Scottish Parliament, 18 June 2009

286 contributions from 78 members. The official report.

Official Report 18 June 2009

Business Motion

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is consideration of motion S3M-4395, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, which is to agree to treat the Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill as an emergency bill.

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

I propose that the Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill be considered under the emergency legislation procedure. If Parliament allows the bill to be dealt with under that procedure, I will explain the background in more detail in the stage 1 debate. For now, I will outline why the bill should be handled under that exceptional procedure.

The need for the bill stems from the decision of the House of Lords in the Somerville v Scottish Ministers case, which left the Scottish Government exposed to claims for damages that arise from alleged breaches of convention rights, but without the one-year time limit that was previously thought to apply. That has created uncertainty about which time limit—if any—applies in such cases and has led to tens of millions of pounds having to be put aside to meet possible compensation claims. It is generally agreed that the situation needs to be resolved as quickly as possible: passing the bill today would achieve that.

The bill deals with a particular problem that the Somerville decision highlighted. The bill is short and focused and its wording reflects the order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998, which Parliament recently considered and which gives Parliament the power to pass the bill.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I accept the need for emergency legislation, but the bill was published only on 15 June. The cabinet secretary has told us that work has been done on the issue for quite a long time, and a draft bill was available for some time, but would it not have been helpful to have published the bill sooner, so that people could consider it in detail; to have consulted stakeholders, given that he announced his proposals in March; and to have asked the Justice Committee to examine the bill briefly, to ensure that we had got it right? We know from dangerous dogs legislation that such emergency legislation has hazards. It is important that the details as well as the principle are right.

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

What Robert Brown said has much merit. It is clear that any Administration will use the emergency legislation procedure only sparingly. The Administration of which he was a part introduced emergency legislation that related to the circumstances of the Ruddle v The Secretary of State for Scotland case. We would have preferred to deal with the current situation a considerable time ago but, because of the need for negotiations with bodies elsewhere, that did not happen.

That said, our intention has been on the public record. Through the media and other means, it is clear that people have been aware of the on-going matter. I give the assurance that we will not introduce emergency legislation as a matter of course. Normally, we will involve the Justice Committee—including Mr Brown as a member, and its eminent convener—to ensure that it plays its appropriate part in scrutinising proposals.

However, it is clear that it is in the public interest to act expeditiously now, before Parliament winds down for the recess. The Government makes no apology for proceeding under the emergency procedure, although I accept that in the normal course of events, legislation should be subject to the full procedure, which allows greater scrutiny. The proposals have none the less been subject to substantial scrutiny and have been a matter of public record.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill be treated as an Emergency Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4396, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on the Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. We have a little time—a little flexibility—available in the debate.

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

As I just mentioned, the bill stems from the House of Lords judgment in the Somerville v Scottish Ministers case. Members will recall that we made a commitment to introduce before the summer recess legislation to deal with the issue. We have delivered on that commitment, so I hope that Parliament will take the final step by passing the bill.

The judgment has meant that, unlike every other public authority in Scotland and the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Government did not have the protection of a one-year time limit for human rights claims. The bill will remove that anomaly by establishing for human rights claims under the Scotland Act 1998 the same one-year limitation period as exists for claims under the Human Rights Act 1998.

This is not just a theoretical legal issue. As I have told Parliament, as a result of the Somerville judgment, the Scottish Prison Service had to set aside £67 million of public money to meet claims for doubled-up slopping out, more than £11 million of which has been paid out. The bill will enable us to draw a line under that liability and will provide protection against indefinite exposure to future claims that might arise from alleged breaches of convention rights.

Since the issue stemmed from the wording of the Scotland Act 1998, we needed to secure the UK Government's agreement to the proposed change. After lengthy discussions, we succeeded in securing that agreement. The Scottish Parliament then had to be given competence to legislate. An order that gave Parliament such competence was made on 10 June, having been approved at the Westminster Parliament and here at Holyrood.

The bill is straightforward and reflects the approach that I outlined to Parliament in my statement on 11 March. It will require proceedings against the Scottish ministers for an alleged breach of convention rights to be brought within a year of the alleged breach, or such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable, having had regard to all the circumstances. That will bring the Scotland Act 1998 into line with the equivalent provision in the Human Rights Act 1998. The new time limit will apply to proceedings that are brought on or after 2 November 2009, which means that it will apply not only in cases where the alleged breach took place after that date, but in cases where the alleged breach took place before 2 November but the petitioner had not brought their claim to court before then.

The broad discretion that will be given to the court to allow cases outwith the one-year time period will serve as an important safeguard. It will ensure that the court can allow a case to proceed after one year when it is equitable to do so. In reaching a decision on that matter, the court will be required to act compatibly with the petitioner's human rights.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

How does the cabinet secretary respond to the suggestion that although the justification for the bill in relation to prisoners slopping out might have popular appeal—many people feel that prisoners whose human rights have been abused do not deserve compensation—the bill will have far wider applications?

The bill could prevent members of the public whose human rights might be infringed in the future from taking action, if they were unaware that actions had been taken. For example, a long process of freedom of information requests and appeals, followed by appeals to the Scottish Information Commissioner, might be necessary before someone had sufficient facts at their disposal to know that their human rights had been violated or infringed. Given that, how does the cabinet secretary respond to the Law Society of Scotland's proposal that the one-year time bar should relate to the date when an individual became aware of the facts rather than the date when the event took place?

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

As I said, the ability to seek to overturn the time limit will be available, as with all damages cases in Scotland. In damages cases, the triennium applies. If somebody breaks a leg or their flight is delayed and they are absent because of circumstances that are beyond their control, so that a claim cannot be lodged within three years, the court takes action. However, such judicial discretion is not intended to apply to somebody who has not bothered to take an interest or make an investigation. The same provision will apply to the one-year time limit in the bill.

On the Law Society's point, I make it clear that we are seeking not to introduce anything new, but to restore what was thought to apply in Scotland—the one-year time limit. That position will not be unusual to Scotland. We seek to apply to Scotland what applies elsewhere, to give the Scottish Government the same rights as other Scottish bodies and bodies south of the border. That is not predicated on a whim or a fancy by either the Scottish Government or the UK Government. The one-year period has been fixed after debate and discussion in Europe. Indeed, in Europe it is viewed as the norm.

Damages claims are complicated matters on which, for example, Bill Butler always has interesting points to make. We have a great deal of sympathy with such points, but human rights cases are distinct from cases to do with injuries that may result from asbestosis or a car crash, which is why the European norm of one year should apply, as happened with the UK Human Rights Act 1998. It was the norm that we thought applied in Scotland before the Somerville case made us think again. We are therefore now simply seeking to reaffirm in Scotland the position that we thought was the law, and to ensure that rights here are consistent with those south of the border and elsewhere.

The Law Society of Scotland is perhaps gilding the lily. On the issue of the one-year period, people will still have opportunities to claim if they have good reason for not having been able to pursue a human rights claim. That is similar to the way in which people still have opportunities to pursue a damages claim within the triennium if they have good reason for not having been previously able to pursue a claim.

I thank members throughout the chamber for the consensus on this important issue. It has been a good example of how all parties can work together in the public interest. I hope that the consensus will continue throughout today's deliberations.

Following my original statement, consultation was mentioned. We acknowledge that people need to be made aware of the change that is being made. Robert Brown made a similar point earlier when we considered whether to treat the bill as an emergency bill. That is why we have informed a range of interests—including all serving prisoners—of the proposed limitation period.

We stated publicly our desire for a change in the law as long ago as November 2007, so the change should not come as a surprise to anyone. We originally envisaged that the time limit would apply from 31 July, but parliamentary officials expressed concerns that that deadline might breach convention rights. The Government does not accept that view but, given the importance of the issue, we want as much consensus as possible about the bill. The bill therefore provides that the new one-year time limit will apply to proceedings brought on or after 2 November.

There has, of course, been comment about our proposals since first we made them. Let us be quite clear: as I said to Mr Harvie, the bill is not about removing anybody's right to seek redress for breaches of human rights. The grounds on which individuals will be able to make such claims will remain completely unchanged, and the time limit that the bill will introduce is the same as the time limit that currently exists under the Human Rights Act 1998. Any suggestion that the bill will somehow deprive anyone of their fundamental rights is completely unfounded.

The Law Society has proposed certain amendments that would change the period from which the one-year time limit runs: instead of running from the date of the alleged breach, it would run from the date when the person became aware of the breach. I cannot support the amendments for a number of reasons. First, and crucially, they are incompetent. The section 30 order, which gives Parliament the power to pass the bill, is narrowly drawn and requires the time period to run from the date of the alleged breach.

Secondly, the amendments are unnecessary. No evidence has been provided as to why the formulation in the bill is problematic. Thirdly, they are inconsistent with the time limit in the Human Rights Act 1998. Our aim is to ensure that a consistent time limit applies to all human rights-based claims against public authorities. We should be wary of any amendment that, in seeking to cure one inconsistency, ends up creating another.

From day 1, there has been general agreement that the anomaly that was identified by the Somerville decision needs to be addressed. The bill will do that fairly and effectively. I therefore hope that Parliament will endorse our approach.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

The issue of compensation payments for prisoners as a result of slopping out has been extremely controversial, but the debate today should not be. We all agree that Parliament must act to ensure that the payments can be curbed.

There has, understandably, been great concern among the public that the payments have been made. Of course we want the several million pounds involved to go not to offenders as a result of their incarceration, but to investment in key areas of Scottish life, such as health and education. There has been anger that people who have been put in custody because of serious offences can, as a result of their time in jail, receive some £2,000 in compensation payments if they can show that their rights have been breached.

The Somerville judgment greatly extended the potential for the number of claims. A loophole in legislation has been exploited as claims against Scottish ministers have not been subject to a one-year time bar, as they are for UK ministers or indeed for other public authorities. It is right to seek to close that loophole today.

We understand the need to achieve our aims through a curtailed parliamentary process—emergency bill. As the Law Society points out in its briefing, that process has not allowed for the usual consideration of amendments. I am pleased that the society has scrutinised the bill and raised important matters for consideration, but I am satisfied by the arguments that the cabinet secretary has just made that we should proceed without amendment. I understand the legitimate reasons why the bill must be passed as an emergency bill, and therefore why there is not the usual capacity for further debate.

However—this relates to issues that Patrick Harvie raised—I wonder whether other consequences could be considered by Parliament if the Scottish Law Commission's draft limitations (Scotland) bill were to be progressed. If appropriate, we could have further opportunities to discuss the issues that Patrick Harvie and the Law Society have raised. ln his statement to Parliament in March, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice told us that the Scottish Prison Service had had to make provision in its annual accounts for £66.7 million in the financial year to meet the costs of claims for slopping out. He made it clear then, as he has today, that the introduction of a one-year time bar would enable us to draw a line under our liability in relation to claims of the kind that are being made in respect of the Somerville judgment, and that the result would be the release of up to £50 million for spending on other, more worthy, purposes.

I am pleased that we can now introduce this one-year time bar, following the successful conclusion of dialogue between the Scottish and UK Governments. The clear intention is that, after we vote on this bill today, the UK Government will seek the agreement of the Westminster Parliament to a comprehensive solution for all three devolved Administrations through primary legislation. The process has not been simple; it has taken considerable time, and complicated legal questions have been discussed, and are being discussed again today. The initial House of Lords judgment on the Somerville case itself was a split decision. There has also been some debate over the best legislative vehicle to achieve change.

However, through the discussions it has been clear that the legislative solution that ahs been pursued by ministers has been the right one. I am pleased that UK and Scottish ministers were able to reach agreement. Ministers here have clearly been right to pursue this issue to what we hope will be a satisfactory conclusion. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Scotland has, in turn, used his good offices to help the process. It is clear that since he came to office he, too, has appreciated the need for the speediest possible resolution.

I have no doubt that there will be debate about the history of the issue, but there can also be no doubt that, during the previous session of Parliament in particular, there has been massive investment in Scotland's prison estate in order to end the practice of slopping out in our jails. Chemical sanitation still remains in Peterhead—although that will have to be resolved, it is a different procedure. It was right to invest in our prison infrastructure, not only because the Scottish Government must not be exposed to the potential for such claims in the future, but because our prison estate must be fit for purpose. Human rights should not be infringed. However, a key issue is the restriction of further claims—although they may not be eradicated by this legislation today. It would be helpful to know from the cabinet secretary how many claims the Scottish Government still expects to receive in the future. However, clearly and happily, there should not now be the potential for 20,000 claims, as was opened up by the Somerville judgment.

The fact that this is a complex issue has also been borne out by the revised position on the commencement of the legislation, which will now be in November rather than in July. I understand that that was not done on the basis of legal advice to either Government but on the basis of advice from the Parliament. I will defer to legal opinion on this, although it seemed to me that a July commencement was reasonable, especially given the discretion that will be afforded to the courts under proposed new section 100(3B)(b) of the Scotland Act 1998. However, it would be useful to hear from ministers what impact that will have on potential future costs. Is it still hoped that there will be savings of some £50 million, or will that figure now be reduced? The other key question is about in what the Scottish Government intends to invest the savings.

There remain the issues of prison capacity and the proposal for a pilot community court in Glasgow. There is also the understanding that the cabinet secretary is to announce significant additional funding for community sentences. It would be helpful to know to what extent they can be funded from the savings. Of course there are pressures on public sector spending, but the demands in the justice system are none the less important and significant.

There will be no savings if the bill is not passed, which is why we are pleased that it can be decided on today, in a single day, by Parliament. It is being concluded with co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments and Parliaments.

Aware as we are of the need to pass the bill expeditiously, we intend to support it without amendment today.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

We would all agree that the extraordinary procedures that are being adopted should be used only sparingly but, in this instance, it is totally justified to proceed in this fashion.

I concur completely with the views that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice expressed on the somewhat narrow legal points that exist. I accept the point that Patrick Harvie made and understand his concerns, but he must appreciate that those who have not been able to lodge claims timeously have always had available to them the remedy of application to the court for a waiver of the limitation of actions or the triennial prescription. The issues that he raised are perfectly worth raising, but procedures are in place to ensure that no one will fall through the cracks in that respect, so we can proceed with confidence.

The benefit of the bill—I do not wish to trawl through its history—is that it will remove a problem that has been a bit of a running sore for quite some time: there has been considerable public resentment at the fact that people who are considered to be undeserving can benefit at the expense of the Scottish taxpayer.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I do not intend to press Bill Aitken on the point of substance, but does he at least agree that an individual whose human rights have been violated and who has then received compensation does not "benefit"? It is about something that should not have happened to them, not simply something that should not have happened to the public purse.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

If Mr Harvie is asking whether I approve of slopping out, I state clearly that I do not. I have never suggested that prisoners should have to live in unsanitary or Dickensian conditions, but there is a simple way to avoid doing that: namely, not to commit crime and get a custodial sentence.

One or two issues are worth debating a little further. I concur with Richard Baker's view on the date at which the bill comes into effect. The cabinet secretary and Government have similar concerns. On balance, we might have been as well to pursue the 1 July date, but I appreciate that there are genuine risks in that and that, in the circumstances, it would not be wise or prudent to do other than what is proposed in the bill. We do not wish to be dragged once again through the courts and, possibly, to face losing recoverable revenue as a result.

I suspect that, in the days and months ahead, there will be various debates on budgetary considerations. For once we will, I hope, have more money than we thought we had. Members may have individual ideas as to how that money might be used within the justice account or elsewhere, but we must ensure that it is forthcoming.

What is happening today reflects well on everyone. The Westminster Government is to be congratulated—as, indeed, is the Scottish Government—for seeking to achieve an agreement that enables the bill to be processed as quickly as it will be. Were we not to pass it today, we would find ourselves under serious public criticism, bearing in mind the history of the matter. I reiterate the undertaking that I gave earlier on behalf of the Conservative party that we will process the bill as expeditiously as possible.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Like other parties in the Parliament, the Liberal Democrats support the bill and have done so from the earliest stage. The need for it arose from a contentious and, as Richard Baker pointed out, divided ruling by the House of Lords in the Somerville case—which refers to an earlier contrary decision in the same case by the Court of Session—on the interaction of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Scotland Act 1998. However, its real significance was the door that it opened to a flood of claims on slopping out as a result of the Robert Napier case.

It is clearly in the public interest that slopping out claims be restricted as narrowly as possible. It is also in the public interest that up to £50 million of public funds be released from compensating such claims to be spent on more beneficial public purposes. I agree with Bill Aitken that the action that the Westminster Government and the Scottish Government have taken to deal with the matter is a useful example of good co-operation.

At stage 3, I may say something about the further use of the funds but, this morning, I will examine closely whether the bill is watertight, will do what is intended and not do what it is not intended. It is fine to agree to the principle of the bill, but it is the duty of Parliament and its committees to scrutinise its detail and to question the Government on that. That is why I asked whether it might have been possible, despite the use of the emergency legislation procedure, to do a bit more to spread information about the issues and to have the opportunity for more detailed scrutiny earlier.

I will ask the Government some detailed questions. First, will it clarify precisely who and what the bill applies to? According to the bill, it applies to the Scottish ministers, but not to other public bodies such as councils. I think that that is for technical reasons that relate to the interaction of two acts. I presume that the bill applies to the Scottish Prison Service—that is its purpose—which is operationally independent of the Scottish ministers, but what about bodies such as NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, the Scottish Housing Regulator or Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education? Is the Crown Office covered by the phrase "the Scottish Ministers"? What about the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration or, in this time of economic crisis, various enterprise bodies?

We must be clear exactly who and what the bill applies to so that we can understand its implications, which would have been the point of early scrutiny. It would be helpful if the minister would, when he replies, give a clear statement about those matters so that we know exactly what we are doing.

