minister has just prayed in aid, is suffering its own cut of 161 staff?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am happy to do so.

In his opening speech, Mr Mather also said that he was focusing on all the levers available to the Government. However, that is not the case. For example, we have yet to see any progress on JEREMIE funding, to which I will return later.

John Park asked whether the Scottish investment bank was really a bank. The answer is that it appears not to be, in the same way that the Scottish Futures Trust appears not to be a trust. As Mr Park rightly made clear, we need to know the advantages that this move will have over existing arrangements. In fact, it might even have some disadvantages, given that the Scottish venture fund and the Scottish co-investment fund have their own management boards to ensure that the money is well directed and the projects that are supported are well focused. We need clarity soon on whether the proposed investment bank will completely take over those functions or whether it will simply be another quango on top of those two Scottish Enterprise project boards.

The problem is that the Government thinks that by announcing the Scottish investment bank it has actually done something. However, it has done nothing to indicate what the bank will be, whether it will be a bank at all and whether it will bring in any new money or simply amount to rebadging of existing funds and programmes. If it is an exercise in rebadging, will it make any difference to Scotland's economy? I hope that, at a future date, the minister will indicate if not to the Parliament then to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee what the funds will do.

Gavin Brown asked how much JEREMIE funding the Liberal Democrats would want. The answer is that we need the Government to tell us what it can actually do. JEREMIE funding can lever in additional support—indeed, up to 50 per cent of the total funding—from the European Investment Bank, but we need to know what the Government intends to do with the ERDF funds that are available to it to support the leveraging in of additional funding. That statement should certainly be made before the summer recess. After all, JEREMIE has not just suddenly appeared—it was being discussed as early as 2006, when the proposal for the current European funding programmes was produced.

The programme monitoring committee for the lowlands and uplands Scotland ERDF and ESF programmes discussed the issue at its October meeting and considered a paper on some of JEREMIE's advantages. The paper states that JEREMIE is a holding fund "of a revolving nature", which makes better use of the available money. It also refers to leverage of capital from the European Investment Bank. JEREMIE is described as "flexible" and "efficient" and as providing the ability

"to re-allocate the resources to one or other financial product in a flexible way".

The paper states that the Government's role was to consider, along with Scottish Enterprise, "Potential disadvantages". That was in October 2008. What progress have the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise made since then, and why can the Parliament not know about that? If JEREMIE funding has significant disadvantages, the Government should at least let us know about that so that we are clear. However, the programme seems to have significant advantages, which might be why the Welsh Assembly Government has proceeded to use it. In an announcement on the launch of a £150 million scheme in Wales, Rhodri Morgan, the First Minister of Wales, said that the move

"demonstrates how the Welsh Assembly Government is agile and innovative in devising new and practical ways to helping companies to surmount the current global economic and financial challenges, and grow for the future."

Agile and innovative—those are two features that are lacking in the Scottish Government's approach. There is no agility and no innovation.

In my remaining time, I will comment on some of the speeches, although Ian McKee's speech does not merit any comment. Rob Gibson started by using the phrase "at odds with reality" and he continued to be at odds with reality throughout his speech. He seems to think that Scotland is weathering the economic recession better than the rest of the UK. As Alex Johnstone made clear, that might be the appearance, but the reality is that most commentators think that Scotland might end up in a deeper and longer recession than anywhere else in the UK. If the Government does not start to take action soon, that will certainly be the reality.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The member has not discussed any of the issues relating to our support for renewable energy, the year of homecoming or the many other developments that will take us out of recession. Surely those are supporting Scottish business.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Mr Gibson should have been a little more patient. I know that he raised those issues, and I was coming to them. We welcome the support for renewable energy, but we are still waiting for an indication from the Government of how it will continue to fund development. For example, in marine energy, a replacement for the wave and tidal energy support—WATES—scheme is still awaited, and the sooner that that is introduced the better. I am afraid that the saltire prize is not a replacement for the WATES scheme. It is different and does not do the job that needs to be done.

