Scottish Parliament, 3 September 2009

372 contributions from 74 members. The official report.

Official Report 3 September 2009

Influenza A(H1N1)

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

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

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

During the summer recess there were a number of developments in relation to the A(H1N1) virus, and I am grateful for the opportunity to update Parliament on the current situation.

Following the move from the containment to the treatment phase that I announced on 2 July, new surveillance arrangements for monitoring the number of cases in Scotland were put in place. Health Protection Scotland monitors the number of consultations with general practitioners for flu-like symptoms and the number of hospitalised cases and deaths, and we now report those weekly.

We know from that information that although the virus continues to circulate in Scotland, the rates remain relatively low. Figures published today show that last week there were 40.2 GP consultations per 100,000 of the population. We estimate that around 2,500 people contracted H1N1 over the past week. In Scotland, the numbers are still below seasonal flu numbers, although they are high for this time of year. For most people, the virus remains relatively mild and self-limiting, although for some people it can be severe. A total of seven deaths have been associated with the virus in Scotland.

As many members will be aware, the national pandemic flu service was launched in England on 23 July. So far, we have chosen not to use the service, because our primary care services—Scotland's GPs, supported by NHS 24 and the Scottish flu response centre—continue to respond well to the demands that they face. We have, of course, retained the option to join the service when and if we think it necessary.

In so far as prescribing antivirals is concerned, the chief medical officer has issued guidance to all GPs that gives clear advice on prescribing and on who to treat, and it recommends that decisions should be based on clinical judgment. That means that in Scotland, antivirals are provided only following assessment by a GP, which is in line with current World Health Organization guidance.

Since the Parliament rose for the summer recess, there have been a number of developments in relation to the vaccination programme. We continue to work closely with the other United Kingdom nations to develop the programme, and I will now set out where things currently stand.

On 13 August, on the basis of advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, I announced the first priority groups for the vaccine. Once the vaccine has been licensed, it will be offered initially to individuals aged between six months and 65 years in the current seasonal flu vaccine clinical at-risk groups; all pregnant women, subject to licensing considerations; household contacts of people whose immune system is compromised; and people aged 65 and over in the current seasonal flu vaccine clinical at-risk groups. Those groups have been prioritised because they represent individuals who are most at risk of serious complications from the virus. The vaccination will provide protection to reduce the incidence of serious illness and reduce the burden of serious illness on the national health service over the winter.

In addition to the clinical priority groups, health and social care workers who have direct contact with patients will be prioritised for vaccination. Those staff are more likely to be exposed to the virus in the course of their work and could act as a transmission route to vulnerable patients. Offering vaccination to those groups will also help to ensure the resilience of the NHS and social care services. Definitions have been agreed for each of the groups, and local authorities will continue to engage with health boards to progress planning for delivery of the vaccine to those groups.

Vaccination will also be offered to NHS 24 staff who work closely with NHS boards to provide out-of-hours services in Scotland and who make a significant contribution to the management of the pandemic in Scotland. Currently, there are no plans to vaccinate other occupational groups on the basis of business continuity or resilience, although that will be kept under review. The emerging evidence on the severity of the virus will continue to be monitored closely over the coming months. We will review priorities for the vaccination of other population groups in light of further expert advice.

At this stage, we anticipate that licences for the vaccine will be granted by the European Medicines Agency in late September or early October. If that is the case, we anticipate being able to commence the vaccination programme in the middle of October. Estimates of vaccine deliveries from the manufacturers are subject to change, but the current assessment suggests that more than 54 million vaccine doses will be delivered to the UK by the end of December. From that, we estimate a potential delivery to Scotland of approximately 300,000 to 350,000 doses per week from the date when the vaccine is licensed.

A UK-wide communication campaign to support the programme is being developed. It will include both professional and public materials to support the delivery of the programme. It will also provide advice and information to those members of the public who are prioritised for vaccination to ensure that they are able to make an informed choice about the vaccine.