What does the bill apply to? We know from the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing that the independence of the planning system and inquiries into blood-borne infections from transfusions are the sorts of issues that might be challenged on human rights grounds. The issues are far wider than slopping out and apply not only to prisoners who, although they may have little public support, are entitled to their human rights. They cover all Scottish Government ministries and, I assume, agencies of various kinds.

The time bar is intended to provide a level playing field throughout the UK and, as I understand it, will be replaced by comprehensive UK legislation when a legislative opportunity offers itself. Will the minister confirm whether the wording is identical throughout the UK?

A more significant question is whether the extension to the one-year time limit is right as phrased. There is a difference between the wording of section 19A of the Prescription Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, under which the judges have discretion over extending a time bar, and the provision in the bill, which perhaps supports the idea that they have discretion only over the length of the extension rather than over whether there should be an extension in the first place.

What of the date of knowledge and the date at which the time bar starts? Is the time bar one year after the start of the breach of rights, as the Scottish Government apparently argued in the Somerville case or, as is more usual, after the end of the breach of rights—in other words, when it ceases? As Patrick Harvie pointed out and the Law Society's briefing stresses, there is no reference in the bill to the date of knowledge as there is in other prescriptive limitations. Are the bill's provisions tight enough to do what we want to do on the slopping out cases while not restricting too narrowly what might arise in other cases? In a slightly different context, asbestosis provided us with time-bar issues more recently.

The Liberal Democrats will support the bill, as I said, but is appropriate that the Government respond in some detail to the technical questions that I have asked so that we know that we are addressing the matter in the right way and dealing properly with the application of the European convention on human rights, which Liberal Democrats support and which gives people across the board—some of whom we like and some of whom we do not like so much—rights that they are entitled to exercise against the Scottish ministers in appropriate conditions. Has the cabinet secretary got the detail right?

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I want to examine a number of issues in the bill, the first of which is, as Robert Brown has just highlighted, the time bar. I am grateful to Patrick Harvie for emphasising the Law Society of Scotland's point that there is a difference between the usual time bar for damages and injury claims and the one-year time bar in human rights legislation. We simply need to get our minds around that difference, which, I should add, is recognised throughout Europe. Of course, the question whether that is right is an interesting one, but perhaps not to be debated today.

However, I reiterate the question that Robert Brown posed: if a person is subject to certain conditions day after day for a year and, six months later, brings a claim under human rights legislation, can they claim for the whole year or only the last six months? That might seem like a legal technicality, but it is a significant issue, given that prison is all about serving time. I would be grateful if I could receive an answer to that question and be told the authority for it.

As I reflect on how we have reached this position, I cannot help but notice that even though the decision on the Somerville case is not substantive—the House of Lords was split on it—it has nevertheless produced a significant change in the law. Indeed, what comes to mind is the Donoghue v Stevenson case a couple of generations ago: although the House of Lords was split on the matter and was never able to reach a substantive decision on the mythical snail, the decision changed consumer law out of all recognition. That highlights the interesting way in which our law can sometimes proceed.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does the member think that the decision of the House of Lords on Donoghue v Stevenson was a good one? After all, it sometimes makes good decisions, even though that is arguable in this case.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am not sure that it is worth commenting on whether the decision was good, given that everyone involved is now dead and buried. We certainly have reason to be very grateful for the way in which it changed the law, although it is not obvious to me whether the change had to happen then or would have come about later. The point is that, sometimes, changes in our law are precipitated by the most ridiculous things. That is the way it goes.

Clearly, we need to pass the bill. I entirely respect the point that people's human rights need to be looked after—they are, after all, our human rights as individuals—but I do not think that there is any serious desire among the public to pay significant sums of money to prisoners. The best way not to have a problem in prison is not to be put there in the first place. That is what I intend to do and I am sure that everyone else will be well advised to do the same.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

Although the crux of the bill is to ensure that the one-year time bar applies to human rights claims brought under the Scotland Act 1998, and although—notwithstanding issues about chemical sanitation—slopping out has become a thing of the past, I will for the record state my objections to the practice, as it forms an important backdrop to the bill. The situation that we are trying to rectify has arisen not only as a result of the House of Lords judgment but because of the time it has taken to end slopping out.

Anyone who has ever visited a prison and has had to interact with prisoners in cells with buckets of human waste sitting in the corner will know that the practice of slopping out adds absolutely nothing to the rehabilitation or punishment of offenders. The fact that it took so long to end slopping out was detrimental not only to our justice system but to public confidence in the system, as it created a situation in which people could make claims under human rights legislation.

The SPS's original target was to end slopping out by 1999, but a review in 2002 of the prison estate and plans to build two new prisons pushed the date back to 2008 at the earliest. In 2004, the Napier case established that slopping out was indeed a breach of human rights. In 21st century Scotland, should it really have taken human rights legislation to end a Victorian practice? In that respect, we—and I mean that collectively—made a rod for our own backs to the detriment of taxpayers. The reticence of and feet dragging by politicians and the SPS showed what happens when we frame justice debates in terms of hard or soft measures instead of focusing on what is proportionate, what is right, what is just and what actually works. I hope that we can all learn this salutary lesson for future debates on the criminal justice system.

I have no doubt that, in overturning the Court of Session judgment on the Somerville case, the law lords were very erudite in the legal points on which they based their decision. What I did not understand was Jack Straw's reticence and the view that he expressed in December 2008 that he was not persuaded of the case for changing the law. As the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has made clear, it was wholly unjust and unacceptable for the Scottish ministers to be the only public authority in Scotland—and, indeed, in almost the whole of the UK—to be exposed to claims for damages under human rights legislation outwith the one-year time bar.

I am glad that the situation has been resolved and that, as a result of the bill, savings will be made to the public purse. Many people were alarmed to hear that the SPS had to set aside £67 million to deal with just over 1,200 outstanding cases and that it expected to deal with 200 new cases a month. I look forward to hearing how the cabinet secretary plans to put the savings to good use. For the record, I hope that some consideration is given to making extra funding available for community sentencing. Although I have never subscribed to the view that money alone can solve all the ills and difficulties faced by criminal justice social work departments and those who are tasked with supervising offenders, I think that, in introducing enhanced community payback orders and ending unconditional automatic early release, we have an opportunity to invest further in innovative and imaginative practices that will enhance public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I welcome this morning's debate. It has taken considerable time to reach this point, but it is my hope that if—as I fully expect—the bill is passed later today, the Scottish prison system will finally begin to move on from the slopping out row that has caused so much controversy in recent years.

I know that the Law Society of Scotland, among others, has expressed concern about the lack of public consultation on the bill, given its constitutional significance and the fact that its outcome will benefit the Scottish Government, and I note those concerns. However, given the nature of emergency legislation and the bill's purpose in bringing Scottish human rights law in line with that of the rest of the United Kingdom as a precursor to the Westminster Government introducing primary legislation at a future date, I am satisfied that the Government has thoroughly considered all the options and plans to do the right thing in resolving the legal anomaly. Surely it is not desirable to continue to allow claims that are brought against the Scottish Government under the Scotland Act 1998 to be subject to a different time bar to those that are pursued under the Human Rights Act 1998. The cabinet secretary gave a very full response to Patrick Harvie's question on that point.

As Bill Aitken and Richard Baker have pointed out, there has been some controversy over changing the effective date of the new time bar from 31 July to 2 November. The fact is that whenever one gets two lawyers in a room, it is always extremely difficult to get them to agree, and that seems to have been the case this time.

The crux of the matter, however, must be finding the correct balance between the rights of those who wish to make a claim under the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government's desire to make savings and allocate them effectively. As other members have said, if the Government is going to save substantial numbers of millions of pounds, surely it would be much better, in the current economic climate, to spend that money on schools, hospitals and other things that benefit us all.

Another factor that several members have remarked on is the issue of competence, and specifically the difficulty of an increased possibility of a legal challenge to a bill that the Presiding Officer indicated—because of the parliamentary lawyers—was outwith the Parliament's competence. I therefore welcome the fact that the parliamentary authorities and the Government have managed to reach a compromise position. By November, if someone has had more than a year to make a claim—and, in some cases, more than two years, since the Somerville ruling in late October 2007—and has not done so, they will have had a reasonable amount of time. The fact that a time bar has been drawn now is surely justifiable.

As noted in the policy memorandum, the European Court of Human Rights fully accepts that the proportionate limitation periods imposed in pursuance of a legitimate human rights claim do not breach those rights. In adopting a compromise position, the bill will ensure that the letter and spirit of that statement are adhered to. I therefore fully support the aims of the bill, and welcome the fact that the legal loophole is finally being closed.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I will largely adopt the arguments that I previously canvassed on the subject. It is perhaps important to underline that no one disputes the fact that Lord Bonomy's decision in the original Napier case was correct. Clearly, slopping out is not acceptable, and Lord Bonomy was correct, in the terms of the European legislation, to find as he did. There is no point in raking through the history of the matter and speculating about what should then have happened, but, as Angela Constance suggests, action should have been taken much earlier.

Ms Constance commented on the use to which the £50 million might be put, but that is not a year-on-year windfall: once the £50 million has been spent, there will not be any more. In contrast, our considerations under the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill are on-going. I flag up a danger sign that if we think that the £50 million will help us to cope with the increased expenditure in respect of alternatives to custody, we are wrong.

I have heard nothing this morning that dissuades me from my original proposition that the bill should proceed to stage 2.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

The debate has shown us that members are united in one respect: in an ideal world, we would not want prisoners to benefit from compensation payments. As far as I am concerned, prison should be seen as punishment, not as an opportunity for compensation payments. As Richard Baker said—other members have referred to this—the issue is complex, and we have faced it for many years. Legal minds have been challenged on the rights and wrongs of the issue but, as others have said, we are now required to face up to the Somerville judgment in such a way as to bring us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Like Richard Baker, I am pleased that we can now introduce the one-year time bar, following constructive dialogue between our Westminster colleagues and the Scottish Government. On Angela Constance's point, according to all the reports from ministers, that dialogue has been helpful and has allowed us to take matters forward.

I appreciate that Conservative members want to highlight the issues that may have exposed us to the claims in the first place. The Government press release refers to the prison estate that the Government inherited. It is important to recognise the work that was carried out by the previous Scottish Executive, under the leadership of Jim Wallace and Cathy Jamieson, to modernise the prison estate. In 2005, the previous Executive announced an investment in HM Prison Edinburgh of £16 million. That included a new prisoner house block and a health education centre, which enabled slopping out in Edinburgh to end. At HMP Glenochil, a £28 million investment enabled the construction of a new prison house block and a health centre. That investment also allowed us to move forward. Under the previous Executive, an investment of more than £35 million in HMP Perth enabled the construction of a new prisoner house block, a health centre and an activity centre, which allowed the ending of slopping out in Perth.

I could go on, but the important point is that the previous Executive highlighted concerns about slopping out and took action to ensure that the number of cells in which slopping out was required reduced from more than 1,900 in 2001 to the figures that have been referred to today. It made a significant investment in the prison estate, at an unprecedented level.

Such investment in the prison estate does not fit with the populist agenda. Understandably, the vast majority of our constituents want money to be invested in schools, community facilities, health centres and so on, and politicians respond to that. The passage of the bill will lead to savings of an estimated £50 million, so perhaps we can meet the aspirations of our local communities in that respect. Given the cross-party co-operation that has been displayed in the chamber today, I hope that we can work with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on how best those savings can be expended.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I hope that Paul Martin would agree that as well as serving the populist aspirations of constituents to which he refers, Parliament has a responsibility to serve their interests. In recognition that more brutal prisons make more brutal prisoners, perhaps the £50 million would be better spent within the prison estate than elsewhere.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I have already exhibited the unprecedented investment in the prison estate by the previous Scottish Executive. Although it is important that such investment takes place, we must recognise that the populist agenda does not necessarily involve investing in the prison estate. However, I appreciate Patrick Harvie's point—it is important that we have a modern prison estate. The Justice 1 Committee reviewed the prison estate in 2001, when I was a member. I refer Patrick Harvie to the Official Report, in which he will see that I emphasised that it is important to invest not just in the prison estate but in the rehabilitation of prisoners to prepare them for release.

The issue will not go away. The passage of the bill is crucial and should be taken seriously, because it will minimise the risk to the public purse in respect of future claims. I call on members to support the Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

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

I am grateful to all members for the constructive way in which this morning's proceedings have been conducted. We have, of course, discussed the issues previously, so it is not surprising—but nonetheless it is welcome—that we have been able to make such rapid progress. Other members have set out the important issues behind the bill and the reasons why we need to take action quickly. I will do my best to respond to the important points that have rightly and properly been made.

At the outset, Robert Brown raised the issue of consultation. The cabinet secretary rightly responded by referring to the circumstances in which the emergency bill process is used. In fact, it has been used five times, for the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill in 1999, the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill in 2001, the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill in 2002, the Senior Judiciary (Vacancies and Incapacity) (Scotland) Bill in 2006 and the Budget (Scotland) (No 3) Bill in 2009. It is fair to canvass that for the sake of the record, and to provide a complete statement of the circumstances in which the procedure has been used.

Of course, the Somerville judgment has attracted a great deal of publicity. It became available in October 2007. Since then, it has been extremely well publicised, for obvious reasons, and has been a matter of great public concern for reasons that members have explained.

Robert Brown raised the issue of what opportunities there have been for consultation. Only in March were we able to proceed on the basis that we had the broad agreement of the UK Government that appropriate steps could be taken, and the Scottish Government has given ample notice of its intentions. Almost immediately after the judgment, in November 2007, we announced that we intended to seek the introduction of a one-year time bar. We then published a draft of the bill in March 2009. On 1 April, we announced the launch of the draft section 30 order. Finally, we advised a range of interests, including all serving prisoners, the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, of the planned legislation. That was the narrative of events.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

That is a helpful response. Nevertheless, does the minister accept that, although it was appropriate for the bill to proceed under the emergency procedure and although there is agreement on the general principles of the bill, it is important that we get the detail right and that, therefore, there might be scope for the Government to consider what might be done—when there is a little more time than was allowed by the Ruddle situation, which was urgent—to have wider involvement in the study of the detail of the bill? Could the bill be subject to an additional helpful process—maybe not a statutory process—through the committee system?

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

We are always ready to respond to the parliamentary authorities' view on whether the emergency procedures need to be reconsidered. If Parliament decides that the matter should be revisited, we will be wholly co-operative in undertaking that task.

It would be not unreasonable for me to point out the extensive information and additional advice that has been provided to MSPs—and, therefore, made public to all those who are interested in the matter—in the policy memorandum and explanatory notes, which, perhaps because of the short time that is available to us this morning, have not been mentioned in detail. For example, in paragraph 13 of the policy memorandum we explained the alternative approaches that we considered and which could have been adopted. We did that because we wanted to be open and transparent in setting out the various approaches that could have been adopted in addressing the time-bar issue that the Somerville case raised. No approach other than primary legislation was identified. In other words, the first conclusion that we reached was that it was necessary to change the law by primary legislation, not secondary legislation.

Three possible courses of action were identified. The first was to amend the general law on time bar in Scotland by imposing a one-year time limit for all cases brought before the Scottish courts. However, we all agree that scrapping the triennium would have been absurd. It would have meant that the bill that we passed recently on pleural plaques would have been a bit of a nonsense. It would also have been extremely unfair and inappropriate for us to do that. We are dealing with a tightly focused situation, not the generality of all personal injury cases. The second option was to amend section 100 of the Scotland Act 1998 to make it clear that there is no right to damages under that act, thus requiring all such claims to be brought under the Human Rights Act 1998. The third option was to amend section 100 of the Scotland Act 1998 to impose a one-year time bar on bringing convention rights claims under that act. It was considered that options (a) and (b) would be disproportionate and that, therefore, option (c) would be the most suitable.

It is important to point out that the Government's officials devoted a great deal of time and effort to addressing matters in thorough detail, describing all the options fully and explaining why we decided to proceed with option (c) in the documents that were submitted with the draft bill—which itself has been available for a considerable time.

Robert Brown asked whether the time bar will start to run one year from the start of the breach. The issue was considered but not determined in the Somerville judgment by the House of Lords. The lords who considered the matter took the view that the one-year period would run from the end of the breach. Ultimately, however, it is a matter for the courts to determine. Members will have noticed that proposed new section 100(3B) of the Scotland Act 1998 states:

"Proceedings to which this subsection applies must be brought before the end of—

(a) the period of one year beginning with the date on which the act complained of took place".

It will be for the courts to determine the interpretation of that. That said, my understanding is that the date on which slopping out ceased was some considerable time ago, so I suspect that whether it happened four years ago or four and a half years ago will not be a practical question.

As the cabinet secretary has said, the time limit will apply from 2 November, so not only has there been the notice that I have described and incessant publicity on the issue since October 2007, and not only has every serving prisoner received notice of the matter, but there will be an additional period between 31 July and 2 November—effectively, August, September and October—for claims to be made. These proceedings are available to everyone in Scotland—including all solicitors in Scotland who are active in the field—to ensure that any client who wants to make a claim can make that claim before the cut-off date.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am sorry to intrude again, but the issue applies more widely than just to slopping out cases, as we know from other discussions. It is, therefore, important that we know the Government's policy intent in using the phraseology that it has used in relation to the start and end of the claims period. It is a matter for determination by the courts, but it is also the responsibility of the Government to make clear what it intends to happen.

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

We intend to bring the position in Scotland into line with the position that has existed in the rest of the UK since the Human Rights Act 1998 was passed. However, the precise interpretation is rightly entirely a matter for the courts.

I hope that I have time to answer all the other perfectly legitimate questions that Robert Brown has raised, of which I have a list.