Frank McAveety highlighted a couple of important issues. I talked briefly about the lack of funding for colleges in the coming years. That is important, particularly because of the issue with apprenticeships to which Frank McAveety referred. We do not want to be in the situation that we had in the 1980s, when we had a forgotten generation of people who did not have a chance to get a job or training when they left school or university. Some of them ended up on the scrapheap, in effect, for life. We do not want that to happen again, so the Government must wake up to the reality and ensure that funding is in place to support modern apprenticeships and college and university courses. The Government should try to help those who come out of colleges and universities to get into work.

Our concerns about the Scottish investment bank are about the lack of clarity on what it will do, how it will improve the current situation, and whether it will simply create another quango. Today, we expect the publication of the public services reform bill, which is meant to deal with quangos. I hope that it is not another example of the practice of not reducing the number of quangos in Scotland but merging them so that we have fewer titles but the same number of jobs or more, while less is done.

Let us have something that will benefit Scotland. Let us get the Scottish investment bank going if it will provide benefits, but we must also consider how to draw down as much money from Europe as possible. We need a statement from the Government before the summer about what it will do on JEREMIE funding and on getting money from the European Investment Bank.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps its directorate for enterprise, energy and tourism is taking to promote equality in employment. (S3O-7112)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The business, enterprise and energy directorate, which was formerly the enterprise, energy and tourism directorate, fulfils its statutory requirements on promoting equality in employment through the actions in the Scottish Government's gender, race and disability action plans for 2008 to 2011.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The minister will be aware of the recession's differential impact on various groups. What discussions have there been with the equality unit and other departments in the Scottish Government on job segregation and on how the Government has addressed that issue in proposals to tackle unemployment among women?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We have a comprehensive review going on in the department. John Brown is focusing on those issues. We believe that we need a fairer society that mainstreams equality, particularly for women, and we are determined to achieve that. We will continue to work on that basis.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

To ask the Scottish Executive what support is available from the Scottish judiciary for victims who give evidence in court. (S3O-7100)

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

A range of measures can be used at the discretion of the judiciary to assist victims to give their evidence in court. Those include the granting of applications for special measures, under the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004, and the protection of victims of sexual offences from unnecessary questioning, under the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002. Judges can also clear the court, arrange for frequent breaks, ask the prosecution and defence to modify questions and remove an accused who misbehaves in court.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I assume that the cabinet secretary is aware of the deep frustration of many victims who, despite the reforms that he mentions, believe that, fundamentally, the court system does not work in their interests. In light of that, will the Scottish Government support my colleague David Stewart's proposal for the establishment of a victims commissioner?

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

We are keen to ensure that victims are prioritised and are always at the centre of what is done. Significant change has taken place, which started under my predecessor Cathy Jamieson and which was led in the main by the present Lord Advocate—both as Lord Advocate in the previous Administration and in her tenure as the Solicitor General for Scotland. We are prepared to consider Mr Stewart's proposal. I understand that he has arranged a meeting on the issue. A commissioner would not be cost free. Ultimately, the Parliament must decide whether resources are best put towards a commissioner or towards front-line services for individuals. We will happily discuss those matters. I am sure that Ms Curran and the Government are at one in recognising the importance of looking after victims' interests.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether civil contingency plans will be revised in light of the recent disclosure that radioactive coolant from a nuclear submarine leaked at HM Naval Base Clyde. (S3O-7160)

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

That is a reserved matter. Nuclear and radiological safety regulations require any installation to have contingency plans in place to respond to any type of accident or emergency involving ionising radiation. It is a regulatory requirement that those plans are kept under continual review.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary agree with the assessment of retired general Sir Hugh Beach, the former deputy commander-in-chief of United Kingdom land forces, who said of the UK's Trident missile system:

"It's no bloody use. Let's not waste money on it"?

He continued:

"Britain cannot claim to have derived any direct security benefit from the possession of nuclear weapons".

Without using unparliamentary language, will the cabinet secretary support my point that the billions of pounds that are earmarked for Trident's replacement could be better invested in improving the health service and schools and in job creation throughout Scotland?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That is an entirely reserved matter, but I will allow the cabinet secretary to comment.