NHS boards are actively progressing their planning for the delivery of the vaccination programme. Over the past few months, we have been closely involved in discussions with the British Medical Association on payments to GPs for the administration of the vaccine. Those discussions continue, and I hope to be able to announce the outcome shortly. I am confident that the NHS in Scotland will be ready and able to deliver the programme as soon as licensed vaccine is available.

I turn briefly to the situation with our schools. Since schools returned for the new term in the week beginning 17 August, pupil and staff absence levels have been at or below normal levels. However, with local authorities, we have established a mechanism for monitoring rates of staff and pupil absence to give early warning of any increases in absence rates. Work is also continuing to ensure that suitable contingency plans are in place should there be a rise in swine flu cases over the autumn and winter. We have relaunched the national hand washing campaign, emphasising its importance in reducing the spread of infections. The response from schools has been very positive. It remains the case for everyone that regular hand washing and good respiratory hygiene are vital in helping to limit the spread of the virus.

It remains the case that we cannot predict accurately when the epidemic will peak, how many people will be absent from work or how many people will require hospital care. However, our preparations must ensure that we can respond to any scenario, including the worst case. Members will recall that reasonable worst case planning assumptions were published in July. Those assumptions have now been updated in line with our experience of the virus so far.

The updated planning assumptions, which are for the whole of the UK, are being published today and copies are available at the back of the chamber. First, they indicate that up to 30 per cent of the population might become ill with flu at some point over the course of the pandemic, which is unchanged from our earlier assumptions. Secondly, they indicate that up to 1 per cent of people who become ill with flu might require hospitalisation, which is down from the earlier assumption of 2 per cent. Thirdly, up to 0.1 per cent of people who become ill might die from the virus, which is also down from the earlier assumption of 0.35 per cent. Lastly, during the peak weeks, sickness absence rates might reach 12 per cent of the workforce.

I stress that those assumptions do not yet take account of the impact of our vaccination programme. Furthermore, they are not predictions; they are assumptions that allow us to plan for the worst while continuing to hope for the best. Although having lower estimates for hospitalised cases and fatalities is positive, the assumptions will be kept under review.

Contingency planning is being conducted across a number of public bodies and the business community. Understandably, much of the emphasis so far has been on health issues. Anticipating and preparing for the wider impacts of the pandemic is vital. That is why across Government we have been working closely with stakeholders and delivery partners, focusing on assessing the readiness of key sectors and their ability to maintain the delivery of core services. We are mindful, too, of the potential impact on economic recovery and on businesses large and small as they work to rebuild confidence.

Over the summer, officials met regularly the eight strategic co-ordinating groups, which bring together the key emergency responder agencies. That partnership is critical in tackling effectively what has proved so far to be a novel and at times fast-developing situation. We very much value the continued support of the SCGs as we move into the autumn and the work that has been done by local authorities, health boards and other key partners in helping to ensure Scotland's preparedness.

The potential threat from H1N1 remains. Even if it remains, for most, a relatively mild virus, its effects on the health service and on the wider economy could be highly disruptive. That is why we continue to press ahead with prudent preparations for responding to the virus and the impact of seasonal flu. I believe that we are in a very strong position to cope with the peak in cases that is expected over the autumn and winter, and we will continue to prepare in a way that neither exaggerates the threat nor encourages complacency. I will of course ensure that Parliament is kept updated as further developments take place.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The cabinet secretary will now take questions, for which we have almost exactly 20 minutes, before we move to the next item of business.

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

I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement and all the NHS staff and others in local authorities and elsewhere who have worked so hard on this issue at the front line. Although our thoughts are with the families who have been bereaved as a result of the H1N1 virus, I think that we are all relieved that the virus has so far not mutated or been as virulent as we might initially have feared.

I note what the cabinet secretary said about the negotiations that have taken place with GPs over the past months. However, given that the vaccination programme is now predicted to start within the next five to six weeks, we might reasonably have expected the cabinet secretary to be able to come to Parliament today to tell us that those negotiations had been successfully concluded. Will the cabinet secretary tell us why there has been a delay and whether there are any barriers to reaching agreement?