Proposed new section 100(3B)(b) of the Scotland Act 1998, which I had not got round to quoting, also gives the courts discretion to set the time bar at

"such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances".

In other words, not only are we bringing the law into line with the rest of the UK in respect of the one-year time bar, we are also exactly replicating the UK provision on the circumstances in which a court has discretion to disapply that one-year time limit.

Robert Brown asked why we did not follow the wording in the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, which I am sure he and I spent many a happy hour studying in our former lives. It is because the bill's purpose is to bring human rights claims in Scotland into line with those that are brought under the Human Rights Act 1998 that the bill follows the model of section 7(5)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 rather than that of section 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973.

The substantive point—to get away from quoting sections of acts in a rather narrow legal debate—is that we are seeking to bring the law in Scotland entirely into line with the law in the rest of the UK, which is perhaps what many people thought was the law in Scotland until the Somerville judgment came along.

Robert Brown also, rightly, asked to whom and what the bill will apply. It is clear that the bill will apply to the Scottish ministers and any member of the Scottish Executive, including Scottish Government agencies such as the Scottish Prison Service. Other public bodies that are not caught within the definition in the bill are already caught by the Human Rights Act 1998. The bill will therefore ensure that a consistent time bar applies to all actions that are brought against public authorities in Scotland. That explains the methodology and the terminology that have been used in the bill.

Some members asked about the likely number of claims and whether the delay until 2 November 2009 will lead to increased costs. The later date will allow those with potential claims an additional three months within which to bring a claim, so it could lead to an increased number of cases before the time limit comes into effect.

Presiding Officer, I am not quite sure how much longer I have, but I will soldier on.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The minister should not feel compelled to continue to speak if he does not wish to do so.

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

I just want to ensure that I answer the main questions that members have asked. If any member feels that I have not answered their question, I would be happy to let them intervene.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

rose—

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

I thought that I had cowed everyone into submission, but apparently that is not the case.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Should not Mr Brown and others who are concerned that prisoners and former prisoners might lack the appropriate knowledge to be aware that they have the potential to make a claim take some comfort from the fact that certain members of the legal profession—acting, no doubt, in accordance with philanthropic principles—have been actively canvassing such people to ensure that they are aware of the legal remedy that is available to them?

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

I am certainly aware of the argument that Mr Aitken has made.

In conclusion, the need for action has been agreed on all sides, almost from the moment of the Somerville judgment. The bill is a good example of the rapid change that the Parliament can deliver when we work together. In that spirit of consensus, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in the debate. It has been a very constructive morning.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The question is, that motion S3M-4396, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on the general principles of the Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The bill will now proceed to stage 2. Members have until 2 pm today to lodge amendments with the legislation team clerks. The Committee of the Whole Parliament will meet at 2.55 pm to consider the bill at stage 2.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Could you take a bit more time to explain to us the full procedure for the bill at stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3? I think that we all need to know a bit more detail about when votes may occur. In the circumstances, what will you do to help Parliament to understand exactly what is required of it?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Under the circumstances, that is a very helpful point, Mr Crawford. However, I simply refer members to previous Official Reports on such proceedings, which are not unknown in the history of this Parliament. Indeed, the first act ever passed by the Parliament in 1999—as members will no doubt recall—was an exemplar of such proceedings.

Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee Bill Proposal

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4243, in the name of Trish Godman, on the review of SPCB-supported bodies.

If the furniture is now in place and her lectern has been suitably adjusted, I call Trish Godman to speak to and move the motion.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I am pleased to present to Parliament the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee's report, which recommends that there be a committee bill to harmonise the SPCB-supported office-holders' terms and conditions of appointment and to enhance their governance arrangements.

Before I explain why we need such a bill, I thank all those who contributed to the process. First, I thank my fellow committee members for their valuable contributions in developing the committee's report. Secondly, I thank the committee's clerks and legal advisers, who worked hard to support committee members. Yet again, I am reminded of the fact that this place would not run without the help of our committee clerks. Thirdly, I thank those who responded to our general call for evidence and all those who gave oral evidence to the committee.

On 13 November 2008, the Parliament agreed to establish an ad hoc committee, to be known as the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee. It was not considered appropriate for the Government to review and to recommend changes to the bodies that are sponsored by the corporate body, as such bodies are properly a matter for the Parliament.

The committee's remit was:

"To consider and report on whether alterations should be made to the terms and conditions of the office-holders and the structure of the bodies supported by the SPCB; to consider how any proposals, including the addition of any new functions, for future arrangements should be taken forward, including by way of a Committee Bill, and to make recommendations accordingly."

Having set out the background, I turn to the committee's recommendations. In reaching our conclusions, we were mindful of the recommendations of several previous reports: the previous Finance Committee's seventh report in 2006, on its inquiry into accountability and governance; Audit Scotland's report, "Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Ombudsman/Commissioners Shared Services"; Professor Crerar's report, "The Crerar Review: The Report of the Independent Review of Regulation, Audit, Inspection and Complaints Handling of Public Services in Scotland"; the Scottish Government's report, "Fit For Purpose Complaints System Action Group—Report to Ministers", which is also known as the Sinclair report; and the Scottish Commission for Public Audit's first report in 2008, on its review of the corporate governance of Audit Scotland.

We received some thought-provoking suggestions from the corporate body. The Scottish Government added suggestions to transfer other bodies that might come under the SPCB's support. We also sought and received considerable oral and written evidence. As members will appreciate, at 5 o'clock each Thursday night, we all rushed home to read all those papers.

In summary, the committee recommends a number of changes to the accountability and governance arrangements for office-holders; it also recommends that a new standards and public appointments body be created and that all functions of the Scottish prisons complaints commissioner be transferred to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. We recommend that the corporate body should continue to sponsor office-holders and that it should set office-holders' terms and conditions of appointment, including setting and reviewing their salaries. To enable the corporate body to undertake its role effectively—and in the light of the Finance Committee's recommendations of 2006—we recommend that the governance arrangements for the office-holders should be brought into line with those in the legislation that established the Scottish Human Rights Commission. That means that proposals covering expenditure, the appointment of staff and the location of offices will be subject to the approval of the corporate body. There should also be a requirement that strategic plans covering three to four business years be laid before Parliament.

To enhance the accountability of the office-holders' operational work, we recommend that committee scrutiny be undertaken at least once a year. We have invited the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to consider any necessary changes to standing orders. In evidence to our committee, the office-holders indicated that they would welcome more opportunities to work with the committees of the Parliament.

We recommend that the proposals in the Crerar and Sinclair reports that relate to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman should be implemented, but we consider that they should be introduced by the Scottish Government as part of its Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill. We also recommend that all functions of the Scottish prisons complaints commissioner should be transferred to the ombudsman and put on a statutory footing. Other ancillary amendments will be required to assist with the interpretation of certain provisions in the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002. Those provisions fall to be covered within the proposed committee bill.

On structural changes, we recommend that the posts of Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner and chief investigating officer—both part-time posts—should be combined into a single post and joined with the post of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland in order to create a new commission under the governance of the corporate body.

On the reporting arrangements for the standards commissioner, we recommend that no changes be made. Investigative reports on members of the Scottish Parliament should continue to be sent to the Parliament's Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Reports on councillors and other elected members should be sent to the Standards Commission for Scotland. The Parliament's Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee will continue to have an identified commissioner who will report to it. Our proposed changes in the area will increase the capacity and expertise that are available to that committee.

We were invited to consider merging Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Scottish Human Rights Commission into a rights body. We deliberated about that particularly long and hard. The evidence that we received was finely balanced, but after careful consideration we were not persuaded that creating the proposed rights body was the correct thing to do at this stage. However, we urge the children's commissioner and the Scottish Human Rights Commission to collaborate where possible, and we have invited the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee to consider whether there are any overlaps in the work that is undertaken by the children's commissioner and children's organisations, to ensure that public funds are not spent on duplicating work.

We recommend that the Scottish Information Commissioner, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People should remain as stand-alone posts but that they should be subject to enhanced scrutiny by the corporate body.

In summary, we believe that our recommendations will improve the accountability and governance of the SPCB-supported bodies and deliver benefits to the public through better performance and easier access to the services that the bodies provide. Over time, they are expected to reduce expenditure. Our report has cross-party support and I hope that it will receive unanimous support from the Parliament at decision time.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the proposal for a Committee Bill, under Rule 9.15, contained in the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee's 1st Report, 2009 Review of SPCB Supported Bodies (SP Paper 266).

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I thank the convener and members of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee for all their hard work and careful consideration of the often complex issues that they had to deal with. We are grateful for the Parliament's work on seeking to achieve a robust and proportionate scrutiny system and I am pleased that the committee has considered how to improve the Parliament's relationship with its bodies.

All but one of the six SPCB-supported bodies that are under discussion today were established by the previous Scottish Executive as a direct result of Government policy. Clearly, there will be circumstances in which proposed improvements will impact on the statutory responsibilities of Government-supported and SPCB-supported bodies.

I echo Trish Godman's comment that we did not begin the discussions with a blank sheet of paper. We have the 2006 report by the Finance Committee, Professor Crerar's independent report, and the report of the fit-for-purpose complaints system action group, which was chaired by Douglas Sinclair, the chair of Consumer Focus Scotland. That group worked with stakeholders to produce practical recommendations on how the complaints system can be streamlined and made more accessible to the public. I am pleased that the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee firmly endorsed what Douglas Sinclair's group identified as the way forward: a strengthened role for the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, with the SPSO leading the way in developing effective complaints-handling systems.

The committee recommends that, at stage 2 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill, the Government should include provisions for a new complaints-handling process. The fit-for-purpose complaints system action group's report was clear about the benefits for both consumers and service providers of simplifying the multiple complaints systems. Complaints processes that are easy to access, understand and use will help the less articulate and less confident to have the confidence to complain, and simplification will also have benefits for service providers.

However, we also need a strong ethos throughout our public services that regards complaints as opportunities for learning and empowers complaints handlers to resolve as many complaints as possible at the first level, the first hurdle and the first goal, because the sooner complaints are resolved, the greater the saving to the public purse. Subject to the Parliament's agreement, the Government is therefore happy to propose such provisions at stage 2 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill. The creation of an easier, shorter, quicker and wholly user-focused approach to complaints about public services in Scotland should be a priority for us all.

Last November, the Government said that it would put its proposals for the improvement of complaints handling to the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee for consideration. The proposals, which emerged from a broad consensus, include structural changes to the SPSO, Waterwatch Scotland and the Scottish Prisons Complaints Commission. I understand from the evidence that was given why the committee considered the transfer of complaints from Waterwatch to the SPSO a finely balanced issue.

It would have been useful to consider the benefits to users in the wider context, and the overarching benefits to the alignment of complaints-handling processes across all services. Those benefits could include simplification of the landscape for service users, a reduction in overall costs, and ensuring that lessons that are learned from complaints about one service lead to improvements in all services. In that wider context, we still believe that our proposal to transfer Waterwatch's complaints functions to the SPSO and its representative functions to Consumer Focus Scotland is a sensible rationalisation that accords with both Professor Crerar's view and Douglas Sinclair's work.

The Government also believes that the transfer of prison complaints to the SPSO might fit better in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill than in the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee's bill. However, we will be pleased to continue to discuss the best way forward as the two bills reach stage 2. Our rationale is simply that it is sensible—and easier for service users and the wider public—for all improvements to complaints handling to be dealt with in a single bill.

I remind the Parliament that the process began early in 2006. More than three years later, we owe it to the public to build on what has already been done and to deliver tangible benefits to the way in which they engage with public services. Now more than ever, in these difficult economic times, we need to think about the needs of our country of five million people and ask how we can have fewer organisations, reduce duplication and have less bureaucracy in order to deliver better services for the people of Scotland.

I am happy to support the motion.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am happy to contribute to the debate, just as I was happy to contribute to the work of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee. I did not always go to the committee with a spring in my step, but I recognised that it had an important role to play. I thank my fellow committee members for their forbearance during some of the discussions, which came close to being tortuous.

I particularly thank the convener, Trish Godman, who kept us focused on the need to come to some conclusions and reminded us of the significance of our role. Like her, I thank the witnesses, who raised important issues, and particularly the clerks. I do not think that I have ever been on a committee where there was such a degree of support through well-organised materials that illuminated the difficult issues and made them accessible to us.

The committee dealt with important issues, but because we were dealing with structures, it was sometimes difficult to grasp the significance of the debate and gain clarity about what the structures and roles actually are. However, I believe that we produced a comprehensive and considered report. Although Bruce Crawford identified some areas that he wants to pursue further, I am confident that we tried to come to the right conclusions. Of course, a further opportunity will be afforded to the Parliament to explore the issues.

It is often more difficult than one imagines to act on an aspiration to declutter. It is certainly the Government's experience—and probably that of previous Administrations—that bodies tend to come into existence for a purpose. We cannot assume that they are surplus to requirements without identifying what their purpose is and how else services might be delivered. Also, we should not presume that big organisations will always deliver most effectively. There are diseconomies of scale as well as economies of scale, and we have to test that as we pursue conclusions.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Does the member agree that the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee should be particularly commended for its decision to retain the office of the children's commissioner and to treat its work as distinctive?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I will come to that contentious issue shortly.

First, I want to make the point that people sometimes need to be close to the ground and the issues in order to be able to respond. A generic complaints body will not always be able to address people's specific issues. If we are going to have big bodies, they must still be close and sensitive to those who are pursuing complaints.

There is an interesting issue to do with the independence of commissioners, which we wrestled with. The instinctive desire to separate off bodies and make them independent of the political process is partly a product of the lack of confidence in politics and politicians that exists, yet, ironically, we have probably all expressed our concerns about the House of Lords precisely because it is not an elected body. We somehow manage to carry both things in our heads at the same time. We must find the right balance between independence and accountability, about which we must have an on-going debate and dialogue.

On the rights bodies, I think that my party would want to emphasise an important issue to do with individuals pursuing complaints about individual breaches of their rights. It is incumbent on us to recognise patterns of disadvantage and inequality. It is not just a matter of addressing individual issues; general messages should be considered in progressing policies.

On access, it is fair enough to say that there should be a one-stop shop, but we must understand the disadvantages for some people of such an arrangement. The issue should not be about rewarding the capacity to complain; sometimes we have to engage with communities and discuss with them the complaints that they might have. There is a responsibility on people to reach out into communities; they should not just be recipients of complaints.

Robin Harper referred to the particularly important issue of the children's commissioner. I recognise that the corporate body had a particular role in that respect, and I welcomed its provision of a proposed structure against which we could focus the debate. There is a symbolism about the children's commissioner and a strength of feeling among particular groups and individual MSPs about the importance of sustaining that role. However, I also recognise that it was legitimate to discuss its role. It is important that the commissioner clarifies the role, and that the body is seen as challenging the Government, not just in relation to what we aspire to, but in relation to the gap between what a Government claims that it cares about and what it delivers through its budgets and priorities. The Scottish Government is often found wanting in that regard. It cares about a lot of things, but we should consider its budgets and what it prioritises. We want an on-going dialogue with the children's commissioner about that level of engagement. We also want a recognition that, although the commissioner is a voice for children, children's experiences can be very different. It is important to consider the inequalities and disadvantages that young people face, and their disparate experiences.

I again thank those who were engaged in producing the report. I recognise that the debate is on-going and that it does not sit comfortably in any box. There are lots of shades of grey. The Parliament and the committee have recognised that. We have tried to set up a structure that is not for all time, but which is underpinned by an understanding that, in time, organisations must become sufficiently flexible to be able to reflect on their own structures and on how they fit in with other structures across the landscape in order to meet needs.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I, too, begin by thanking the clerks and all those who gave evidence to the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee over several months. I also thank committee colleagues for their convivial exchanges. We are particularly indebted to the clerks, because the brief that we were working to and the wide range of both possibilities and probabilities on which we could have settled meant that they had to do their best to discern and anticipate the collective mind of the committee. Given that the individual minds of committee members were not that much clearer for long periods, that was an unenviable task. However, the clerks managed it with patience that was impressive to behold.

The committee met with the views of various interested parties ringing in our ears. I applaud the resolve, certainty, determination, passion and good humour with which some people advocated their positions. I instinctively sympathised with some of them, but it seemed at times that the arguments were of the "The country's gone to the dogs" and "There's nothing worth watching on the telly these days" variety. In other words, certain assertions were made, but they were not always evidenced or proven by the examination of the witnesses.

As well as the big-ticket considerations, we were persuaded that many of the general housekeeping recommendations to do with length of service, termination and subsequent employment were appropriate. I think that most members would have drawn the same conclusions. Those recommendations were not of the racy variety, but they will nonetheless be important to those who currently hold office and they will be potentially influential in attracting their successors. Some of the existing provisions are certainly too restrictive. I think that the committee struck the correct balance through collective agreement.

Certain other potential consolidations were not without appeal, but they floundered in the face of practical obstacles. The future disposition of Waterwatch Scotland, to which the Minister for Parliamentary Business referred, is an example of that. The proposal to amalgamate Waterwatch Scotland and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman was not without appeal, but because Waterwatch investigates both public sector and private sector complaints, with the latter supported by an industry levy, it was difficult to see how such an amalgamation could be achieved. Merging the public sector element while leaving the private sector element elsewhere would not have enhanced consumer understanding or operational efficiency. However, I note the comments that Bruce Crawford made about that.

The committee settled on consolidations that it thought enhanced public access and scrutiny and simplified operational structures. Perhaps we could have gone further. Arguments occasionally lay in the balance, and in future sessions, members may well wish to review matters again in the light of the operational experience that will arise should the recommendations in the committee's report be implemented. In that regard, I fear that I may disappoint Robin Harper with the remarks that I will make about the proposal to merge the Scottish Human Rights Commission and Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People.