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

I am more than happy to make it clear that the Scottish Government's position is that weapons of mass destruction are militarily ineffective in dealing with the troubles that we face in the world; economically unaffordable when we have the crisis of cuts in public services; and morally reprehensible in the world in which we live.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Members have previously been cautioned against using unparliamentary language, even when it appears in a quotation. I caution members against doing so in future.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is satisfied that maintenance loans available to Scottish full-time higher education students under the non-means-tested support system remain at £830 per year while in England students studying away from home can access at least £3,300 of non-means-tested maintenance loans. (S3O-7143)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Unlike in England, students in Scotland do not have to pay tuition fees. As a result, English students have to pay an additional £3,000 each year and leave with greater debt than Scottish students—and that is despite their generally studying for a year less. In fact, for the first time since devolution, the average Scottish student loan debt fell in 2007 and now stands at £5,354 compared to £9,580 in England.

Our consultation, "Supporting a Smarter Scotland: A consultation on supporting learners in higher education", closed on 30 April 2009. It sets out a number of options on how to improve student support with the additional £30 million that this Government has allocated in 2010-11. It has also provided an opportunity for all interested parties to set out what their priorities are. We are currently analysing the responses and will make further announcements on this area of policy in due course.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I believe that the minister has misunderstood the question. Scottish students studying in England on courses that are not available in Scotland can access only £830 of maintenance loans. That is what my question was about. I would have appreciated an answer that was related to the question, so I will ask it again. Will the minister look to ensure that Scottish students who are perhaps on courses that are not available in Scotland can have at least some help with maintenance loans, which are currently a maximum of £830 for many students?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Through reducing the charges on loans and debts for students, the Government has managed down debt for the first time since devolution. In addition, we have provided an additional £44 million, which is twice as much as was provided under the previous Administration. Far from misunderstanding the question, I do not really understand where Mike Rumbles is coming from. He said in his manifesto:

"The next step for student funding is to take further action to reduce the burden of debt for young people and ensure that fear of debt is not a barrier to excellent education."

Either the Lib Dems are saying one thing in their manifesto and another thing elsewhere or, not for the first time, Mike Rumbles is a stranger to his party's policy. We are taking effective action on student debt, but we are also taking effective action by providing funds for students in hardship.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the minister accept that the choices that are offered in the consultation document have been completely rejected by student leaders? Will he agree to meet, along with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, the main Opposition party spokespeople to discuss our specific and fully costed proposals, which have the in-principle agreement of student leaders?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Claire Baker will know from the discussion that we had in the debate last week that the cabinet secretary has taken on board the points that have been raised and the responses that have been received so far. However, the consultation has closed only recently, so further consideration has to be given to the responses. The amendments and the motion that were passed following last week's debate were indicative of a large degree of common ground between the parties. I am sure that that point is not lost on the cabinet secretary, who is currently considering the request to meet Opposition parties to discuss these issues.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the Government accept that it is much better for students to be able to borrow money under the student loans scheme, which charges a very low rate of interest and where the loans are not repayable until a graduate is earning £15,000 or more, than to have to borrow from commercial lenders or, worst still, on credit cards? Surely it is about time that the Government dropped its ideological blinkers, dropped the opposition to student loans and recognised that the student loans scheme helps alleviate student hardship.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Murdo Fraser has essentially repeated the point that he made during last week's debate. On what he says about additional debts being incurred by students, we acknowledge that there are problems and we have to move from a situation of concentrating on debt alone to recognising that Labour's recession means that there is an increase in hardship, which is why we have increased funds to universities to deal with that. It is important to bear down on debt. It is not the case that there is evidence of huge additional debt through private borrowing by students. If that were so, it would not be the case that the average debt has fallen and that, for the first time since devolution, bankruptcies in Scotland among students have gone down.

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Sri Lanka. (S3O-7167)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

While the Scottish Government is not presently providing humanitarian assistance to Sri Lanka, we are continuing to monitor the situation and, of course, we remain in close contact with the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and, in particular, the Disasters Emergency Committee Scotland, whose attitude towards this matter will of course assist in determining our own, if an appeal is launched.