There is still concern that the second wave of H1N1 will coincide with the normal seasonal flu outbreak. What arrangements are being put in place to ensure that the two vaccination programmes are able to run simultaneously, making the best use of our resources?

Given the unfortunate return of delayed discharges, has the cabinet secretary taken any specific action to increase the number of available hospital beds to deal with an increase in admissions as a result of H1N1 in addition to the normal pressures from winter seasonal flu?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank Cathy Jamieson for her questions. She is right to express her thanks to NHS staff and staff in other agencies who have been working very hard. I am sure that we all join her in expressing condolences to the families of those who sadly have died from the virus.

I am sure that Cathy Jamieson will accept that I would very much have liked to come to Parliament today to announce the conclusion of the negotiations with the BMA. However, given her trade union background, she will know that such negotiations do not always happen in the timescale that we would like. She will appreciate that I cannot say much more about the detail of the negotiations today, because they are on-going, but I hope that they will conclude shortly, and as soon as they do I will make known to Parliament the conclusions and the detail of what has been agreed.

Health boards are planning the delivery of the vaccination campaign that I have made clear I hope will start in mid-October. Health boards have plans, including contingency plans, to ensure that whatever the outcome of negotiations with GPs, the vaccination campaign can be delivered. I will keep Parliament updated on that issue over the days and weeks ahead.

All expert advice is that the seasonal flu vaccination campaign can run in tandem with a pandemic flu vaccination campaign. Clearly, the communication campaign that we prepare will have to take account of the two vaccination campaigns and ensure that people are given the right advice about not only the importance of the H1N1 vaccine but the importance of the seasonal flu campaign. The fact that—certainly in the early stages—we are in the main, although not exclusively, dealing with the same groups of people should, I hope, make that easier.

Cathy Jamieson's final question was about delayed discharge. I have said all along that I am not going to conduct any of the discussions around swine flu in a party-political way, and I will stick to that today. This Government is determined to keep delayed discharge at the targets that we have set—which is zero delayed discharge. That is a challenge for health boards and local authorities, and we will continue to ensure that they work together to meet those targets. I simply point out that although the Minister for Public Health and Sport and I were disappointed that the latest figures showed 55 delayed discharges throughout Scotland, that was considerably better than the 627 delayed discharges that were the last figure under the previous Administration.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank Nicola Sturgeon for the updates over the recess and I acknowledge the excellent work of the NHS to date.

How will the cabinet secretary ensure that patients with pneumococcal meningitis, the symptoms of which are similar to those of swine flu, are not overlooked during this period, given that swine flu patients should stay at home and meningitis patients should get to hospital as quickly as possible?

Someone asked me this question, so I ask the cabinet secretary to forgive me for asking her it. I have been asked whether the thousands of patients in Scotland who have already had swine flu will still have to get the vaccine when it comes out in October.

Given the recent media coverage on people's fears about the safety of the vaccine, the BMA has reported that many health professionals are reluctant to be vaccinated. What advice would the health secretary give in that situation and will she give us an assurance about the safety of the vaccine?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank Mary Scanlon for those three questions.

I understand that the point about meningitis was raised at a meeting that many MSPs attended last night, so Mary Scanlon is right to raise it today. She is also right to point out that in the early stages of any infection, whether it is viral, such as flu, or bacterial, the symptoms, such as raised temperature or aches and pains, can be similar. That is why the consistent message that has been given to members of the public since the start of the H1N1 virus outbreak is that if they have any concern about flu-like symptoms, they should contact their GP or NHS 24. Both NHS 24 and GPs are well aware of the importance of being able to differentiate between those who may be seriously ill and those who can be given advice to self-care at home. All the systems and clinical algorithms to manage callers are designed to identify seriously ill patients and ensure that, if required, urgent medical attention is provided to them. Receiving staff and junior medical staff in hospitals have also been provided with clinical algorithms to ensure that patients who are seriously ill, or perhaps are even in life-threatening situations, can be identified and treated appropriately. The Scottish flu response centre, unlike the national pandemic flu service, is clinically supervised, which is an important point of reassurance.