Without being unkind to either body, I am not sure that the evidence that was presented on the current operational functions of those two organisations was in itself persuasive. The SHRC is hardly established, and in any event has so structured itself that an early accommodation of the SCCYP would be a fairly substantial, if not insurmountable, difficulty. In the case of the SCCYP, arguments were presented that demonstrated commendable operational practice, but they did not in themselves reinforce the need for a separate commission or commissioner, although SCCYP's work is seen as a benchmark internationally. I think that if we started afresh, Parliament would most likely have recommended the establishment of a rights commission, but we are not starting afresh. Given that both organisations are operationally incompatible, it was not certain what the consequences would be if a merger were forced on them, or whether a shotgun wedding would have been operationally efficient in any definable or quantifiable sense.

The committee was not convened to speculate on the hypothetical, but its members were aware of public suggestions that further rights commissioners may be established—for victims and for older people, for example. The creation of further rights commissioners did not excite—I am choosing my words diplomatically. It was not for the committee to set out in its report the work of the Parliament in any future session—indeed, now may not the time to do that—but I at least believe that there will probably be merit in the Parliament specifically examining the arrangements again in the medium term. In the light of more substantial evidence and a more precisely defined proposition for further rights commissioners, an alternative structure may well prove more compelling at that time.

A report has been presented to the Parliament that will not meet the expectations of everyone in every respect; indeed, it possibly does not meet the expectations of every member of the committee. However, in the circumstances, in the face of the evidence that we heard, and in the light of the competing conclusions that were reached, the committee agreed the report. The report need not be an end in itself, but for the moment, and with the support of Parliament at decision time today, we support the early implementation of the report's recommendations by way of a committee bill and through other Government legislation, as comprehensively detailed by Trish Godman.

Finally, I offer Trish Godman my congratulations on and gratitude for her patience and courtesy as convener of the committee.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I, too, was a member of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee. I thank its convener for the way in which she brought together the committee and held us in an exercise that proved to be more difficult than many of us had envisaged when we were nominated to serve on the committee. In particular, I thank the committee clerks. The volume of material that supported the original establishment of the bodies under consideration and which we were required to consider was substantial, given that each had been created by a separate act of Parliament.

I think that we were surprised in some ways by how difficult the process proved to be—Jackson Carlaw alluded to that. The witnesses felt passionately about the bodies to which they were attached; in the earlier sessions of Parliament, many of them had given evidence during the process by which those bodies were created, and they felt very committed to them.

We were considering a range of issues, and I found that the most difficult one was that, although the committee was not asked to in any way consider the functions of the ombudsmen or commissioners, it became clear that the committee could not recommend a change to the structure without giving due consideration to whether such a change would affect the proper discharge of the duties that had been imposed by the Parliament. That was an overarching point.

Unlike Johann Lamont, I found unhelpful the decision by the SPCB not simply to give evidence on the workings and the financial controls of the bodies of which it was the sponsor and about which it was, therefore, uniquely qualified to give an opinion, but to publish a report setting out how the bodies should be reorganised, even though it had not taken any evidence on the matter.

I am aware of the authority that Parliament gave to the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee. However, I remain unaware of the authority that Parliament gave to the SPCB to publish a parliamentary report on the matter that would pre-empt the report that we are debating this morning. The SPCB is an important body and, following the publication of its report, many witnesses who took part in the process in which I was engaged were very unclear about whether that meant that Parliament had already given its opinion.

Moving on, however, I must say that we should not diminish the administrative matters that came within the terms and conditions of the review, such as the need for accountable officers and the question whether the bodies had effective financial controls. Those issues were relatively non-contentious but of great importance; I think that the committee gave them due and proper consideration and that the recommendations that it made in relation to them will make a substantial difference to the effectiveness and operation of the bodies.

The evidence on the cost savings that might be achieved as a result of merging the bodies was less persuasive. One of the main difficulties was the lack of evidence to support the proposition that, if the bodies were merged, it would be perfectly possible to retain their separate functions. For example, a real distinction can be drawn between examining a matter of maladministration in a public body and examining a breach of standards by either a parliamentarian or a local councillor. The former involves a test of competence on behalf of a corporate entity, while the latter founds upon the probity, honesty and integrity of an individual in public life. I regard those matters as entirely separate, and believe that it is necessary to keep separate the proposed public life and appointments commission from the SPSO, as is recommended in the report.

I also found difficult the question of merging the posts of human rights commissioner and children's commissioner. Although, clearly, a case can be made—indeed, it was made—that human rights embrace the rights of the child, the evidence was less than persuasive that the existing internationally recognised functions of the children's commissioner would be adequately preserved in any merged body.

Therefore, as Jackson Carlaw and Johann Lamont said, we came to the view that, for the present, those bodies should remain separate. However, the need for closer collaboration between them is great, and I share Jackson Carlaw's view that the prospect of other rights commissioners being established was not persuasive.

The arguments were finely balanced, but I think that the committee's conclusions were right. The report might not have produced the recommendations for the merging of bodies that some people anticipated, but it has made a valuable contribution to the way in which the bodies operate and to the question of how the powers of the SPSO can be extended, particularly in view of the Crerar and Sinclair recommendations. The report is a significant piece of work, and I look forward to the bill being presented to Parliament.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

As members are aware, the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner and the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland have a direct reporting relationship with the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, of which I am a member. That committee considered the recommendations of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee at its meeting on 9 June and agreed that I should speak on its behalf in the debate. I thank the officials and my fellow MSPs who were involved in the piece of work that we are discussing. We are dealing with business that, while somewhat dry, is very important to the running of the Parliament.

I will focus my comments on the proposed changes to the roles of the standards commissioner and the public appointments commissioner. The Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee proposes to combine the posts of the standards commissioner and the chief investigating officer. By happy coincidence, the current standards commissioner, Mr Stuart Allan, is also the chief investigating officer, which means that, in a sense, the proposal to combine those posts has already been achieved. No doubt we will learn useful lessons from Mr Allan's experience in the two posts.

The Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee proposed that that combined role should result in a single post of investigations commissioner, and that that commissioner should be joined with the commissioner for public appointments. The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee considered the proposal, and, as it is consistent with the evidence that we presented to the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee, we welcome it as a sensible step towards sharing offices and support staff. Although we note that the cost savings for the standards commissioner are likely to be minimal, we think that the office will benefit from the increased support that will be available under the proposed arrangements.

The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee also welcomes the recommendations that the investigations commissioner and the public appointments commissioner should report to that committee on their respective remits. We note the recommendation that each commissioner would have a lead responsibility for either the investigations commissioner post or the public appointments commissioner post. It was not clear whether it is envisaged that the two commissioners could perform each other's functions if required.

We did not have any general concerns with the potential for those roles to be interchangeable. I note, however, that further consideration might need to be given to the current parliamentary approvals process, given that, at present, the Parliament approves a specific named person to be the standards commissioner or to be the public appointments commissioner.

One other area on which the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee wished me to comment involves freedom of information. Under the recommendations, the chief investigating officer, the Standards Commission for Scotland and the public appointments commissioner would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act (Scotland) 2002, although the standards commissioner would not be. The committee agreed that that issue might need to be considered further as part of any proposals for shared office working. No doubt other things will come to light if we are looking to merge three different statutory frameworks. The committee is happy to contribute to the sensible resolution of each of those issues.

The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee broadly welcomes the Review of SPBC Supported Bodies Committee report and looks forward to considering any proposals that might require changes to the code of conduct for members or the standing orders.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Unlike most of the previous speakers, I was not a member of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee. That was probably a deliberate move on the part of those who allocated members to the committee, given that I have some well-recognised concerns about the way in which the various commissioners and the empire of commissions—if I can put it that way—have sprung up in the Parliament.

Nonetheless, I acknowledge that the Review of SPBC Supported Bodies Committee, the Finance Committee and the SPCB have done valuable work by dealing with some of the more unacceptable aspects of the way in which the commissions operated previously. It really was unacceptable that the commissions that were set up were left free and unfettered to decide where there were located. That is why the Scottish Information Commissioner ended up in a castle in St Andrews and why the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People ended up with expensive premises. There are areas in Scotland that deserve the services of those people, but they are not located there. I would have far more interest in listening to concerns about poverty or inadequate services if the people who were expressing them lived closer to where the real problems in service delivery exist.

It seemed impossible for the Parliament to give the commissions any direction about how they were to report back to Parliament on what they did. Previously, in the negotiations that took place, or appeared to take place, between the commissioners and the SPCB, it was almost a case of the commissioners saying, "We'll tell you how much money you can give us, and there's nothing you can say about it." All that seems to have been changed, which is a positive development that was needed. I am grateful to the Review of SPBC Supported Bodies Committee for finalising that process.

As Johann Lamont pointed out, there is a balance to be struck between accountability and independence. We fight shy of dealing with where that balance should be. It is easy to be fought off by the commissioners who insist on the propriety of their position and the absoluteness of the independence that we have to accord them, and who do not accept that we in the Parliament are elected to have an overriding interest in public accountability, of which we are the custodians.

I do not regard the recommendations of the Review of SPBC Supported Bodies Committee to be finished. The financial circumstances under which we will be working in the next few years will require us to look again at this issue. To be blunt—I have been in local government, so I have faced up to this—the choice is between providing real services to help children and funding the bureaucracy that deals with the rights of children. Those are the choices that we in government have ultimately to make.

It is not impossible for this jurisdiction to make the kind of decisions that were made by the New Zealand Parliament, which has said that it will put a limit on the number of commissions and sort out the overlaps in their remits. I will not name names, but we have commissions that are still looking for a function; they are going round the country trying to find issues in which they can take an interest. I do not think that the Parliament should fund that automatically; it should certainly debate that and hold those commissions properly to account.

Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Scottish Information Commissioner and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman must be operationally independent, but it is not in the interests of the Parliament, or the people whom we represent, to write them a blank cheque—we cannot be seen to do so.

There are ways in which groups can be pushed together. The fact that something is established and that pushing two bodies together might cause problems is not necessarily a good reason for not doing it. Rather than finding ourselves in a financial crisis and looking at this issue again, we should have a rolling process of looking at what commissions and commissioners do. The committees of the Parliament have an important role to play in not simply accepting that the commissions have an automatic right to exist but scrutinising constantly whether they are doing the job that they were set up to do, or whether that job is still required, whether in a policy or financial context.

I commend the work of the committee, but we must keep this matter under review. We in the Parliament must not be frightened to acknowledge that we are the people who are elected and who are directly accountable to the electorate and that, in the end, the commissioners work through us on behalf of the people of Scotland—not the other way around.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

When we were asked to be members of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee, we were advised that it would be a short-term committee and, in fact, we completed our work and deliberation in a matter of months. However, in that time we were presented with a huge array of written and oral evidence, so I pay tribute to the clerks who helped us put it all into context to inform our decisions.

Contrary to what Ross Finnie said, I believe that the SPCB proposals, which Tom McCabe presented to the committee, were helpful in giving us a template to measure where we were going. I understand where Ross Finnie is coming from, but I put on record my thanks to Tom McCabe and the SPCB for taking the time to produce the template and giving us evidence, which I found helpful.

Given all the evidence and paperwork that we received, it would have been easy for us to become trapped like goldfish in a bowl, swimming around endlessly but getting nowhere. Our convener, Trish Godman, and our deputy convener, Jamie Hepburn, ensured that our efforts were not wasted. We have produced a report that, in the main, is supported by all members of the committee.

The committee worked well together and we were in broad agreement on the majority of issues. However, it would be remiss of me not to concentrate for a few minutes on one of the issues that split the committee: there were three votes for and three votes against the proposed merger of Waterwatch Scotland with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman to form an all-encompassing complaints commission. The original idea behind the SPSO was to create a one-stop shop for complaints, which would allow ease of access for the public. However, in recent years, we have departed from that original concept by creating a number of different bodies to deal with complaints.

The proposal to merge Waterwatch and the SPSO was not motivated by a desire to save money; it was about improving service for the public. Our complaints-handling system should involve less duplication and bureaucracy, which might mean fewer organisations. Some of my constituents have said that when they make a complaint they are bounced between the local authority and the water authority. Who deals with the complaint? Is it Waterwatch or the ombudsman? If the two bodies are pulled together, the system will be much cleaner and more accessible to the public.

I appreciate the concerns of some members of the committee regarding the public's need for an ombudsman that can deal with complaints fully by drawing on detailed knowledge and expertise. However, I believe that the skill that is currently deployed in the SPSO in relation to a wide range of public services is no different to that which is deployed in the types of process that are undertaken by bodies such as Waterwatch.

I am certain that if we were to merge the functions of Waterwatch with the role of the SPSO, we would provide the public with a more straightforward, effective and efficient system without compromising service. I believe that that would be in keeping with the recommendations of Professor Crerar, Douglas Sinclair and the previous Finance Committee.

I respect the committee's decisions, but I think that this issue would benefit from further scrutiny, either at a later stage in the proposed bill or at some future review. One thing on which we are all agreed is that ours will not be the final review. The subject would benefit from consideration by fresh bodies on any future committee. Our report took us some distance; indeed, it took us as far as we could go while also maintaining consensus. I commend it to the Parliament.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I apologise to Ms Godman for missing the first minute or so of her speech. I assure her that I will catch up on it later in the Official Report .

On behalf of my colleagues on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, I thank the committee for undertaking the inquiry and producing a detailed report and recommendations. The task was perhaps more onerous than it appeared at first.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Hear, hear!

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I am sure that all committee members agree with that. We are genuinely grateful to the committee for taking on that task and producing the report.

I am grateful to all committee members for the courtesy that they showed me when I gave evidence on behalf of the corporate body. I listened to what Mr Finnie said on the matter and have this to say in response: the corporate body was invited to give evidence and we sought to do that in a comprehensive manner. We could have avoided some of the more difficult questions. However, my personal view is that a tendency to do that is devaluing public life. We therefore decided to address some of the difficult areas. I hope that that was of benefit to committee members.

With the Government looking at public sector reform, it seemed appropriate for the Parliament to consider whether changes could be made to the structure of SCPB-supported bodies. Driving the SPCB proposals were two underlying principles: making access to services as simple as possible for service users; and achieving public services that provide the best value for money.

Achieving value for money is especially important given my firm belief that, before the Scottish Parliament is very much older, incredibly difficult public expenditure decisions will need to be made. It is possible to maintain the principles that lie behind the creation of these public services while facing up to hard financial facts. Some of the questions that we are addressing today may need to be revisited in the not-too-distant future.

For the purposes of today's consideration and taking account of the two principles that underline the corporate body's approach, the committee has delivered recommendations to improve the structure and governance of SPCB-supported bodies. It is worth remembering that those bodies now require funding in the region of £7.5 million.

We were pleased to see the report's recommendation of the realignment of the various standards functions into a single commission. We believe that that will be of public benefit. It will give people a single access office when they seek advice on issues that relate to the standards of elected members of the Scottish Parliament or local authorities in Scotland.

We support the proposal to amalgamate the functions of the Scottish Prisons Complaints Commission and the ombudsman and to give additional powers to the ombudsman to oversee all public sector complaints processes. That will ensure greater clarity and simplification, thereby reducing any perceived inconsistencies in the approach that is taken throughout the public sector. Those additional powers may have short-term cost implications, but they will provide considerable benefits to the public in the longer term. The SPCB will work jointly with the Government and the ombudsman's office to achieve the aims that the committee has set out.

As members are aware, the corporate body put forward a proposal to amalgamate the children's commissioner and the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Although we considered that there could have been benefits in such a merger, not least in protecting what the bodies do and who they do it for, we accept the committee's recommendation—based on the evidence that it received—to leave the bodies as they stand. We fully support the recommendation for a more co-ordinated approach to working between the two bodies. That will facilitate a more streamlined approach to rights in Scotland, avoid some duplication and may facilitate some savings.

Members may not be surprised to hear that the corporate body is pleased that the committee recommended enhanced governance powers for the SPCB in terms of the bodies that it supports. I refer in particular to the sharing of premises, staff and services with a view to providing savings to the public purse. Some work has already been done in that regard, but those formal powers will assist us considerably in our future considerations.

From our experience over the past few years, the corporate body is acutely aware of its responsibilities in holding office-holders to account on their budgets and the terms and conditions that they offer to their staff. That said, we have always recognised that we cannot interfere with the independence of the office-holders with regard to the functions that they undertake. We are pleased therefore that the committee has recommended that other committees of the Parliament should engage actively with the office-holders. In that way, the Parliament can learn lessons from some of the decisions that office-holders have reached in the past and will reach in the future—taken together, those decisions can contribute to the effectiveness of our public services in Scotland.

The SPCB is supportive of the proposals. If the Parliament agrees to legislate to enact the recommendations, we will work together with the office-holders to ensure a smooth transition, as quickly as possible.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

First, I turn to the issue of financial control, which Des McNulty, among others, raised in the debate and of which committee members were acutely aware. I find it difficult to read the recommendations at paragraphs 107 and 109 without believing that they will place considerable restraint on office-holders. Tom McCabe recognised that. Having uniform provision across all the bodies will require

"the office-holders proposals on expenditure to be subject to approval by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body".

Some office-holders already have that, but it is not uniform across all the bodies. As a committee member, I was acutely aware that that had to be a uniform requirement and that the corporate body, as the sponsoring body, had to have greater control of, as Tom McCabe said, the appointment of advisers, the budget and the location.

The report contains substantive proposals, some of which are already in the public eye; others are more hidden away. Issues that capture the headlines include the function of these bodies and whether they ought, or ought not, to be merged, but the report contains a substantive body of work that will improve hugely the financial reporting and accountability of each commissioner.