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Does the minister share my dismay at the outcome of the special meeting on Tuesday of the UN Human Rights Council, which ignored calls for an international, independent investigation into allegations of human rights abuses on both sides of the war? Will he offer humanitarian assistance by joining Amnesty International and my Tamil constituents, who are unable to sleep or eat because they are desperately worried about the fate of their missing loved ones, in calling for international aid workers and monitors to have immediate, unhindered access to internment camps?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is significant that all the European members on the council voted in favour of the inquiry. There is unanimity among the European nations—and countries further afield—that there should be such an inquiry. There is wider unanimity that there must be humanitarian action to protect and support those on both sides of the conflict who are suffering now that the conflict has come to an end. I put all the Government's weight behind the appeal that the member makes. I hope that that adds to the international voices that are making it absolutely clear that humanitarian assistance is at the centre of this matter.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that an increase in opencast coal mining is compatible with its stated climate change targets and objectives. (S3O-7179)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Coal will continue to form an important part of the energy mix in Scotland for some years. However, it must go hand in hand with the development of clean coal technology. Such technologies, including carbon capture and storage, have the potential both to transform the way we generate power and also reduce emissions significantly.

Planning policies are in place to ensure that opencast coal mining sites are approved only if they are environmentally acceptable or provide local benefits, such as jobs or land improvements, that clearly outweigh the impacts. It is right that the main responsibility for decisions on opencast mines lies with local authorities, which are best placed to consider all the issues, whether environmental or economic.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The minister has already conceded that last month's sweeping new planning circular leaves almost all planning applications for opencast coal sites in the hands of councils, which have huge vested interests, while ministers wash their hands entirely of responsibility. Since the Administration came to power, at least 10 new sites have been approved, which involve around 8 million tonnes of coal. Those scars on Scotland's landscape are the dirty face of so-called clean coal. They are the price that Scotland's communities pay when the Government supports new coal plants, whether notionally carbon-capture ready or not.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Ask a question please, Mr Harper.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Given the Scottish Government's commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, in what year does the minister expect the last opencast site to be approved?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I will courteously disagree with the member about the responsibilities of councils. I believe, as does the Government, that those who represent communities and who are connected closely to their concerns are very well placed to make the appropriate planning decisions. The issue of coal remaining part of the energy mix in Scotland is an important one. However, moving forward with carbon capture and storage mitigates the effects of the combustion of coal. It is a technology in which we could have the opportunity to lead the world. It will form an important part of the interim phase of power generation for years to come, before we go to wholly renewable green energy.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The minister will be aware of the serious local concern in the Douglas area of South Lanarkshire at the prospect of a new opencast quarry at Mainshill. Will the minister confirm that the Scottish Government's decision not to call in that proposal means that the final decision on whether to proceed rests with South Lanarkshire Council and not with the Scottish ministers?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It is indeed the case that planning decisions are generally being left to councils, where that is appropriate. The issue that the member raises lies with South Lanarkshire Council, which I hope will give it the consideration that it merits and will come to an appropriate decision that reflects local needs and interests.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it is taking to protect the public from the nuisance presented by gulls in urban and other populated settlements. (S3O-7127)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Gulls can be controlled, using lethal force if necessary, in a way that is consistent with the statutory framework that is provided by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Scottish Government has provided advice to local authorities on a range of techniques for displacing urban gulls and is currently supporting a pilot project in Dumfries to assess the effectiveness of using a falcon to deter gulls from nesting in the town centre and causing a nuisance to residents. If the pilot proves successful, other local authorities might want to consider adopting the approach as an additional control option.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the pilot. The minister will be aware that in many communities people are concerned that not enough action is being taken to tackle the growing nuisance of gulls. If the pilot is successful, will the Government consider imposing duties on local authorities to act more promptly when it is necessary to take control of the issue?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

The general position is that the responsibility for dealing with urban gulls already lies with local authorities, rather than directly with the Scottish Government. The success of the trial will be monitored and, depending on the results, we will consider the advice that is given to local authorities.

There is a range of options that local authorities can and should consider, including taking measures through the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 to prevent individuals from feeding gulls, and ensuring that litter is kept off the streets, because litter encourages gulls. If the pilot is successful we will consider how best to roll out advice and information to local authorities, which can act accordingly. Other measures can be taken in the meantime.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister acknowledge that there is significant inconsistency in how local authorities tackle the problem and in how they perceive that they are allowed to tackle it? Will she undertake to give the strongest possible advice to ensure that action is taken in as appropriate a manner as possible?