I will be as brief as I can in answering Mary Scanlon's questions about the vaccine. Anybody who is in the priority groups for vaccination will be encouraged to have the vaccine. Given that we stopped laboratory testing for H1N1, there are some people who might think that they have had H1N1 but who might not in fact have had that particular strain of flu. The advice to anybody in the priority groups will be to go for vaccination.

On the safety of the vaccine, I assure Mary Scanlon and the Parliament that no vaccine will be used unless it is safe and no vaccine will be used unless it is licensed. Subject to satisfactory review of the data, we anticipate that the European Medicines Agency will grant a licence some time later this month or early next month. However, that is of course subject to the satisfactory review of the data. When we have a licensed vaccine, I will be encouraging all those who are in priority groups, and those in subsequent groups that are recommended to be vaccinated, to take the vaccine, because vaccines can and do save lives.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I, too, am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her continuous updating of members of Parliament on the situation. I join others in expressing our gratitude to NHS and other professionals who have effectively contained the disease.

First, I am grateful that in response to Cathy Jamieson's questions, the cabinet secretary clarified the issue of the two vaccination programmes, which is important. I regret that there appears to be some confusion about that, because of press reports on, for example, the way in which the virus reappeared in Australia, where it appeared to be replacing existing flu, which gave the impression that somehow people could take one vaccine and not the other. There is a need for communication. I seek further assurances on whether both programmes will be adequately publicised.

Secondly, I note that the cabinet secretary repeated the chief medical officer's clear advice that in Scotland, antivirals will be issued only following assessment. Members accept that, but it is disturbing that in its briefing, the BMA says that medical staff are suffering intimidation and threats of violence from members of the public who clearly have either not listened to, not heard or do not wish to understand that advice from the chief medical officer. Will the cabinet secretary advise what further steps might be taken to ensure that such intimidation is brought to an end?

Finally, the advice from down south is clear that one should not refer a young person to a GP unless they have a temperature of more than 38°C. I understand that one of NHS 24's early questions is about the person's temperature. Has the cabinet secretary given any further thought to whether, in order to avoid unnecessary communication, the issuance of thermometers should be part and parcel of efforts to control the way in which we use the NHS?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

On Ross Finnie's first point about the importance of clear and consistent communication, I could not agree more. None of us has complete control over what appears in the media, but we all have a responsibility and a duty to ensure that we do everything in our power to ensure that consistent messages are communicated, whether they are messages about the severity of or preparedness for the virus, or messages about vaccination programmes.

On antivirals, I unreservedly condemn any intimidation or threats of violence against any medical practitioner. Such behaviour will always be taken very seriously indeed. I stress that antivirals are available for anyone in the population who, in the clinical judgment of their GP, would benefit from them. The key difference between England, and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is that, at this stage, antivirals are not available without prescription in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is the right way to conduct the matter, which is why we have chosen to go down that route for as long as we can.

On Ross Finnie's final point, the importance of temperature for diagnosing flu is well known and important. We have clear and clinically robust algorithms for determining the correct advice to give to patients. In the spirit of working together and openness, I will consider any constructive suggestions, including Ross Finnie's about thermometers.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We come to open questions. We have pretty limited time, so I stress one question and one brief answer, please, if at all possible.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The cabinet secretary provided information on the number of reported cases over the summer, and said that the rates remained relatively low. In the past couple of weeks, schools throughout Scotland returned from their summer break. Does the cabinet secretary believe that that low rate is a matter for optimism or does she consider that it is too soon to assess potential change?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The number of cases throughout Scotland is relatively low compared with seasonal flu rates, although it is high for this time of year.