Gil Paterson made a good point about the mergers of the posts of the chief investigating officer and the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner.

More important is the recommendation that the adjudication of any complaint that is found remains to be determined by an independent body. In the case of a councillor or other public official, a complaint will be determined by the SPSC and in terms of members of the Scottish Parliament, it will be determined by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. That important principle required to be preserved.

All committee members said that the report proved to be a much more difficult exercise than we had envisaged at the outset. That said, it is helpful that we all believe, on balance, that the broad thrust of the report is fair, including the recommendations on the way in which these bodies should operate in the future. If the bill goes forward, the terms, conditions and functions of these bodies will be radically changed. That will lead to a much more effective and efficient distribution of these bodies.

Even having heard the debate, I remain of the view that the committee's conclusions should be supported. I hope that the Parliament will do so having looked at the evidence that the committee adduced in coming to its views, including on a committee bill. Some suggestions that we heard were not evidence based. The committee has produced the evidence and those who care to look at it will find the arguments persuasive. They support the conclusions that the committee came to, albeit that some were narrowly reached and were made on balance. I respect the views of committee members who differed. Those views should not be ignored. Indeed, we should take account of them if a bill is to proceed through the Parliament.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Like Des McNulty, I come to the debate not as a member of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee but as a veteran of the Finance Committee's inquiry into the corporate governance of and issues around commissioners and ombudsmen back in 2006. I rather wonder whether I am falling headlong into Joe FitzPatrick's invitation for fresh people to look into the issues. I will tread carefully.

That 2006 accountability and governance inquiry was long running, and it was quite controversial at the time. If memory serves me correctly, it achieved what would be considered unachievable these days: it united me, Wendy Alexander and John Swinney in unanimously supporting the Finance Committee's recommendations. That is some mean achievement. It is nice to see some of those recommendations flowing through into how we are considering the roles of commissioners and ombudsmen now. The committee inquiry in 2006 was a long one, as I have said, but it would be fair to summarise it in a very short way: the situation that we discovered was a guddle. It had been created not through any particular intent; things had arisen in an ad hoc manner, and that had led to a complicated and inconsistent set of arrangements.

I agree with what other members have said about the issues being difficult. I have also sat through the Scottish Commission for Public Audit's inquiry into the corporate governance of Audit Scotland. Admittedly, that is a rather different office, with certain statutory conditions attached to its work, but we have wrestled with difficult issues around how to preserve independence while also considering appropriate terms of office and how to restrict outside interests that might be perceived as giving rise to a conflict of interests. Such decisions are difficult, and there is perhaps no right or wrong answer—we simply have to try and find the best answer that we can.

I wish to go back to some of the issues that Des McNulty raised, in what I thought was an excellent speech, following on from our inquiry back in 2006. It struck me at that time, particularly when we were considering some of the decisions that had been taken about location and budget, that a perception was growing that any attempt to challenge decisions that had been made by a body or commission that had been set up by the will of the Parliament was somehow an attempt to interfere with its independence. I simply do not accept that assertion. Things have perhaps improved since, but I got the impression at that time that there was a reluctance on the part of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to go too far, particularly in challenging some of the budgetary arrangements that had been put in place by commissioners and ombudsmen. There was perhaps a feeling that we needed to tiptoe around such issues.

In his speech today, Des McNulty talked about the balance between independence and accountability. It is entirely appropriate to acknowledge that we can have independence without forgoing any attempt to restrict the finances that go to organisations. The issue for bodies will be that they will have to prioritise and make judgments as to how to deploy the resources that they are allocated. Reducing the resource that goes to a body does not in itself restrict its independence.

The Parliament and its corporate body could exempt the organisations concerned from the looming public sector spending squeeze, to which Tom McCabe alluded, because the Scottish Parliament's budget is top sliced, but it would be wrong to do so. As Des McNulty said, the choice is effectively between helping individuals and funding organisations that sometimes provide advocacy for individuals.

It is important to consider the remit of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee. The committee did not—and was not asked to—consider the desirability or need for some of the organisations and commissioners, although we might need to reconsider that question in the future. No doubt some people will view the committee's report not just as a justification for not merging the children's commissioner with other organisations, for example, but as a validation of bodies' continued existence. That is not what the committee was asked to do, and it is unfair to characterise its remit as such.

Johann Lamont made a valid point about diseconomies of scale, and we need to be careful that we do not automatically make the assumption that larger is better. Equally, we must be keenly aware of the difficulties of ensuring that public money is spent appropriately. We should not fall into the trap of assuming that, simply because we have set up commissioners and ombudsmen in the past, they should somehow be exempted from the difficult decisions that will fall across Government.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

To use Jackson Carlaw's expression, much of what the committee considered was not of the racy variety. I am not sure whether I would recognise it if it were of the racy variety, but I agree that many of the matters that we considered were simple and straightforward things that had to be addressed. Location, the management of budgets and the opening out of commissioners' roles to public and parliamentary scrutiny are subjects that people can agree on, and I do not think that anyone in the chamber wishes to give anybody a blank cheque, but we must recognise that organisations can be killed in a variety of ways—we have to be honest about that. If we do not think that an organisation should exist, we need to have a debate about that, rather than killing it by reducing its budget over time. People may express entirely reasonable concerns about that.

The Scottish Government clearly wishes to pursue some issues relating to the decluttering of the public landscape, and it might not be entirely happy with the committee's conclusions in that regard. It is entirely the Government's responsibility and opportunity if it wishes to introduce a bill to address that. A consideration of all the options is in no way precluded, and Government back benchers can decide on them as they choose.

On the role of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee and its conclusions, I make it clear to my good friend Des McNulty that he was not excluded from anything. Indeed, if I had realised the extent of his interest in the matter, I for one would happily have stood aside and allowed him to take on the very enjoyable experience of working our way through the 75 million folders full of papers. No one attempted to pack the committee in any way. Actually, most people who came to the committee did so with scepticism in their mind—I certainly did. Entirely sceptical towards most things about life, I was equally sceptical about the role of commissioners, and I was open minded about the options that were being identified by the corporate body.

Once we looked into the issues, however, it became very evident very quickly that they were not as simple as people had thought. There was a clear presumption among the parties of a certain direction of travel that the committee was going to follow. It did not turn out to be as easy as that when we started to deal with the realities of making the arrangements work for people who wanted a good complaints procedure, and who wanted some work to be done around the commissioners' roles that might not fit with that function.

People working in the bodies concerned would understandably argue for their organisation and for its role. There is an innate conservatism on the part of people who are in position and who want to protect what is already there. Far more telling, at least to my mind, was what other parliamentarians were saying, not because they were frightened of the commissioners, but because they saw a distinct and genuine role for the children's commissioner in particular. They were reluctant for that role to be given up. Although members wanted a decluttering of the landscape, with no presumption in favour of the various bodies for ever more, they made a telling case for the children's commissioner. It was not argued that the post should be left frozen in time from when it was first created, but the point was made that there was something significant about it that chimed with what was going on in other parts of the United Kingdom.

I do not think that it was fear of external organisations that led the committee to the conclusions that it reached—and those conclusions are not for all time and forever. Rather, it was a matter of recognising a political debate that we almost had to adjudicate upon. On balance, we came to the conclusions that we came to.

We recognise the reality for some, particularly in relation to complaints handling. The degree to which somebody is satisfied with the structure of a complaints procedure is determined by their capacity to get the result that they want from it. Inevitably, we will not make everybody happy through the process that we have identified, but we have tried, on balance, to get things right, with a body that is accessible but sensitive to specific complaints.

Referring to a point that Bruce Crawford made, we might have all the structures and commissioners in place, but if the people who make the decisions do not have respect for those to whom they are delivering services, and if they do not have respect for the rights and entitlements of people in our communities, they will not make any procedure fit and they will not make any service work.

The big picture is about how we ensure that people who are charged with responsibilities meet people's needs, take account of people's rights and entitlements and deliver services in a way that addresses people's concerns and is respectful, so that people are not pushed down the complaints road. That is the bigger challenge, in which we are all involved.

The committee took its role seriously and during our debates many members abandoned assumptions that they had held. Our recommendations represent a serious attempt to acknowledge that there is an issue and to come up with a balanced conclusion. I hope that members acknowledge that if the Parliament agrees to the motion in Trish Godman's name, the committee bill that will be introduced will provide us with a further opportunity to explore the issues.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The debate has been good, valuable and important for the Parliament. It is appropriate that from time to time we review all the actions in which we are engaged and the structures that exist. It is equally important that we review the purposes of the structures that we have created, to ensure that they are fit for purpose and serve the people whom we serve. I took that point strongly from Mr Finnie's speech. The process of developing governance in Scotland is always unfinished and it is good to see the process move further forward.

I make it clear to Johann Lamont, who expressed doubt about this, that the Government supports the report of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee and the proposals that it contains and will want to do everything that it can to assist the passage of those proposals.

A number of important points have been made and I will respond to two such points before I make wider points. I was struck by Des McNulty's speech, which was mirrored to some extent by the speeches of Tom McCabe and other members. It is important to say that the independence of the bodies that we are considering in no way negates their accountability to the Parliament. The difference between independence and accountability needs to be clearly understood. Parliament must be allowed scope to govern the overall size and scope of budgets. That is not about interference; it is about ensuring that we do the job that we are elected to do, which is to ensure that resources are properly used and services are properly provided.

The Crerar recommendation to reduce the overall number of commissions and scrutiny bodies was informed by experience in New Zealand. The Government is committed to a similar model, whereby when a new body is established another one ceases to exist. That principle exists in New Zealand, where there is a focus on the function and purpose of bodies.

As proposals for the creation of new rights commissioners come before the Parliament, we should remember the point that Jackson Carlaw made in that regard. It is not that the idea of new commissioners did not excite Mr Carlaw—I have never, ever, aimed to excite Mr Carlaw and I suspect that that is true of all members. However, the committee referred in paragraph 284 of its report to the recommendations that the Finance Committee made in 2006 and noted

"the need to explore all possible opportunities for an existing body to carry out any proposed new function and make use of existing resources before creating a new body."

As proposals come forward—they are already doing so—I ask all members to bear that key principle in mind. I am glad that the committee made the point again and I pay tribute to the committee and its convener for doing so and for the high quality of their work.

When it gave evidence to the committee, the Government made clear our stance on the potential to create a more streamlined landscape. We wanted a better co-ordinated and more proportionate approach to conduct and standards in public life, which would be balanced with the need to save resources. We were very much in accord with the SPCB's proposals, but it was clear to everyone that it is for the Parliament to take a view on the distinctiveness of commissioners' roles and performance.

The committee recommended that the Scottish Government include the necessary provisions for a new complaints handling process in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill. I am happy to confirm that I will lodge amendments to the bill at stage 2 that will fulfil that requirement, subject to the Parliament's agreement. It is clear to us all that the creation of an easier, shorter, quicker and wholly user-focused approach to complaints about public services in Scotland should be our priority, because such an approach will not just place an empowered user at the heart of the process but lead to a more effective use of public resources. If more complaints are resolved at the first point of contact, there will be less need for more expensive and difficult upper-tier complaints handling work and organisations should work more effectively.

An encompassing, design-authority role for the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman will take all complaints processes out of organisational silos and away from the complex landscapes that have bedevilled all previous efforts at reform. Johann Lamont drew attention to the fact that the approach represents neither rocket science nor new thinking. All Governments are attempting to take such an approach, but it is difficult to do.

Let us remember what is at the heart of the issue. As members know, each complaint is individual and unique. Each complaint has a human face and represents, at the minimum, disquiet about a service or organisation. As every elected representative knows, sometimes all that is required is to say, "Sorry." We need that human focus in our work. The complaints system is also the interface between the state and the citizen, and it must be efficient, effective and properly tuned. The proposals will take us down those lines.

I noted Joe FitzPatrick's point about Waterwatch Scotland. I think that the Government's proposals in that regard were the right ones. We wanted a co-ordinated and coherent approach across all public services—that aspiration was behind the proposal to transfer prison complaints. We will support the motion in its entirety, because we do not want our preference in relation to Waterwatch to disrupt the process. However, we will consider the matter and ensure that it gets the further attention that it needs.

The report considered the governance of the Parliament—how we look after ourselves. We must show that our attitude to governance is rigorous and comprehensive. We must show that we are always concerned with improving and strengthening governance and with improving our relationship with the Scottish people. We must show that our proposals add value to the procedures that deal with all elected representatives and that our proposals demonstrate the integrity of the system and the people in it. The Government will back the report's recommendations in that regard.

The work of the committee and its clerks was thorough. The report is well thought out and will allow us to make further changes. It is not the final word but it represents a significant step forward.

There are points of difference between the report's authors and the Government, but I stress that they relate to issues that are finely balanced, as many members said, and which we can discuss.

Overall, the Government endorses and agrees with many of the recommendations and looks forward to working with the corporate body to make the changes and improvements that will help to simplify not only the complaints handling process but the complaints landscape, to address the ultimate goal of the work, which is to continue to improve our public services so that we reduce the need for people to complain in the first place. We look forward to the constructive work that will go ahead and hope that a committee bill will be introduced.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I thank the convener of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee, Trish Godman, my other colleagues on the committee and the committee clerks. I also thank the people who submitted evidence to the committee and members who have spoken in the debate.

I am glad that there is widespread support from members of all parties for the broad sweep of our proposals. That reflects the manner in which the committee worked. Disagreements about the wider issues that we considered were relatively minor, and there are points of detail that we will consider further if the Parliament agrees to the proposal to introduce a committee bill. Overall, the committee has made sensible and measured recommendations for change. I encourage members to support the motion.

Bruce Crawford talked about the impact on Government bodies of proposals that arise from committees' work. I hope that the Government's work to reshape the parts of the public landscape for which it has responsibility will tie in with the committee's work. I was glad to hear Mr Crawford and Mr Russell suggest that that would be the case.

Mr Crawford and Mr Russell reiterated the Government's belief that the functions of Waterwatch Scotland should be transferred to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and Consumer Focus Scotland. The committee considered such a transfer of functions and thought that the issue was finely balanced, as Joe FitzPatrick said. I look forward to hearing the Government's arguments as it pursues the issue.

Johann Lamont made the point that the argument for creating one-stop shops is not convincing—there must be a coherent rationale for moving to merged bodies. Overall, the committee took that approach—Jackson Carlaw and Ross Finnie articulated well the committee's thought process on that—which is why we recommended the merging of some bodies but not others.

However, as Trish Godman said in her opening remarks, some rationalisation is proposed. The committee considered 10 bodies, including four that the Government supported. Of those 10, we recommended that five be merged, which would reduce the number of bodies to seven. That would be achieved largely by the creation of a new body called the public life and appointments commission Scotland. I was disappointed that my committee colleagues did not share my enthusiasm for the alternative title of the Scottish public life and appointments tribunal—SPLAT for short—but I forgive them. The committee's merger proposals would affect 50 per cent of the public sector bodies that we considered and reduce their number by 30 per cent, so there would be some rationalisation.

Gil Paterson spoke about the creation of the public life and appointments commission. The key question is whether merging existing posts into that new body would improve the accountability of elected members, councillors and parliamentarians to the public. The underlying tasks of the posts that would be involved in the merger are similar in that they are to investigate admissible complaints that members of the Scottish Parliament, councillors or members of devolved bodies have breached their respective codes of conduct or other applicable rules on behaviour and standards. I therefore believe that the proposed rationalisation is sensible, and I was glad to learn from Gil Paterson that the Standards and Public Appointments Committee seems to concur with that view.

Jackson Carlaw spoke about the decision to retain Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Equality and Human Rights Commission as separate bodies. We were presented with a valid argument for merging those bodies, but the committee considered that the SCCYP has undertaken valuable work in support of children's issues, which has been recognised internationally, and that there was no case at this stage to merge the bodies. I am inclined to agree with Jackson Carlaw's observation that our decision might have been different if we had started with a blank page, but of course we did not. However, it is worth saying, as Mike Russell did in a similar vein, that the committee's position is that future proposals for new offices—there are current proposals in that regard—should be accommodated within the current landscape, if possible.

I turn to previous reports that the committee considered and which informed much of our work. We agreed with the recommendations of the Finance Committee's 2006 report "Inquiry into Accountability and Governance". Our proposals include implementing those recommendations as they relate to the accountability of the bodies concerned. We also noted the Audit Scotland 2006 report "Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Ombudsman/Commissioners Shared Services", which recommended that the SPCB should retain responsibility for the bodies concerned. Again, we seek to implement that recommendation for holding the bodies to account for the effective running of their business operations. However, we are clear about the need to protect the office-holders' independence in undertaking their functions. I think that that deals with some concerns that Des McNulty raised.

If Parliament agrees to the motion, the recommendations requiring legislation will be incorporated in a committee bill that should be introduced by the end of this year, accompanied by a financial memorandum that will cover all the costs involved. Not all the recommendations require legislation. The report highlights those that we consider do require legislation, but other recommendations are directed at a range of bodies. For example, the SPCB is recommended to use the services of its audit advisory board to determine and review the salaries of office-holders; recommendation 12 suggests a close working arrangement between parliamentary committees and office-holders; and, as a matter of best practice, we recommend that there should be at least annual scrutiny.