Rather than use antisocial behaviour orders, will she seek to educate people who feed gulls? Being mobbed by gulls is a terrifying experience, particularly for small children. There is a problem in many of our seaside towns.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

The Government is aware of the widespread problem that gulls can cause, particularly in coastal areas, where they are endemic. I mentioned a couple of options that are within the powers of local authorities, and the list could be expanded. I will take on board what the member said. It might be worth reminding all local authorities of the range of options that are available, including—[ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. I am sorry, minister. There is far too much background noise in the chamber.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

There is the capacity for the Government to issue a general licence for lethal control, which local authorities might want to consider as one of a range of options.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to review compulsory purchase legislation. (S3O-7109)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Scottish Government has no plans to review compulsory purchase legislation.

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

I am disappointed to hear that. I hope that in his travels around Scotland the minister will come to Auchinleck and Dailly in my constituency, to see the derelict former commercial premises that blight those towns' main streets. The local councils tell me that compulsory purchase legislation does not enable them adequately to deal with the problem. Will the minister review his position on the matter?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am aware of the difficulties in Auchinleck. The member and I have been in correspondence on the subject. We are considering the compulsory purchase order process, as distinct from the legislation, and we are considering how best to respond to stakeholder concerns about CPOs. If the member has specific suggestions about how I might engage with her on the issue, I will be happy to discuss them.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Can the minister confirm that the use of compulsory purchase legislation for a private business venture, such as the Trump development in Aberdeenshire, would be entirely wrong?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The planning process in relation to the Trump development continues and I do not want to comment on where it will go.

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-1729)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

As members know, we had a substantial discussion in the budget process about the importance of apprenticeships and of delivering the most ambitious apprenticeship guarantee in the United Kingdom. After the apprenticeships summit, which we agreed on, and discussions with major employers with the capacity to take up apprentices, we have decided on a policy of offering a one-off payment of £2,000 to enable apprentices in Scotland who discontinue their employment to move into gainful training. I know that Labour members will welcome that.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Last week, I asked the First Minister twice whether the gunman who strolled out of Castle Huntly prison 10 days ago should have been in an open prison in the first place, and the First Minister twice failed to answer my question. In light of the statement by his Cabinet Secretary for Justice yesterday, will the First Minister now answer that question? Should a dangerous convicted gunman with a history of violence and escapes have been in an open prison barely three years into a 10-year sentence?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I heard the Cabinet Secretary for Justice make the point yesterday that if the processes had been followed correctly and the information flow had been appropriate, the likelihood is that the decision that was made would not have been made. I do not know where Iain Gray was yesterday. I watched the Cabinet Secretary for Justice making his statement, and he answered that question and every other question comprehensively.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I was in the Parliament listening to Mr MacAskill making his statement, which—like the First Minister's response last week and his response today—simply reeked of complacency. Yesterday, Mr MacAskill told us that he had contacted the Scottish Prison Service last Thursday to ask it to review the circumstances of Brian Martin's transfer to an open prison. I wonder whether he did that before or after I raised the matter at First Minister's question time. Whatever, Mr Martin had absconded three days earlier, on the Monday. What was Mr MacAskill doing for three days with a dangerous and violent criminal on the run? Why did it take three days for him to get round to asking what had gone wrong?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am getting groundhog day from Iain Gray. The prisoner concerned has been recaptured, as other prisoners from the open estate have been recaptured. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

One of the reasons why that can happen is the comprehensive increase in the number of police officers in Scotland. The other reason is that absconds from the open estate are running at only a fifth of the level that they were at under the Labour Party and an eighth of the level that they were at under the Conservative party. Mistakes happen—that is obvious. That was why Professor Alec Spencer was appointed to conduct an inquiry. However, it is clear that the system is functioning five times better than it was under the Labour-Liberal alliance.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

As usual, the First Minister is barking—up the wrong tree. The issue is not the number of absconds; it is what went wrong in a particular case. It is groundhog day because of an answer that was read out three times last week and once again this week. Yesterday, Mr MacAskill said:

"The SPS has apologised to me for what appears to have been a failure in its information-sharing processes."—[Official Report, 27 May 2009; c 17836.]