There is a great deal of discussion and speculation about the impact of flu on schools. There has been a slight increase in the flu rate since the schools returned, although, interestingly, it has not been as steep as it often is in August. We are monitoring the situation carefully. As I said in my statement, with local authorities we have put in place a mechanism for monitoring and reporting staff and pupil absences in schools in order to give us early warning of any increase in flu rates. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and I jointly relaunched the hand and respiratory hygiene campaign in schools, which is the most effective way in which schools can help to combat the virus.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is the cabinet secretary aware that, notwithstanding paragraph 27 of the pandemic flu guidance, two out of 14 health boards—Lothian and Grampian—do not even have lists of retirees, 11 out of 14 have not yet made any effort to contact retirees to assess their willingness or capacity to help, and almost all are waiting for national discussions on suitable training to be finalised? Is she satisfied with that level of complacency in our pandemic planning? Most boards seem to be waiting until things get bad enough to require them to take up the issue of trainees and to take any necessary action.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The Government could be accused of many things, but complacency in its pandemic flu planning is certainly not one of them. It is a matter of slight regret that Labour seems to be keen to break the helpful consensus that we have had so far as we have faced up to what is a considerable crisis.

Richard Simpson should be aware—although, judging by his questions, he obviously is not—that guidance for NHS Scotland boards on pandemic flu and workforce issues was published in August 2009. It provides advice on preparing for and dealing with the workforce implications of pandemic flu. A national co-ordinating group has been set up to deliver an action plan for education and training to support the NHS during a pandemic. The group is chaired by the chief executive of NHS Education for Scotland, Malcolm Wright, and is due to produce its action plan by the beginning of November. I have always responded constructively to Richard Simpson's comments about retirees, and I will do so again. Further, I will raise his points with NHS boards, which I am sure will respond to him.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Scotland has not taken part in the national pandemic flu service, or the helpline, as it is called. However, the minister stated that she retained the option to join if necessary. Will she develop that point? For example, is she concerned that there is sufficient capacity for Scotland to join, given the overload that occurred at the UK launch?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The reasons why we have chosen not to go into the national pandemic flu service at the moment are twofold, but they are connected. First, we do not require to join because our existing systems—NHS 24, with the addition of the Scottish flu response centre and our GPs—are responding very well to the demand that they face. I have always taken the view that as long as the existing systems can respond, it is right that we allow patients to access the NHS by traditional and familiar routes rather than by new routes. Secondly, it is important that clinical supervision is at the heart of our response to flu. For as long as possible, we should ensure that Tamiflu or other antivirals are available only on prescription. If we were part of the national pandemic flu service, we would not be able to ensure that. Therefore, if we can avoid joining we will do so, but we retain the option to join, and we will keep the situation under constant review.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I want to ask the cabinet secretary about the on-going work on contingency plans for schools. Will the plans include guidance on school closures and the information that should be made available to parents? When will they be ready?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

We are in regular discussion with local authorities and, through them, with schools. Very full information was distributed to schools at the start of the school term. We will keep that under review as the situation develops.

Since we have moved from the containment to the treatment phase, it is less likely in future that schools will close in order to try to limit spread, because the advice is that that is less effective as we get further into the pandemic than it is in the early stages. It is always possible, of course, that because of high levels of pupil or staff absences it may be necessary to close schools. Obviously, decisions will be taken locally, with full input from public health officials, in order to ensure that those decisions are based on the right factors. We will keep the situation with schools under close review. Our decision to reopen schools, as planned, in August is entirely in line with the decisions that other countries, in the UK and elsewhere in the world, have taken.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

In the next few weeks, thousands of young people will travel to Scotland from all over the world to attend Scotland's colleges and universities. Is any advice being given to them on the importance of registering with a GP, and on not confusing the symptoms of H1N1 with what might be described as a heady student lifestyle?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Jackson Carlaw clearly has more experience of that than I have.