I trust that the Parliament will welcome the committee's report, which is based on substantial amounts of evidence gathered during our deliberations and informed by previous committee inquiries. The committee's deliberations have, if nothing else, served as an audit of the operations of the various SPCB-supported bodies that the Parliament has created. It was right to do that and it is clear from the work that was undertaken that the framework that the committee report proposes will ensure a series of offices that are fit for purpose for Scotland in the coming years. I agree that matters may have to be considered further, but I also agree with Joe FitzPatrick that fresh faces will be required to do that. However, I have no hesitation in commending the committee's report "Review of SPCB Supported Bodies" to the Parliament.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what structures are in place to monitor the transportation of nuclear material in Scotland. (S3O-7463)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The transportation of irradiated or spent nuclear fuel is governed by internationally agreed standards that are recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency and are in accordance with the Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003. Those regulations are administered and enforced by the office for civil nuclear security.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The concerns of constituents in my region about nuclear convoys passing up and down the M74 have been reinforced by the recent screening in Lanark of the documentary "Deadly Cargo". Does the minister share my disappointment that the Calman commission saw no need to devolve further powers over nuclear materials to the Scottish Parliament? Does he agree that, far from frustrating United Kingdom Government plans for nuclear power stations and a new generation of Trident, the Scottish Government's opposition to those plans represents the views of the overwhelming majority of those who live close to the M74 and of people across Scotland who want our country to be nuclear free?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We clearly share the view that Scotland and, indeed, the world would be a safer place without nuclear weapons. We of course seek to manage the risks associated with those weapons while they are here. It is disappointing that the Calman commission did not include discussion about the wider issue of independence, which would give us the powers to engage with the nuclear issue directly, but the member should be assured that we will do everything within our powers and work with others to protect the safety of people as long as we, of necessity, have the convoys on our roads.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it is monitoring local authorities through single outcome agreements to ensure that they continue to commit to providing high-quality sports facilities, as detailed in "Reaching Higher", the national strategy for sport. (S3O-7404)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

In reaching agreement with community planning partnerships on their single outcome agreements, the Scottish Government is pleased to note that 25 local authorities have identified sport and physical activity as a priority area in the latest round. I am confident that local authorities are developing a range of initiatives to meet local needs, including the provision and development of facilities. They will be developed further as we roll out our legacy plan for the 2014 Commonwealth games with the support of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Voice of Chief Officers of Cultural and Leisure Services in Scotland.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I thank the minister for her efforts in this field generally, but I draw her attention to what a BBC journalist recently reported about a sports facility:

"If you doubt my words take a trip to the dump that is Meadowbank velodrome. It is dilapidated, tumbledown and overgrown. ... Ramshackle stands, tired changing facilities and grass untroubled by a lawnmower".

Dare I suggest that the City of Edinburgh Council is trying hard to meet the national strategy? Can the minister comment on how the council will manage to do that, when we know that cuts to local government expenditure are coming?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Sportscotland is engaged in visiting every local authority and discussing how each one can make the most of not just its current facilities but the opportunities to open them up through the community sports hubs initiative that will be a key part of the Commonwealth games legacy. Those discussions are going forward positively.

Margo MacDonald specifically mentioned Meadowbank. Clearly, the decision on its future is for the City of Edinburgh Council. Any support to be provided by the Government through sportscotland will depend on how the stadium fits into and supports the council's wider agenda for the development and provision of sport across the city. I am happy to write to Margo with any further detail, if she requires it, and to speak to her, while we continue the dialogue with the City of Edinburgh Council and the other local authorities that are striving hard to ensure that they make the most of 2014.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is the minister aware of the situation at Glasgow Gaelic school, where pupils have to use the assembly hall and the canteen for gym facilities, and where only limited use can be made of the blaes pitch because of its poor condition? Although the parents body has put forward proposals that are backed by sportscotland, positive feedback from Glasgow City Council is still required. In the light of what the minister said to Margo MacDonald, will she facilitate similar dialogue with Glasgow City Council, with a view to it coming to a conclusion in the process?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Sportscotland is heavily engaged with Glasgow City Council. Given that the authority will host the 2014 Commonwealth games, it has a key role to play in ensuring that it makes the most of the opportunities that the event will bring for the city. I would be happy to bring Sandra White up to date on how those discussions are proceeding, but I can assure her that our ambition is to ensure, through the community sports hubs and the other measures that we are taking, that the legacy that the games leave to Scotland comprises not just improved facilities but improved participation and greater use of those facilities.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

How can the Scottish Government ensure that new-build schools offer top-quality sports infrastructure that includes running tracks to encourage athletics?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

That is made a lot easier by the £2 billion of investment that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has already committed. The additional £1.25 billion that she announced in yesterday's statement will help to rejuvenate not just the school estate in general but the sports facilities in schools.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

To ask the Scottish Executive how the "Promoting Positive Outcomes: Working Together to Prevent Antisocial Behaviour in Scotland" framework will contribute to resolving repeated instances of antisocial behaviour by users of holiday flats. (S3O-7423)

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

Antisocial behaviour should not be tolerated wherever it occurs, and our new framework will help local agencies to work together, in partnership with local communities and others, to respond in a proportionate, appropriate and timely fashion.

I recognise the efforts that Sarah Boyack and other members have made in raising the issue of holiday flats. In light of that, we are engaging with local agencies to establish the scale of the problem and the extent to which existing measures can deal with it. Once that exercise is complete, we will be well placed to consider what further action, if any, may be appropriate.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I welcome the fact that the minister is beginning to look at the issue. The focus is on addressing the causes of antisocial behaviour but, if antisocial behaviour by users of holiday flats is to be dealt with, effective enforcement of antisocial behaviour measures is required. Does the minister agree that it is difficult to identify who lets such flats, as section 83(6)(d) in part 8 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 exempts owners of holiday accommodation from having to register with the council? Will he use the powers under section 83(7) to amend the act to ensure that local authorities have the right range of tools to apply antisocial behaviour notices in such circumstances?

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

Those matters are under review. I aware that there is an issue even in my constituency—I have had meetings about it in Lochend, as Sarah Boyack is aware. In addition to the Government's work, I have engaged with the City of Edinburgh Council on the issue, and it believes that the current antisocial behaviour legislation is adequate and appropriate. That said, we are reviewing other matters, such as houses in multiple occupancy. We must address the problem because it is clear that it represents a significant nuisance.

In my experience, people tend to know who the landlord is. The landlords of the properties in question are frequently absentee landlords. In Lochend, the factors knew that the landlord owned not just one but 40 premises in the locality. It is a question of ensuring the appropriate balance. We must engage with agencies and local authorities to ensure not only that we protect from harassment every weekend those citizens who rent or buy a flat but that we do not constrain people who seek to let property for tourism purposes, as that would damage our economy and many parts of rural Scotland.

We are investigating the issue. We accept that there is a problem and we will work with local authorities to ensure that they have the appropriate powers.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Can the cabinet secretary confirm that he is open-minded about modifying section 7 of the 2004 act so that antisocial behaviour notices can be enforced on landlords? In questions to and correspondence with the Scottish Government, I have so far been told that it has no intention of doing so. If there has been a shift in the Government's position, I very much welcome it.

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

From discussions at official level and with councils, it seems that section 7 is not necessarily the panacea that people seem to think that it is, because the short nature of the tenancies means that it is difficult for the legislation to be used effectively. We are happy to discuss the matter with members. We understand that antisocial behaviour notices have been served on landlords in only a few cases, and not at all in relation to holiday lets. It is not necessarily the case that section 7 offers a quick fix.

We recognise that there is a problem. We must keep the issue in proportion and recognise that holiday lets are important in many parts of Scotland, especially rural areas. Equally, we must ensure that people who are trying to get on with living their lives, who have to get up for work the next day and who want their kids to have a sound night in bed are not disturbed by party flats.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many portions of fresh fruit and vegetables patients in hospitals operating a cook-chill system receive on a daily basis. (S3O-7430)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The cook-chill system of food delivery is only one method of delivering hot plated meals to patients, and it has no direct bearing on the number of portions of fruit and vegetables that patients receive while they are in hospital care.

The national dietary food standard of five portions of fresh fruit and vegetables per day is only one aspect of the nutritional standards that the Scottish Government has set for patients in hospital care.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I agree with the minister that the system of catering in a hospital should not influence the number of portions of fresh fruit and vegetables that patients receive but, unfortunately, it seems that it does have such an influence on the ground.

Regardless of the system that is in place in any particular hospital, can the minister advise what monitoring happens at ward level to ensure that the reality for patients who are unfortunately in hospital matches the aspiration that we would all have for them?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The national catering and nutrition specification advises:

"The menu must provide the opportunity for patients to choose at least five servings of fruit and vegetables across a day including as wide a variety as possible (can be included as snacks)."

The nutritional care of patients in hospital is a priority that is backed by £1.5 million of new investment, which covers the screening of patients, the introduction of the nutrition specification, to which I have just referred, and the provision of nutrition leaders in national health service boards to ensure that nutrition is a priority.

As far as monitoring is concerned, senior charge nurses play an important role in ensuring that patients are given the care and support that they require, and protected meal times ensure that patients' meals are not interrupted. I hope that the member agrees that the present position is far better than it used to be.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what investment it will make in the current financial year towards achieving the target of having 10 per cent of all journeys made by bicycle by 2020. (S3O-7409)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The 10 per cent target in the "Cycling Action Plan for Scotland" is proposed as part of the consultation process. Scottish Government investment in cycling this year will be in the region of £18 million. If they wish, local authorities can add to that total from their own budgets.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

European-style targets deserve European levels of funding. According to recent research by Spokes, funding for cycling has fallen even further behind since the Scottish National Party took over. Is the minister prepared to act on the suggestion, which Spokes made in its recent letter to John Swinney, that an additional allocation of £5 million, funded from underspends, should be made to Sustrans in the current financial year? Is the minister serious about achieving the 2020 target, or is that another slice of pie in the sky from the SNP?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I was happy to support bike week yesterday, and I am sure that other members will wish to do likewise. The support that the Government has given to cycling, through local authority funding, which is increasing and which now represents a greater share of Government spending than previously, and through direct subventions, is contributing to a significant increase in the proportion of journeys that are made by cycle. For example, in Moray 8 per cent of children cycle to school, which is eight times the national average. We know that we can achieve significant improvements within the existing spending framework. I hope that other council areas will tak tent of what has been achieved in Moray and follow its lead.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will publish regular progress reports on the implementation of the specified set of commitments contained in the concordat agreed between the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. (S3O-7396)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Information from the Scottish Government and local authorities on progress on each concordat commitment is already in the public domain. We have no plans to produce further reports beyond what is already available.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The cabinet secretary has confirmed that no formal, comprehensive and all-embracing reporting mechanism exists to monitor progress on the specified set of commitments, which are reviewed at private meetings between COSLA and ministers for which no minutes, agendas or background papers to inform discussions are published.

A glaring gap exists in the accountability for and public scrutiny of key commitments that cover major policy issues, such as class size reductions. If the cabinet secretary and COSLA have no intention of publishing an annual progress report, would he welcome an annual progress report from the Accounts Commission and Audit Scotland, pursuant to their annual audits of Scotland's 32 councils?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I fear that Mr McLetchie did not listen to my answer, in which I said that information from the Scottish Government and local authorities on progress on each concordat commitment is already in the public domain. Mr McLetchie suggests that the Accounts Commission and Audit Scotland might consider the point. As he well knows, that is a matter for them. I do not intend—and it would be inappropriate for me—to invite them to undertake such work.

I am genuinely surprised that Mr McLetchie, who is such a champion of efficient government, wants the Government to duplicate effort by publishing information—all ring-bound and possibly in a glossy document—when all the information is available, if only he could join it all together.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I fear that the cabinet secretary worries about the accountability of his Government. The Scottish National Party manifesto commitments totalled £500 million; he gave local government £87 million. That is why he does not want clarity about such matters. Is it not the case that the Parliament and the public deserve a better insight into the fudge that exists at the heart of the concordat?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I was surprised that Mr McLetchie did not listen, because he normally pays attention, but Mr Kerr never pays attention to what is going on. If Mr Kerr had listened carefully to me, he would understand that the information on progress on each concordat commitment is already in the public domain.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

No, it is not.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I encourage Mr Kerr to work just a little bit harder to get that information at his ready disposal—[ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

That would allow him to understand the full progress that has been made.

Of course, if Mr McLetchie had continued his question, he would generously have acknowledged that the Government has delivered a substantial number of commitments in the concordat even after just two years in office, such as the reduction in small business rates, which Mr Kerr voted against when it was in our first budget, and the council tax freeze, which Mr Kerr also voted against when it was in our first budget—actually, he did not manage to vote against it—

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

He abstained.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Kerr abstained—I thank the First Minister for correcting me.

Let us remember that, even just two years into the Government's term, significant parts of the concordat have been delivered.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will announce the findings of the public local inquiry into the Aberdeen western peripheral route before the summer recess. (S3O-7413)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

When the report is available from the reporters in the summer, it may contain findings and recommendations. We remain confident that the first traffic will travel on the Aberdeen western peripheral route in 2012, as previously announced.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The Scottish Government has said that it will bring the Aberdeen western peripheral route back to Parliament for a final decision. We now know that that cannot happen until September at the earliest. The minister said that travel on the route would begin by 2012. Does he still believe that that will happen? More important, how will he fund the route?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The relevant Scottish statutory instrument will come in the earliest possible order and will of course be dealt with under the proper parliamentary processes.

As I have told the member before, we will fund the route with money.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That concludes general questions. Before we come to our next item of business, I am sure that members will wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery the ambassador to the United Kingdom from the Netherlands, His Excellency Mr Pim Waldeck. Your Excellency, you are most welcome. [ Applause. ]

First Minister's Question Time

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1784)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

For the rest of the day I have a range of engagements to carry forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I would like to start by thanking the Calman commission on behalf of this Parliament for its report "Serving Scotland Better", which was published this week. I look forward to debating the Calman report next week.

Today, I want to ask the First Minister about the problems that he seems to have in exercising the powers that this Parliament already has. We have the power to make our bill on climate change the most ambitious in the world. Indeed, the First Minister promised that we would. Has the First Minister not told us that Scotland won the lottery of life in renewables potential and that we are the Saudi Arabia of the seas?

The United Kingdom target is to reduce carbon emissions by 34 per cent by 2020. At the moment, the Scottish target is the same. Does the First Minister agree that devolution and our green potential mean that we can be more ambitious than that?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Let me start, as ever, in a generous mode. I welcome the sensible Calman commission proposals for devolution of control of our own elections in Scotland and devolution of important road safety issues—the alcohol limit and the speed limit. Those are important matters and I see no reason for any further delay in getting them implemented—since we all now agree on them.

We should recall that, but for the Scottish National Party victory, there would have been no change at all. How do we know that? Because, in a speech he made in East Lothian before the 2007 election, my predecessor sent his troops into battle on a no-change platform. Only two weeks ago, we saw what the people of East Lothian thought of no-change positions from the Labour Party.

With the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, we have the most ambitious legislation in the world. It is true that our interim 2020 target is 34 per cent, as it is in Westminster, but did Iain Gray not notice the implementation plan that was outlined in such spectacular detail yesterday? It pointed out that even within the powers of this Parliament at the present moment we can implement up to 36 per cent. Of course, if we had more powers—the powers of an independent Parliament—we could do even more.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

If it is true that, as it stands, this Parliament's Climate Change (Scotland) Bill is the most ambitious in the world, why did Duncan McLaren of the Friends of the Earth Scotland say this morning:

"As drafted Scotland's Bill would not lead to tougher targets than the UK's and is therefore not world-leading."

He went on to say that

"in terms of the key issue of the interim target for 2020, it is the target set under the UK Act that is currently world-leading."

That was this morning, after the publication of the delivery plan. Will the First Minister just admit that his climate change bill is following, not leading, the United Kingdom? Then perhaps we can do something about it.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Iain Gray should acknowledge that we have led the UK and have led internationally in introducing the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill.

Iain Gray is less than generous with the quotations that have been made following the publication of the delivery plan. In a news release yesterday, Dr Richard Dixon of Stop Climate Chaos said:

"New commitments on decarbonising the energy and transport sectors are particularly welcome. The SNP have gone further than the Westminster government by making these ... promises."

Iain Gray will have to explain not only why we have dragged Westminster in our wake in this crucial issue, but why he, Calman and the Conservatives—I am not so sure about the Liberals—do not want to transfer the powers to this Parliament that would enable us to be even more ambitious in what we do to tackle climate change.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I want to be more ambitious in what we do to tackle climate change but we can do that with the powers that the Parliament already has. This morning, Richard Dixon said:

"There is no reason that Scotland should do 34% just because the UK is doing 34%. Devolution is about Scotland being able to play to its strengths and set its own targets."

Not only the environmental lobby that thinks that; Ian Marchant, the chair of Scottish and Southern Energy—Scotland's biggest company—today calls for

"at least 40 per cent"

and says:

"every single additional percentage point will see more jobs for Scotland."

The truth is that the Parliament has the power to do better right now. The question is, does the First Minister have the will to do that or is he just all wind?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Parliament has the power to set a target but unless we get control over the powers that will enable us to get to the more ambitious target, we will not be able to achieve it. That is why the delivery plan set it out in such detail this morning.

I shall give Iain Gray an example, because I know that he wants to understand what type of power we need. Two years ago, Ian Marchant's company, Scottish and Southern Energy, in conjunction with BP, had a plan to build the first commercially sized carbon capture station in the world at Peterhead. The Scottish Government sanctioned that, but the support mechanism lay with Westminster and Alastair Darling vetoed it.

If the power had been with us, we would now have the world's first carbon capture station moving into production. Instead, under the timid approach of Iain Gray, that wonderful project has gone to Abu Dhabi—an independent country with the power to manage its own resources.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

That is all just bluster and excuse.

The First Minister has repeatedly promised us the most ambitious climate change bill in the world, delivered through the Parliament's powers—rightly so, because climate change is the single biggest threat to our future. Churches, students, trade unionists, business leaders, bird watchers, cyclists, gardeners, the Women's Institute and the people at home all look to us to be ambitious on climate change. Many of our schools fly the green environmental flag and our children need us to be ambitious on climate change.