The SPS has apologised to Mr MacAskill. Why is he not apologising to the Scottish public, who naively expect their Cabinet Secretary for Justice to keep violent criminals in jail? What about the First Minister? He was going to resign if we did not stop being nasty to Mr MacAskill. He would huff and puff and blow the house down. We have heard it all before—instead of throwing his toys out of the pram, why does he not throw his Cabinet Secretary for Justice out of his Cabinet?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

If we had an election in Scotland, it is the Labour Party that would be blown away. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have listened carefully to Iain Gray's performance on the issue. This morning, on "Good Morning Scotland"—I have the transcript here—the question was put:

"It's an interesting thing responsibility though isn't it, because in 2006/07, there were 79 absconds from Scottish prisons—2008/09 there's just been 16. Where was responsibility then, Mr Gray?"

And the answer?

"Well that's a very welcome improvement".

Indeed it is a welcome improvement—under this Cabinet Secretary for Justice. It compares well with the abysmal record of the Labour and Liberal parties. [Applause.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. Iain Gray has a final question.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

It is a very welcome improvement. I welcomed it last week—the first time that the First Minister said it, I welcomed it; the second time that he read it out, I welcomed it; I did that the third time that he read it out. I welcome it again today.

This is about the complacency of Mr MacAskill's response, the full measure of which we saw when he called the accidental release of a violent prisoner

"a glitch in the system".

What about the other glitches? Missing the knife crime summit: was that a glitch? Failure to control knife sales: was that a glitch? Hundreds of cases being delayed in our High Courts: is that another glitch? Ditching community courts: was that a glitch, too? Telling Scotland's criminals that prison is "a skoosh": was that a glitch in the system?

Look at the headlines: "MacAskill 'on the run'", "MacAskill under fire", "Sack him now." This is not a "glitch", "gaffe", "bungle" or "fiasco". When will the First Minister admit that his Cabinet Secretary for Justice is the glitch in the justice system and do something about it?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Like all the best action replays, we get it from Iain Gray in slow motion. I heard him try to remember the reality of what happened under Cathy Jamieson's stewardship as Minister for Justice—[ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

He was asked this morning about the high rate of absconds under the Labour-Liberal alliance. This is what he said in answer:

"I don't actually remember that happening under Cathy Jamieson stewardship at the Justice Department."

Let me try to jog his memory. In February 2007, the Evening Telegraph and Post reported:

"A murderer serving a life sentence and a man convicted of attempted murder are among the inmates who have been on the run from open prisons in Tayside for more than a year ... They include a 51-year-old who was serving a life sentence, with a minimum of nine years, for murder. He escaped in May 2005."

Tragically, that man was not recaptured before he murdered again.

Iain Gray attempts to attack the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, whose record is five times better than that of the previous Minister for Justice. Why did he not try to allocate individual responsibility to the Labour Minister for Justice who presided over not only a record rate of increases, but a systematic tragedy? [Applause.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. Iain Gray: one final, brief question.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I heard "Good Morning Scotland"—I was there, so I know what was said. I have checked how Cathy Jamieson dealt with those issues, particularly the issue of Reliance and prison absconding. I will tell the chamber how she responded: she came to the chamber and apologised. I am willing to listen to the First Minister apologise now.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We are talking not about the Reliance fiasco, but about absconds from the open estate—the ones that Iain Gray could not remember under Cathy Jamieson's tenure. It is important that Government accepts responsibility and we do—[ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. First Minister—

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

It is even more important that he should—[ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

First Minister, I know that you could not hear me, but I must stop you.

When I ask for order in the chamber, I expect to get it. I allow as much latitude as possible for members to support or decry what is being said, but when I ask for order, I expect to get it.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Thank you for your guidance, Presiding Officer.