The short answer to his question is yes. There is discussion with colleges and universities on guidance, which will include the advice that students are encouraged to register with a GP wherever they go to college or university.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The cabinet secretary mentioned the deaths that might occur in any pandemic. What steps have been taken to advise at-risk members of the public that they are in a particularly vulnerable group? What steps will be taken to give them assurances, given some of the concerns that have been expressed about the safety of the vaccine?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I dealt with some of that in my statement. Hugh Henry is right to indicate the relatively small number of people who unfortunately might die, as in any flu outbreak. The planning assumptions that are being published today—although they are not predictions—lower the estimate of likely deaths during the pandemic. That is positive, although we must remain vigilant.

The communication campaign for the vaccine, which is being worked on at the moment, will very much focus on the priority groups, as they are the early groups for vaccination. I assure Hugh Henry that steps will be taken not just to advise the priority groups of the importance of vaccination but to deal with any concerns about vaccine safety.

Scottish Government's Programme

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is a statement by Alex Salmond on the Scottish Government's programme. The First Minister's statement will be followed immediately by a debate. There should therefore be no interventions or interruptions during the statement, which may last up to 30 minutes.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

It is with great pride that, for the third time, I deliver the annual statement on the Scottish Government's legislative programme, as we all strive for a more successful Scotland.

Since taking office in 2007 we have sought to govern with pace, with energy and, at all times, in the interests of the people of Scotland. We have made great strides, even since this time last year. Let me offer the Parliament a few of the highlights. As people will remember, we promised an extra 1,000 police officers in our communities. In June we passed that milestone, with an increase of 1,044 since March 2007 and a record high of 17,278 police officers in Scotland. [Applause.] I can see the note of approval from Iain Gray, and I can understand why that is: exactly a year ago, he forecast that it would take 13 years for the Scottish National Party to make good that commitment. We seem to have achieved it 12 years early. I know that that is approved of by the entire Parliament.

In the current year, we are helping 1,500 households to get on to the housing ladder, through our £60 million shared equity scheme. The Parliament as a whole put Scotland at the forefront of efforts to tackle climate change through the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. We are making good our commitments to the Scottish people. Even since the Parliament last met, the Government has announced further support for apprenticeships and has unveiled Scotland's first ever zero waste plan. Just this week, with the co-operation and full endorsement of Glasgow City Council, we set out the planned investment of £23.5 million for the Commonwealth games legacy plan.

The world has changed substantially since 2007. Many of our citizens are feeling the impact of global recession. That impact will be intensified by the cuts that are being imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Scotland's budget. At the very moment when nations the world over are maximising their investment in infrastructure, and when a significant and meaningful stimulus package is still needed, the chancellor intends to cut the Scottish budget.

Before the recess, we debated what the precise value of the cuts would be, and I can tell the Parliament that we now know the exact extent of the chancellor's cuts. The Government kept saying that the forecast suggested that there would be £500 million of cuts. Some members of the Opposition earnestly told us that that would not be the case. I freely concede that it is not actually £500 million of cuts—the exact estimate is £496.7 million of cuts. We now know exactly what is forecast, as is established in the next year's budget. The circumstances in which we will operate this coming year will be trying, but they in no way diminish our determination or ambition for Scotland.

This Government's purpose has always been to focus Government and public services on creating a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish through increasing sustainable economic growth. That remains our focus. More than ever, now is the time to make use of the talents of our people and the many natural advantages that this country has; together, to seize every single opportunity that comes our way; and to innovate and find constructive solutions to the challenges that we face. Together, Scotland has what it takes to recover and once again to prosper.

Over the past year the Government has implemented an economic recovery plan, which has been designed to support 15,000 jobs. We have outlined a £35 billion infrastructure investment programme over the next decade, with £3.8 billion being spent this year on transport projects, schools and hospitals. We will complete more schools, on average, every week than the previous Administration did, taking the rate from 0.8 schools per week during the eight years of the previous Government to an anticipated 1.2 schools per week over this four-year session. [Applause.] Once again, I see enthusiasm from the Labour benches for more facts and chiels that winna ding in this homecoming year.

We are accelerating £350 million of capital spending, supporting jobs and projects across Scotland. However, with the economy still facing challenges in the year ahead, it is clear to this Administration that the United Kingdom Government should also bring forward capital spending into next year.