This afternoon, the Labour Party will lodge an amendment to the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill that will increase Scotland's target for carbon reduction to 40 per cent by 2020 and direct ministers to seek the advice of the UK's top climate change experts to come up with an action plan for Scotland. Surely we can do better with the advantages that we have in Scotland. Between us, the First Minister and I have the votes to do that deal here and now. Is he ambitious enough for Scotland to do it now?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Iain Gray talks about ambition; we already have the advice of the world's top climate change experts.

Professor Jan Bebbington, the vice chair of the Sustainable Development Commission Scotland, said this morning:

"The Delivery Plan"—

that is the SNP Government's delivery plan—

"shows that it is possible to fulfil very ambitious climate change targets but not without business and civil society backing the Government's efforts."

One other thing is required: the powers—which I have outlined in enormous detail so that Iain Gray understands them—to enable us to move to the 40 per cent target.

This Government and this Parliament led the way on the 80 per cent target while Westminster was stuck at 60 per cent. We are the first country in the world to measure and promise to report on emissions from goods and services consumed in its borders. Given the line of Iain Gray's questioning, I take it that we will revisit the Calman commission so that the Labour Party and Conservative party will accept—as I think the Liberal Democrats do—the increase in powers that is required to enable Scotland not only to set the target of 40 per cent but to deliver it within the powers of an independent and autonomous Parliament.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-1785)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I can give a very specific answer to that: I shall meet the secretary of state next Tuesday.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Today, this Parliament unites to close the ludicrous loophole, which has arisen out of the European convention on human rights, that allows Scottish prisoners an open-ended period of time within which to make slopping-out claims. That loophole has been costly for Scotland and an affront to many victims and their families.

However, the storm clouds are gathering again. Senior lawyers have warned of dire consequences for Scotland's criminal justice system following a ruling by Europe's highest court that any evidence or confession given to police in the absence of a lawyer is not admissible in court. What steps has the First Minister taken to assess the potential impact of that ruling on Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I know that, last night, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice spoke to the Lord Advocate. We are constantly vigilant to ensure that the Scottish criminal justice system maintains its integrity and that its ability to work for the people of Scotland is fulfilled.

Just as we have been successful in many areas of justice, we have successfully found ways of pursuing what the people of Scotland would see as fair and equitable in the administration of justice. Indeed, after considerable delays by Westminster, the Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill that Annabel Goldie has cited will be successful—and I am grateful for the cross-party support for the bill, which will be agreed to this afternoon. I just wish that we had been able to introduce it earlier—but, of course, that would have required everyone in elected office to understand the importance of such matters.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It is precisely because of the challenges in the past in addressing slopping out, to which the First Minister has just referred and in respect of which the previous Executive was undoubtedly caught exposed and unprepared, that I think it important for the First Minister to give some indication of the Government's contingency plans if the European ruling is ultimately incorporated into Scots law. What is he doing to protect the public purse and, more important, the safety of our communities and the peace of mind of victims and their families?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As Annabel Goldie well knows, the bill that we are uniting to pass today will have a substantial effect in protecting the public purse in Scotland. In fact, in addition to ensuring what most people will see as an equitable distribution of human rights and justice for the entire community, that is one of the reasons for introducing it. Indeed, it is one of its main aims. As with judicial systems across western Europe, the Scottish judicial system faces constant challenges from not just one thing but a range of matters, and our law officers and our Cabinet Secretary for Justice are always alert and vigilant in ensuring that the system has the ability and freedom to pursue the judicial process in a way that most if not all of us would find compatible not just with human rights but with the equitable performance of a judicial system.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet (S3F-1786)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

In eight weeks' time, 180 children will start their first day at secondary school at Inverurie academy. Will any of those children have a new school built for them in Inverurie before they sit their standard grades?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I cannot predict which schools will be part of the ambitious schools programme that was announced yesterday by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and it would be improper of me to do so, but I know that around the country a variety of local authorities have identified many schools as suitable candidates for inclusion in such a programme.

Of course, this new £1.2 billion programme comes as a substantial bonus. After all, as the cabinet secretary reminded the chamber yesterday, it is in addition to the 250 schools that will be built or substantially refurbished in this Administration's term of office. I wish that that figure were more but—and I see that Margaret Smith has got to where I am going before I even get there myself—I point out that 250 is rather more than the mere 200 built under the previous Administration that, unfortunately, Tavish Scott supported.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Is that it? The First Minister ignored the point; 180 children and their parents will be very surprised that he does not know, will not say or—as usual—thinks that it is someone else's job. Aberdeenshire Council has had plans ready for two years, while it has waited for schools funding from the Government, but the Government has wasted two years failing to get the Scottish Futures Trust to work—two years of blind alleys, garden paths and dead ends. Two years of delay should have given ministers time to answer the basic question about which schools will be built. Some children will wait a decade for a new Scottish National Party school. Will that include Inverurie?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As I said, 250 schools will be substantially refurbished or built under this Administration. In addition, there is the new schools programme.

I know that Tavish Scott is interested in the ministerial code. He is less interested in apologising after, having referred the First Minister under the ministerial code, his case was found to be wanting. However, even Tavish Scott should acknowledge that if I stood up and committed to a school in my constituency instead of going through the established process, he would be the very first to refer me under the ministerial code. I am astonished, because Tavish Scott has been a minister and presumably faced the same issues of constituency interest and ministerial responsibilities when he was in office.

As to whether Tavish Scott's argument about a delay introducing the schools programme has any substance, I was struck by the question and decided to examine the history of the Parliament. I know that members love it when I look back at the records of the Parliament. I decided to look at when the first schools programme was introduced by the Labour and Liberal Democrats, in the first session. It was 25 June 2002—three years into their first term of office. Not only have we beaten them with 250 schools as against 200, we have beaten them by a year in introducing a new schools programme.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

The First Minister will be aware of the devastating effect on my constituents of yesterday's announcement that the 120 people who work for QinetiQ, the Ministry of Defence's contractor in Uist, will lose their jobs. What representations will the Scottish Government make to the United Kingdom Government about that body blow by UK ministers to an already fragile island economy?

George (Labour, Lothians)

Total hypocrisy. There would be no MOD jobs in an independent Scotland.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

What action will be taken in Scotland to address the needs of the people who are most directly affected by the announcement?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

First, I say to some Labour members that one thing that I have never done in politics is criticise when a member talks about jobs in their constituency. I will never do that to a Labour member. I will never do it to a member of any other party. In a Parliament, when a constituency member asks about jobs in their constituency, it is a matter of civility that they should be heard with some respect.

There was a substantial lack of consultation from the Ministry of Defence in relation to yesterday's announcement. I shall ensure that representations are made to the Westminster Government to enable it to understand fully the impact on fragile communities of announcements of major job losses. We have worked extremely hard to support the creation of jobs in the Western Isles, with some success. In the past few weeks, 40 jobs have been created at BiFab, at the Arnish yard.

Meanwhile, the UK Government appears to be abandoning the islands and their communities. Yesterday, the MP for the Western Isles requested an emergency debate in the UK Parliament. I can announce today that Jim Mather, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy, and Tourism, has already agreed to set up a task force, alongside Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local council. The the Scottish Government and those partners, in a united front, will do everything possible to protect the economy and the fragile communities of the Western Isles.

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am sure that the First Minister and members will join me in extending deep sympathy to the family and friends of Jacqueline Fleming, who recently died of swine flu in Paisley's—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Mr Wilson, I do not disagree with you, but you must ask the question as tabled on the paper.

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what steps are being taken to limit the spread of the influenza A(H1N1) virus. (S3F-1801)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I know that the whole chamber will want to take the opportunity to express sympathy to the family of Jacqueline Fleming in their tragic loss, both of Jacqueline and of course of her baby.

Scotland is among the best prepared countries in the world to respond to a flu pandemic. We experienced the first cases of H1N1 in the United Kingdom some eight weeks ago. Throughout the current outbreak, national health boards, Health Protection Scotland and their partner agencies have ensured that all necessary arrangements are in place to attempt to limit the spread of the virus. The risk to the general public remains low and the vast majority of those who get the virus display relatively mild symptoms. However, as the tragic death of Jacqueline Fleming at the weekend has shown, for a variety of reasons—usually underlying health reasons—some people are particularly susceptible to this dangerous virus.

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Is the First Minister aware of the concern that has been expressed that the narrow criteria that are used for testing H1N1 in many European countries will result in a significant number of cases going undetected, leading to community spread being underestimated? Does the First Minister agree that the Scottish approach to testing should take account of that concern?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I suspect—indeed, I know—that the Scottish approach to testing is the most thorough in the world. We have not only been very active in containing the present outbreak; we have achieved that through the substantial testing of thousands of possible cases. We are testing more people with well-developed algorithms that mean that the data that have been derived for surveillance purposes have been better and the process has been more efficient than has been the case in most other countries. I understand that other countries in Europe are not taking the same active approach to containment and are not testing so actively for H1N1. Nevertheless, I think that we are taking the right approach. It is vital that we know the full extent of the spread of the virus; hence our commitment to continued testing at this stage. It is clear that, with our wide-ranging system of testing, Scotland is at the forefront of efforts to stem the flow of the disease.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I agree with the First Minister that continued testing will tell us more about the epidemiology of this novel virus, but as we will experience a course of events similar to those of previous pandemics—a modest first wave and a much more widespread second wave in the autumn—what steps are being taken now to assist small and medium-sized businesses, especially non-statutory organisations that provide care in the community, to prepare for that second wave so that continuity of care will be ensured for our most vulnerable citizens if we experience a severe second wave?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Social partners across Scotland—not just in the business community, but other key social partners—are fully involved in the resilience planning process. I am grateful for Richard Simpson's strong support—which is echoed across the chamber—on the issue. I hope that he will acknowledge the fact that the Deputy First Minister has been keeping people fully informed on a political level since the start of the outbreak. That has also happened with social partners—not just the business community, but local government and a range of other social partners—in terms of our contingency planning.

Richard Simpson will know that we are pursuing a strategy of containment. We will contain the virus as long as we possibly can. He will also know that, in conjunction with the other UK health authorities, we have ordered supplies of the vaccine, which will be ready towards the end of the year.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I know that Jacqueline Fleming had serious underlying health problems, but pregnant NHS staff may feel that they are at higher risk than other front-line workers. I therefore ask the First Minister to consider authorising risk assessments on front-line NHS staff who are pregnant, to ensure that they are as safe as they can be at their work. In doing so, will he bear in mind the fact that, as we are unsure of the side effects of Tamiflu on mothers and unborn children, there may be an increased risk of complications in pregnancy, of premature birth or of miscarriage?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I assure Bob Doris that guidance on infection control for pregnant women who work in the NHS already exists and will be followed in the treatment of persons who are suspected of having the virus. If such women suspect that they may have the virus themselves, they follow the advice that is given to all pregnant women to seek a medical opinion and appropriate treatment. It should be understood that, although pregnancy can make people more susceptible to viruses under certain conditions, in the tragic case of Jacqueline Fleming, which has been well documented, there were underlying medical problems as well. I note that Bob Doris framed his question in such a way as not to give the impression that her pregnancy was the only underlying health condition involved in that tragic case.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government welcomes the conclusion in the final report of the Calman commission on Scottish devolution that devolution has been a real success and is popular with the people of Scotland. (S3F-1796)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, I think that this Parliament is popular with the people of Scotland. Not only that, we know that the Parliament is more popular now than it was under the previous Administration. We know that because of the excellent Scottish social attitudes survey, which has shown shoring respect—

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Shoring?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Shoring and soaring—I may be meeting Sean Connery later on today. [ Laughter. ]

For example, the survey found that the proportion who trust the Scottish Government to act in Scotland's interests "just about always" or "most of the time" increased from the—in my opinion—relatively high level of 51 per cent in 2006 to a more fulsome 71 per cent during the term of office of the current Administration. That suggests to me that the people of Scotland, as they indicated in last week's election results, trust this Government—in stark contrast to Labour, the Conservatives and, unfortunately, the Liberals, who seem unable to trust the people of Scotland with determining their own future—to stand up for Scotland.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Surely the First Minister should act, and be seen to act, for the whole of Scotland, not just the nationalist cause, when it comes to Scotland's future. Perhaps he could start by welcoming the Calman proposals on strengthening financial accountability by the setting of a new Scottish income tax rate. How will he demonstrate that his Government is able to work in the wider interests of Scotland, which favours devolution? Does he fear that an SNP Government will no longer be able to blame Westminster for the levels of public spending?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I cannot believe that Pauline McNeill listened to my first answer to Iain Gray, when I was so anxious to say that those powers that Calman proposed that were until recently opposed by Labour—the devolution of our own elections, of drink-driving limits and of the right to legislate on firearms so that we can restrict and ban airguns in Scotland—are welcome and, now that we have consensus, should be implemented now.

On the guts of the proposal, is Pauline McNeill really telling us that the ability to vary a tax set by the Treasury is the same as control over taxation across the resources and revenue of Scotland? Does she really mistake that incredibly modest taxation proposal for the full panoply of powers that an independent—or, indeed, financially autonomous—Government and Parliament would have? If she thinks that the proposal is a reason for debate, why on earth will she not trust the people of Scotland with determining that in a full-scale referendum?

As to whether we are the Scottish National Party or the national party of Scotland, is it not the case that our European elections victory the length and breadth of the country at least puts forward a partial claim to our being truly a national party?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister how many sentences of six months or less were imposed by the courts in the 12 months to 1 May 2009 and what the average time served was. (S3F-1797)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Twelve thousand six hundred and forty-six sentences of six months or less were handed down during 2007-08. The average time served by prisoners who were liberated during that period was 40 days.

Three out of four of those who are sentenced to six months or less in prison will—on current and recent statistics—offend again within two years, compared with just 42 per cent of those on community service. That is why we have introduced legislative proposals for a presumption against prison sentences of six months or less.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The First Minister did not reply to the question, which related to a later period, but let us leave that aside.

The First Minister seeks to justify the ludicrous proposal to restrict the courts' powers to impose short prison sentences by saying that the short periods served allow no time to have an impact on a prisoner's pattern of offending. Does he not realise that many offenders spend such a low proportion of their sentence in custody because of his Government's early release policies, which mean that, in the past 12 months, many offenders who were sentenced to six months served only six weeks, or a quarter of their sentence, in custody? Surely that is an affront to justice.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I gave Bill Aitken the most recent statistics that are available. I was trying to be as helpful as possible. However, I cannot let him get away with talking about early release given that it is well known and documented that the Conservative party formed the Government that introduced automatic early release in Scotland and the current Administration is introducing legislation to end it.

I know that, particularly in these days when Michael Forsyth has re-entered the political debate in Scotland, Bill Aitken does not want to look back to the dark days when Mr Forsyth was the Secretary of State for Scotland and prison absconds from the open estate were running at eight times their level last year under the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, but I had a wee look at something that I know both Bill Aitken and I feel is important—I looked at the average time for which people went to prison for knife crime in Scotland in the last year of the Conservative Government. Under the tutelage of Michael Forsyth as secretary of state, it was 115 days. Ten years later, it had increased to 217 days.

I am sure that most people in the chamber regard knife crime as a serious offence that requires a serious sentence. Has it occurred to Bill Aitken that a sentence of 115 days for knife crime under the Tories is less than six months and that 217 days is more than six months? People who commit serious crimes should be sentenced to serious periods of time and not as they were under the soft touch of Michael Forsyth.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Education and Lifelong Learning

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to commission any school building in the east end of Glasgow. (S3O-7428)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Government is supporting local authorities in their responsibility to replace school buildings. Yesterday, I announced a new national programme of additional Government support for the building of new schools across Scotland. In addition to the £2 billion that is already being provided for school buildings, we will provide up to two thirds funding support for a £1.25 billion school building programme. Our £800 million is in addition to the record funding that is already set out in the local government settlement. The 55 schools that will be built will be in addition to the 250 schools that we and our local government partners are already committed to delivering by 2011. The 35,000 pupils who will benefit will be in addition to the 100,000 who will benefit from those 250 schools.

I expect that all local authorities will share in the benefits of the new funding. We will work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Futures Trust to identify which will benefit first. Decisions on investment priorities and commissioning of Glasgow schools—from the £2 billion of capital funds that are already being provided to authorities, from Glasgow's continued share of capital funding that is provided through local government allocations or from the newly announced funding—will remain matters for Glasgow City Council.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

In the preparation for, and work around, the cabinet secretary's statement, were the needs of schools in Glasgow, especially in the east end, discussed? What proportion of the new funding will go to Glasgow? Did the cabinet secretary's department undertake modelling to indicate the likely geographical distribution of the new schools to which she is committed? Finally, can she provide the indicative timescale for the primary school building programme, from proposal to delivery?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

It will be possible to start building the first primary school in 2010. Glasgow can already proceed with building new schools. I understand that the capital support that it will receive from the Government in the period 2008 to 2010 is £400 million. Although £228 million is ring fenced, mostly for housing, and a further £18 million is allocated to flood prevention schemes, £158 million is available in those two years to Glasgow City Council for investment in infrastructure, according to its priorities. It is up to the council to invest that money in schools in the east end, if it so chooses. If Margaret Curran has concerns about the ability of Glasgow City Council to make such decisions, I will be more than happy to make representations to it on her behalf.