I am sure that every Labour member will want to hear how Labour's record in Government was five times worse than the record now. Governments have to accept responsibility, but the individual amnesia from Iain Gray on the reality of the rate of absconds under the Labour-Liberal Administration and the collective amnesia from the entire Labour group on the subject is no substitute for the effective action of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice—action that has brought about dramatic improvement in the open estate.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-1730)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Yesterday, Mr MacAskill did indeed have to come before the Parliament, his tail between his legs, and make embarrassing admissions about the absconding prisoner Brian Martin. However, let me just get this straight: that dangerous criminal, with a history of violent behaviour, who had absconded before, was given a 10-year sentence, then sent to an open prison after three years. Presumably, he will get out after five years, and he has now been given four months for being on the run again. Just how much of the 10 years will that man serve and just how much of the four months will he spend inside?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I remind Annabel Goldie of two things. The open estate was introduced by a Conservative Government, and I think that there is general feeling across the chamber that, while substantial faults have been found and, of course, have been ironed out, the open estate system should continue in the Scottish Prison Service. By definition, the open estate contains serious prisoners; it does not, by and large, contain people who are on short-term sentences. The open estate is there to provide rehabilitation for people and test them in conditions of near release—that is what it was devised for.

Mr McLetchie made a sedentary reference to automatic early release. I remind him that that, too, was introduced by a Conservative Government and, of course, that it is about to be abolished through new legislation under the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Enough of the First Minister's fantasy, particularly on early release—here are the facts. Time and again the Conservatives in the Parliament have brought forward a vote to abolish automatic early release, only to be blocked every time by—yes—the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party. Let us not have any more hypocritical nonsense from the First Minister.

We have had another dangerous criminal on the run and we have a Cabinet Secretary for Justice on the ropes, saying that prison is "a skoosh" and that that appalling incident was "a glitch". I have one word for Mr MacAskill: disaster. However, whatever Mr MacAskill's failings, the buck stops at Bute house. The First Minister must grasp the nettle, find his political bottle and show some mettle. Is he prepared to be a leader? Will he announce a Cabinet reshuffle and will he put an end to the SNP's soft-touch Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I welcome Annabel Goldie's solid support for the record number of police officers patrolling our communities and keeping Scotland safe from harm. In her spirited defence of automatic early release in Scotland, Annabel Goldie forgot to confirm that it was, indeed, a Conservative Government that introduced it in the first place—I suppose that it is better that one sinner repenteth, and all that. However, I have no doubt that we will get solid support from the Conservative party for the proposals in current legislation to abolish automatic early release in Scotland.

I have already pointed out at some length to Iain Gray, with his individual amnesia, the serious situation that prevailed under the previous Administration regarding the rate of absconding, which was five times the level of last year. However, that was as nothing compared with the level under the Conservative party, when it was no less than eight times the level of last year. With regard to Annabel Goldie, her soundbites and her aim to find a speck of sawdust in the eye of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, all I would say is: let us remember the planks of wood when the Conservatives were in Government.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Cabinet. (S3F-1731)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Climate change threatens our way of life in this country and it threatens the lives of tens of millions of people around the world. Why has Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, which represents 1.5 million people in environment, development and faith groups and in trade unions, said this week that the SNP's Climate Change (Scotland) Bill is "desperately unambitious"?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I suppose that climate change activists will—rightly—pressurise this Government and every Government around the world to obtain the best possible climate change legislation. The view of the organisation that Tavish Scott mentioned is hardly unanimous among climate change activists. For example, Richard Dixon, who is WWF Scotland's director, said:

"This is still the best piece of climate change legislation proposed anywhere in the world."

Given that endorsement from WWF Scotland, I am sure that we will have the enthusiastic support of Tavish Scott and his colleagues as the bill proceeds through the Parliament.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The slight difficulty with that line is that Richard Dixon of WWF Scotland said this week that the bill was "unambitious". I am not sure from which bit of history Mr Salmond quotes.

Stop Climate Chaos Scotland says that the Government's immediate targets are no more ambitious than those of the United Kingdom. Mr Salmond said that he wanted to lead the world, but now he cannot even keep up with London. The SNP promised 3 per cent annual carbon reductions in its manifesto, but it voted against those reductions on Tuesday. Will the First Minister listen to the voices of those who criticise the bill and to the people who wrote his manifesto by changing his bill to adopt the scientifically credible reduction that he promised before the election or, as usual, does the spin matter rather more than the action?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

If we look again at what Richard Dixon said—

"This is still the best piece of climate change legislation proposed anywhere in the world"—

that rather indicates that whatever the individual criticisms, which people often legitimately make about all legislation and which are part of the consultation process, the view is that the bill is the most ambitious that is proposed anywhere in the world. [Interruption.] I offer another quotation. Professor Jan Bebbington, who is the Sustainable Development Commission's vice-chair in Scotland, said on the bill's publication:

"This is a landmark day for Scotland. The delivery of this Bill now gives Scotland the foundation on which we can build a low carbon future."