The wellbeing of our communities is key, so we have acted to put more money into the pockets and purses of Scottish families. The council tax has now been frozen for two years, tolls have been removed from the Forth and Tay road bridges, tens of thousands more schoolchildren are receiving free school meals and prescription charges are well on the way to being abolished. In April, the small business bonus scheme was expanded, saving the average small business £1,400 each year and every year.

Across Scotland, we are taking the decisive action that is required to support our economy as we lay the foundations for future economic prosperity. In life sciences, engineering and construction, we are supporting new apprenticeships to ensure that our nation has the right skills for the future. In the field of renewable energy, where there is perhaps the greatest opportunity, we are also acting with determination. Just a few months ago, I had the privilege of performing the switch-on of Europe's largest onshore wind farm, at Whitelee in East Renfrewshire. We have launched the saltire prize, the world's largest prize for innovation in marine renewable energy. We have recently opened the Scottish European green energy centre in Aberdeen, to ensure that our nation is at the forefront of European green energy research.

The potential of renewable energy in Scotland is legion, and enough capacity exists across the North Sea to store our industrial carbon emissions for the next two centuries, if that technology can be developed. That is hugely significant as we strive to meet the targets that are laid out in Scotland's world-leading Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. It is hugely significant for Scotland's economy, and it can potentially support thousands of new jobs.

We won the natural lottery once, when we discovered North Sea oil. We have won it again with green energy. I am determined that, this time, the winnings will not be squandered. [Applause.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I ask for that to be the last such interruption—I asked for there to be no interruptions, and I ask for that now to be respected.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I will do my best not to stimulate more interruptions, Presiding Officer.

The Scottish Government will work hard to ensure Scotland's future as a world leader in green energy technology and green energy production. That is why we shall continue to make the case for Scotland to have the full economic and legislative levers that we need to maximise our success in that and other fields. Indeed, jobs, education and investment in the industries of the future are the issues that have arisen in the national conversation events during the summer in Dundee, Melrose, Stornoway, Aberdeen and Glasgow. There is a strong appetite in Scotland to engage in debate about the future of our country.

I have no doubt, and this Administration has no doubt, that independence offers the best opportunity for Scottish success. I have no doubt that independence is the key if we are to take our nation to the next level of achievement. I acknowledge, of course, that there are different visions for Scotland. However, what is clear is that there is agreement that things need to change further.

That is why the people have been so engaged with the national conversation. More than 40 events have taken place the length and breadth of the country, with more than 4,500 people taking part—much beyond the scope of the imagination of the Liberal Democrat party—alongside the tens of thousands who have been involved in the national conversation online. That is a substantial degree of participation in a debate about the country's future.

We have just heard a statement on the threat from the H1N1 influenza virus. Alongside the challenges posed by the economic downturn, the threat from the virus has been and remains a key focus of Government actions, as was indicated in the statement. Thanks to the efforts of medical professionals, contingency planners and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing—who made the full statement this morning—Scotland is responding quickly and effectively to the threat. However, the threat remains real, and work will continue to mitigate its impact as far as possible.

Economic recovery is central to our programme for the coming year. We are determined to support jobs and the communities that depend on them throughout Scotland in these tough economic times. One of the keys to the future economic success of our country is the replacement Forth crossing. We will introduce a Forth crossing bill to enable the construction of a new bridge to the west of the existing Forth road bridge. The current bridge, as we know, is showing signs of serious deterioration. If we do not act, there is a risk that restrictions on freight traffic would have to be introduced in the relatively near future.

The bridge is hugely important to the Scottish economy. It will be the biggest single infrastructure investment that Scotland will ever commission. It would make great sense if, as a nation, we could borrow to spread the cost of building that gigantic infrastructure over several years. However, of course, under our current powers that is not an option. Without an alternative crossing, economic output could fall by around £1 billion and we could see the loss of around 3,200 jobs in Scotland. That should be all that is required to concentrate minds here and elsewhere on the need for this Parliament to have effective borrowing powers. I note that even the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution understood the nonsense of having to account for capital spending in the current spending term.