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The cabinet secretary and Margaret Curran will be aware that, although the Scottish National Party Government is providing all the additional money for new school buildings that has been mentioned, the Labour council in Glasgow has embarked on a savage school and nursery closure programme. Is the cabinet secretary aware that for children from Barmulloch primary in the north-east to get to St Gilbert's primary, which will house their new school, they will daily pass the Red Road flats, the site of Europe's largest asbestos removal programme? Does she share my concerns about that?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I have had the opportunity to meet a number of parents from the Glasgow schools to which Anne McLaughlin refers, and they expressed to me their concerns about the issue that she has highlighted. The First Minister agreed previously in the chamber to meet parents from the schools that it is proposed will be closed. There are concerns about the issues that the member raises, but we must respect the ability of councils to take decisions, whether we like them or not. Glasgow City Council has made its decisions and must take responsibility for them. I sincerely hope that it will support parents on health and safety and transport issues. The member is right to raise such concerns but, as she knows, they are a responsibility of Glasgow City Council.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Will any of the £800 million that was announced yesterday for the Scottish Futures Trust school building programme be available to spend on commissions in Glasgow during the financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Ken Macintosh may be aware that we have already ensured an acceleration of capital from 2010-11, which has been done to help during the present economic situation. Money has been brought forward to 2009-10 and is benefiting a number of schools. Indeed, the Isobel Mair school in East Renfrewshire has benefited.

The acceleration of capital will give Glasgow City Council the opportunity to bring forward any plans that it may have. Obviously, if the council wants to take part in the scheme that we announced yesterday, it can propose plans. Other local authorities are already making representations and have already spoken to the Scottish Futures Trust, and the door is open for Glasgow City Council to make representations.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

On a point of order. Perhaps the cabinet secretary did not hear the question, which was about £800 million of Scottish Futures Trust funding. Would it be in order for the Presiding Officer to advise the member on what the question was about?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I have to assume that the cabinet secretary knows what the question was about. The content of her reply is not for me to determine.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the measures agreed at the apprenticeship summit held on 28 April 2009 will be implemented. (S3O-7453)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We published the report from the apprenticeship summit on 5 June, and I have already implemented some of the recommendations contained in the report.

On 10 June, I announced ScotAction, which is an integrated skills package combining new and improved measures that offer skills assistance—including wage subsidies in some cases—to help individuals and businesses through this recession. The first phase of ScotAction was the adopt an apprentice scheme that I announced last week. That scheme gives employers up to £2,000 to take on a redundant apprentice and let them continue their training.

Earlier this week, I announced that we would double the number of hospitality apprenticeships by funding 300 adult apprenticeships in that sector. That is in addition to funding 200 all-age apprenticeships in professional cookery that were announced in April.

Only this morning, I announced 1,250 apprenticeships for health and social care and will make further announcements in the next few days.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, and I congratulate her on starting to spend wisely the money that Labour managed to secure for her budget during the recent negotiations.

I want to ask about adult apprenticeships. We have seen a decrease in management apprenticeships for people over the age of 20. A key objective of the Scottish Government is to ensure that skills utilisation is to the forefront of any future decisions, and managerial skills are key to utilising skills in the workplace. Following representations that were made during the apprenticeship summit, is the cabinet secretary considering reinstating managerial modern apprenticeships? I am sure that such representations were made to her after the summit, as well.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I thank John Park for his question—it is just a pity that Labour did not manage to support the budget the first time around, when funding was available for apprenticeships. However, we got there in the end, and I am very keen about the support that we have received from Labour for the programme. In a number of areas, very constructive recommendations and advice have come from Labour, and from John Park in particular.

John Park raises an important point about management and leadership, and we will certainly consider the situation with regard to modern apprenticeships. An issue that came out of the apprenticeship summit—it has increasingly been a theme with sector skills councils and others—was the importance of embedding skills utilisation and capacity in management and leadership, not just in a stand-alone qualification, but across all the different sectors. To get ourselves through the recession and into recovery, we will have to mobilise the skills and abilities of everybody in every sector. We will therefore be considering a review of the content of all qualifications, to ensure that the capacity for management and leadership, and for skills utilisation, is embedded in all of them.

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

If I understand correctly, there will be a £2,000 wage subsidy for apprentices to help them to secure employment so that they can continue their apprenticeships. However, the Government has not put in place a similar subsidy for people who are currently in employment. Three weeks ago, I and representatives of the textiles sector in Scotland met the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism with regard to an appeal for exactly such a subsidy. The sector has not received a reply from the minister, so I wonder whether the cabinet secretary and the minister will work fast to ensure that such support is available. The textiles sector desperately needs it now.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I will certainly ask the minister to reply as promptly as he can to the correspondence.

A key focus of our attention—and of representations that we have received—is the need for us to ensure that any support and subsidy is directed towards maintaining skills in the economy. At this time, that is especially important in construction. The ability to take on an apprentice and attract the £2,000 subsidy can make a key difference. Indeed, the employer that I met who had signed up the first redundant apprentice under the scheme last week was grateful for it. MSPs across the parties have a responsibility to publicise the availability of the support to their constituents and local businesses in order to help to ensure that redundant apprentices, particularly young people and those who have been made redundant in their third and fourth years, can complete their apprenticeships. The £2,000 one-off payment can help them to do that.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is confident that it will, in this parliamentary session, fulfil the pledge in the SNP manifesto to ensure that every pupil has two hours of quality physical education each week delivered by specialist PE teachers. (S3O-7456)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I am confident that local authorities will be able to demonstrate significant progress in securing two hours of quality physical education for every pupil by the end of this parliamentary session. We have been assured by every local authority's commitment to deliver the curriculum for excellence through the 2009 single outcome agreement process. Our expectation that schools will continue to work towards providing two hours of physical education is embedded in the curriculum for excellence, which is in turn embedded in the national performance framework.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I think that that is a rather longwinded "No." We are promised progress, not that the manifesto commitment will be fulfilled.

Paragraph 71 of the Health and Sport Committee's report on pathways into sport showed that only one council—East Renfrewshire Council—had so far achieved the target of two hours or three 40-minute periods for all pupils, and the Government restated to the committee its aim of achieving the target by August 2010. Will the minister comment on the 1 June report from West Lothian Council's review group on physical education? It states:

"The West Lothian recommendation is that a baseline target of 100 minutes or two 50-minute classes for every pupil every week should be made."

Taking into account changing time and travel time, that means that West Lothian Council will not achieve the target and clearly has no intention of achieving it, so how will the minister be able to fulfil his manifesto promise or even make reasonable progress towards it?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I will not comment on the West Lothian Council report—which I have not seen—and especially not on Richard Simpson's interpretation of it, given that his interpretation of what I said to the committee is so far wide of the mark. The committee asked when we expected to fulfil the pledge, and it was 2011 that was mentioned, not 2010.

We intend to achieve that goal by meeting councils. I met one today that has already achieved more than two hours of PE every week for every pupil in its schools. Many other councils are already achieving that. I appreciate that there was not much progress from when the target was first set in 2004, but progress is happening now. In addition, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has asked Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education to report more transparently on councils' progress in achieving the target. It will not be left until the last minute—perhaps Richard Simpson should have more faith in some of Scotland's councils to deliver it.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the Scottish Executive acknowledge that one of the main difficulties that it faces in implementing the policy is the lack of precise definitions of PE, outdoor learning and outdoor education? Will it agree to tighten up those definitions so that we can make progress on the strategy?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I am willing to look into that further, but it has been said before that physical education, as distinct from physical activity, is a part of the structured curriculum and that teachers should have specialist training to deliver the subject. There is a commonly understood distinction between physical activity and physical education, but there is still some ambiguity about it, which came out to some extent during discussions with the Health and Sport Committee. I will consider how we can clarify it further.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

To ask the Scottish Executive what the most recent statistics are on drop-out rates among full-time first-degree students and whether it has any concerns regarding these statistics. (S3O-7448)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The most recent statistics on drop-out rates among full-time first-degree students were released by the Higher Education Statistics Agency on 4 June 2009. Although there is still more to be done, we welcome the fact that the figures show an improvement in completion rates over the past five years, with the rate of students not continuing their studies reducing from 10.7 per cent to 9 per cent.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Although I welcome any reduction in drop-out rates in Scotland, rates here are still the worst in the United Kingdom. Given that, does the cabinet secretary agree that there is an urgent need to address the issue, and that one way of doing so is to use existing resources to provide a £7,000 minimum income guarantee for the poorest students? In Glasgow Caledonian University in my constituency, which is a key institution in attracting students from poorer backgrounds, the drop-out rate is 13 per cent. Will the cabinet secretary tell Parliament how the Government will tackle drop-out rates?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I understand that a number of institutions, including the Glasgow School of Art, Edinburgh College of Art and the University of Abertay Dundee have, in benchmarking, better rates than others, so obviously lessons can be learned. It is important to reflect that some of the figures are affected by the fact that, although colleges deliver a large part of higher education provision in Scotland, their provision of first-degree-level studies is comparatively low. However, I acknowledge that there is a big issue and that the approach must be not only about recruitment, but about retention and support for students once they are in—particularly in their first year. That is one reason why I have written to the spokespeople of other parties on their proposals for a £7,000 support package for students, which Pauline McNeill mentioned. There are issues about the calculations, so I have asked for clarification of how the figures were calculated, with a view to a meeting later in the summer to discuss whether we can make progress on anything in the proposals.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 5 has been withdrawn.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has evidence that shared headships for rural primary schools impact positively on the education of children. (S3O-7387)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

There is no evidence to suggest that shared headships impact negatively on the education of children. Some local authorities view the sharing of a headteacher by two schools as preferable to having a teaching headteacher. Shared headship can be a means of protecting the viability of the smallest rural schools.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The minister will be aware of the proposals in the Scottish Borders to link several primary schools under shared headships. That has caused considerable concern in Newcastleton, where the local primary school is to be paired with Stirches primary school in Hawick, which is more than 20 miles away. Does the Scottish Government acknowledge that it is, wherever possible, preferable to have a dedicated headteacher based on site in rural schools such as Newcastleton primary school and that local authorities that have large rural areas, such as Scottish Borders Council, often require additional resources to support such schools?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I am aware of the situation that John Lamont mentions, and I have been in correspondence with him on it. All I can say is that it is up to each individual authority to decide how best to proceed. There are sometimes advantages from shared headships, not least of which is that a head who is not teaching has more time for management. It can also result in a better calibre of applicant for the post. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, which has looked into the issue, says that whether a shared headteacher post works really comes down to the quality of the headteacher. The decision is for councils to take—the Scottish Government does not impose a decision or direct councils on this. Councils sometimes decide to have shared headships in the best interests of the teaching in a particular school and to keep rural schools available and open.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it is making in encouraging schools to procure food from local sources. (S3O-7394)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Under the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Act 2007, local authorities have a duty to have regard to Scottish Government guidance on sustainable development when procuring food and drink or catering services for schools. Our guidance document "Integrating sustainable development into procurement of food and catering services" gives advice on how aspects such as freshness, quality standards and asking for seasonally available produce can lead to more engagement from local suppliers while staying within European Union procurement law.

We all know about the excellent work in East Ayrshire on purchasing fresh local food for school lunches. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that local authorities and individual schools throughout Scotland are promoting sustainability in their food choices and are, among other things, increasingly using local suppliers and producers and promoting local ingredients in school menus. The challenge is to make that approach mainstream. Our national food and drink policy will help to make progress on that.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister expand on what practical measures the Government has taken to make it easier for public agencies such as schools to procure locally produced food?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

As I indicated, some work streams are ongoing. For example, Robin Gourlay of East Ayrshire Council chaired the national food and drink policy work stream on public procurement, which consulted widely with producers, processors, the hospitality industry and public sector procurement specialists. Recommendations from his draft report are currently being considered by officials as the next steps of the food and drink policy are taken forward. Nanette Milne will probably be aware that Aberdeenshire is making particular progress in that area.

Europe, External Affairs and Culture

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government how it will make use of the six Scottish MEPs to further Scotland's best interests in the European Union. (S3O-7471)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

First, I congratulate all six of Scotland's newly elected MEPs. The Scottish Government has already begun to engage proactively with them—as a team and individually—in order that they may deliver the best possible outcomes for Scotland in key EU areas such as fisheries and renewable energy.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I wonder how they might help us to gain the best from the European recovery programme, which contains not only renewables elements but broadband, carbon capture and storage, and the North Sea grid.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The recovery programme that is under way has a number of priorities. On broadband, it is fair to say that while Scotland still needs some development, it is not in a category in which substantial investment is needed to complete the coverage, which is an issue in north Wales, for example.

Energy is a key area. The recovery programme, which is focused on a variety of renewables, will help to support the Aberdeen offshore demonstrator and will be involved in the carbon capture plant. Those are good examples arising from strong lobbying by Scotland's MEPs and a strong team effort to put forward a case for Scotland. A strong follow-through of support for the actions of this Government, to ensure that we get our policy outcomes for the good of Scotland, will be very welcome. I see the six MEPs as a team, and I have offered them my support and the support of Scotland House in Brussels to ensure that they can achieve the maximum possible.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The minister will be aware from his previous incarnation of the cross-party team effort of Scotland's MEPs in resisting the introduction of the current proposals for the electronic identification of Scotland's sheep flock. Does he agree that as those efforts continue, the addition of George Lyon, a former NFU Scotland president, as one of Scotland's six MEPs will be enormously helpful? Will he do all that he can, as Europe minister, to facilitate a meeting between his former boss the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment and Commissioner Vassiliou to agree a voluntary on-farm sheep ID scheme?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member used the word "incarnation". I always welcome incarnation and reincarnation. In the case of George Lyon, that is precisely what has happened: he is reborn as an MEP. I am sure that members will be delighted to hear that, typical of the constructive approach of both of us, we have already had a telephone conversation. I hope that I will meet George Lyon shortly—not something that I have said often—to discuss the role that he will play. He has indicated that he wishes to have a positive relationship with this Government, which is what I want with all of our MEPs. Together, I am sure that we will make a difference.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

How can the Scottish Parliament further co-operate with the six Scottish MEPs to increase the understanding of the European issues that have a direct impact on Scotland and to allow MSPs to express their views on European affairs?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Dr McKee asks a good question. There are two aspects. One aspect is the role of the Parliament in issues of subsidiarity. The Lisbon treaty anticipates an enhanced role for sub-national Parliaments. In those circumstances, as the Presiding Officer and members will be aware, the Parliament itself is endeavouring to engage with Westminster on the issue, and the Government is engaging with the United Kingdom Government on the issue, to ensure that our parliamentary scrutiny activities are kept up to speed and improved. MEPs have a strong role to play in being an early warning system for material that is going through Europe.

I am keen to develop a number of structures in Scotland, including the European elected members information liaison and exchange structure, which has been slightly unwieldy up until now. EMILE is a committee of all six MEPs, local authority representatives and the convener of the European and External Relations Committee. I hope that we can focus EMILE so that it is a body with action at its heart. If we do so, I hope that the MEPs will play a full and active part.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to engage with Latin American countries. (S3O-7457)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am aware of the member's keen interest in Latin American countries, particularly Cuba. I had the privilege of having dinner with a Cuban delegation and the member some time ago.

As I said at my appearance before the European and External Relations Committee, I am keen to consider all new opportunities to promote Scotland overseas. The fact that the value of exports from Scotland to central and South America nearly doubled from 2004 to 2007 is of immediate interest, as are the opportunities in the energy sector that exist across the continent. There are, of course, cultural links with a number of countries in South America, as well as links of friendship.

As I said to the committee, I intend to turn to engagement with Latin American countries in the coming months, in order to identify the right priorities. We will be led by the existence of opportunity and the need to prioritise to meet the Government's economic purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The minister guessed correctly about my specific interest in Latin American countries. Is he aware that the Welsh Assembly has successfully developed a number of formal links with Cuba in education and is looking to foster agricultural links, with a particular interest in Cuba's permaculture urban food movement? In light of that, and given his previous answer, will the minister seriously consider engaging with Cuba, particularly in this historic year of the 50 th anniversary of the socialist revolution in that country?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am happy to say that I will seriously consider our relationship with Cuba as part of our relationship with Latin America. I would welcome an opportunity to talk to the member about that. I invite her to come and see me about it. I stress that no decision has been made about how exactly we are to proceed, but it makes sense for us to engage as constructively as possible in each area of the globe, and also to address language issues where major languages are likely to be part of our efforts. That must be led not only by economic matters, but by cultural and political matters.

I invite the member to talk to me about Cuba. Our conversations have been very constructive in the past and I am sure that they will be in the future.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister ensure that, in any engagement with Cuba, human rights are at the top of the agenda, in particular the suppression of free speech in Cuba and the oppression of those who express political views that are contrary to those of the current authoritarian regime?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am certain that anybody with whom we work will want to emulate the wonderful freedom of speech that we have in Scotland, where Mr Fraser and I can discuss these matters fully in the open and agree on them. Human rights are very important. In all our work, we should encourage people to offer the same opportunities that we enjoy. I encourage Mr Fraser to take his interest a step further and support an independence referendum in Scotland that will allow the people to choose.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to explore areas of opportunity in Latin America that would prove beneficial to Scotland. (S3O-7488)

It seems that Latin America is the flavour of the month.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Darian.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am tempted to comment on the Darian expedition, but I will resist. That expedition included the sending of a large number of woollen bonnets from Dundee, which is perhaps not the trade activity that I had in mind when I talked about trade links with South America.

I refer the member to the answer that I have just given to Elaine Smith. We are defining what we want to do in terms of economic opportunity, cultural opportunity, friendship and our desire to normalise our relations in every part of the world. I am not sure that Darian is at the forefront of our ideas, but it must be in there somewhere.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Darian—[ Laughter. ] Sorry. Sandra White.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I hear what the minister says and agree with his reply to Elaine Smith, but I am interested specifically in the green energy production that not just Cuba, but other Latin American countries are at the forefront of. Has the minister thought about speaking to those countries about their green energy production? Scotland has expertise in green energy, too.