I say with great respect to Tavish Scott and his enthusiastic support for alternative and renewable energies, which I know that we will have when they come forward from Shetland—I see him pausing to think about that proposal—that I suspect that Professor Jan Bebbington knows slightly more about the legislation and probably a little more about the issue than the Liberal Democrats' leader does.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a constituency question from Frank McAveety.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank the Presiding Officer for taking my urgent constituency question and I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing for contacting me yesterday evening about the swine flu outbreak that affects constituents of mine.

Will the First Minister reassure my constituents in the Govanhill area that all measures are being taken to ensure that children who attend the local primary school—Annette Street primary school—are not at risk from swine flu, following the recent revelation that a family with children at that school has been affected by an outbreak? Will all measures be taken to contact parents to ensure that their children are safe in the next few weeks?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes—I can give that reassurance. Public health officials have been at the school this morning. As the constituency member knows, the risk assessment indicated that because the children who are probable cases were not symptomatic when they were at school, the school did not need to be closed. Public health officials have been in place this morning to give parents the guidance that they need.

Throughout the outbreak, there has been huge co-operation and understanding. Public health officials are fully versed in the natural anxieties that parents feel. I hope that the constituency member is satisfied that everything that can be done to provide such reassurance is being done.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a further constituency question from Trish Godman.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

During our debate this morning on supporting Scottish businesses, I was informed that Hewlett-Packard is to relocate manufacturing work from Erskine in my constituency to the Czech Republic, with the resulting loss of 843 jobs. The company made a profit of £5.2 billion in 2008, which was due in part to the hard work of men and women in Erskine in my constituency. Will the First Minister assure me that everything will be done to help redeployment, where possible, and that, if training for other jobs is needed, the Government will ensure that it is available to all my constituents on request?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I can give Trish Godman the assurance that she seeks. Hewlett-Packard will make a detailed announcement to its employees later today, so I do not want to go into too much detail. However, the constituency member is right to understand that, after a review of its European operations, Hewlett-Packard has decided to close its manufacturing operations in Scotland and Germany and to relocate to a lower-cost, outsourced site in the Czech Republic. A substantial number of Hewlett-Packard's operations—supply chain management, customer support and business group headquarters—will remain in Scotland.

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth spoke to the UK vice-president of Hewlett-Packard this morning and will be on site in Erskine tomorrow. The constituency member can be assured that everything will be done, through the partnership action for continuing employment network, to help people to find alternative employment. Discussions will take place with Hewlett-Packard on the protection and enhancement of the headquarter functions that will remain in Erskine. I understand that the transfer is due to start next year. That will give us substantial time that will be valuably used both by the PACE network and for discussions with the company.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government plans to review the system of distinction awards for national health service consultants. (S3F-1733)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

A group, led by the chief medical officer, has been set up to review the distinction awards and the discretionary points scheme for NHS consultants. The findings of the group, together with its recommendations, will be submitted to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing shortly.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I look forward to learning about the group's findings. In the meantime, does the First Minister agree that a scheme that costs the Scottish national health service nearly £30 million a year, benefits only one group of health workers, rewards half of all consultants approaching retirement with an extra sum of up to £74,768 a year and discriminates against consultants in Cinderella specialties such as old age medicine and against women urgently needs radical reform?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The scheme costs £26 million. To put that in context, it should be said that it is 0.245 per cent of the total budget for health and community care. We must also consider the issue of competition for consultancies, not just around Scotland but from elsewhere in the UK. However, a review was needed, has been carried out and is now complete. Its recommendations will be submitted within the next two weeks to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, who will inform Parliament of them.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to support financial inclusion. (S3F-1736)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We are providing local government with record levels of funding of more than £23 billion between 2008 and 2010. Financial inclusion, in particular, can be tackled using the £435 million fairer Scotland fund. Specifically, we have provided Citizens Advice Scotland with an additional £1.1 million to increase the availability of face-to-face advice on debt, welfare rights, housing and employment issues, through the citizens advice bureaux network.