We shall also introduce a legal services bill. The legal profession is a strong contributor to the Scottish economy, with an estimated turnover of more than £1 billion per annum. The bill will remove outdated restrictions on the legal profession's business models, while protecting its core values. It will encourage greater competition and allow our leading law firms to compete effectively not just with English companies but internationally.

However, it is not just Scottish industry and businesses that we want to assist. We shall introduce a range of legislation to support individuals and families who are encountering financial difficulties.

Social housing provides a secure and sustainable alternative to home ownership for 600,000 households throughout Scotland. We will introduce a housing bill to safeguard that housing for future generations. The bill will end the right to buy for all new-supply social housing. There will be plenty of such stock coming on stream, because we are putting record investment into social housing: £1.5 billion over the next three years. That includes £644 million this year in our affordable housing investment programme.

Approvals have already been made to allow work to start this financial year on 1,343 council houses, supported by the first tranche of £50 million—the first central Government funding to encourage local authorities to build new housing in 30 years. That compares with just six council houses built during the four years of the previous Administration—if I remember correctly, all six were in the Shetland Islands. The £50 million will support more than 3,000 jobs across Scotland. The bill will also modernise regulation to improve value for tenants and taxpayers.

We will introduce a debt and family homes bill as well. It is important to strike the right balance between the interests of debtors and the interests of creditors. Those who lend money under reasonable terms expect to be repaid, and those who provide services expect to be paid. However, we must ensure that people who become bankrupt are not made homeless unnecessarily. Subject to the outcome of a thorough review and, of course, the detailed consultation, the bill will realise our commitment to exempt the main dwelling house from land attachment.

A debtor protection bill will increase protection for people who are facing repossession or bankruptcy. It will require lenders to demonstrate that they have considered reasonable alternatives to repossession. It will build on our existing actions to support home owners and it will extend protection for family homes. It will improve access to debt relief, so that all debtors can have access to bankruptcy for unmanageable debts.

This year we will introduce a budget bill, with the goal of ensuring sustainable economic growth. This is a Parliament of minorities, as we all know, and in difficult circumstances—extremely difficult circumstances in the budget—there will be hard choices to be made. We will, as ever, look to work constructively across the chamber to secure a budget in Scotland's best interests.

During the past 10 years there have been a number of occasions on which this Parliament has led the way with groundbreaking new approaches in health and social legislation. In particular, we have made great strides in getting to grips with the health challenges that face our country. However, challenges remain. Alcohol misuse costs Scotland an estimated £2.25 billion per year in extra services and lost productivity—£500 for every adult, or nearly one tenth of Scotland's annual budget. Up to 50 per cent of men and 30 per cent of women regularly drink more than is advised in the sensible drinking guidelines. Alcohol-related mortality rates have doubled during the past 15 years.

Enough is enough. We will introduce a bill to tackle alcohol misuse. The bill will introduce innovative measures to reduce alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm. Our proposals will be firmly based on international best practice and evidence, such as that from the World Health Organization. That is why the cornerstone of the approach will be the introduction of a minimum pricing policy for alcohol.

Minimum pricing will be only one of a range of measures to tackle alcohol misuse. What is required is real, lasting, social and cultural change. We welcome the support that we have received for the proposals. There is agreement across the chamber that Scotland's relationship with alcohol requires to be rebalanced. However, we acknowledge that we need to work with others to build a consensus on the best way to move ahead. We look forward to further constructive discussion with stakeholders and with people from all parties in the Parliament.

We will fulfil another commitment with the introduction of the patients' rights bill, which will reinforce patients' place at the centre of the national health service in Scotland. A key part of the bill will be a waiting time guarantee for in-patients and day cases. That means that around 600,000 patients will have a waiting time guarantee for the first time.

There are a number of existing patients' rights and entitlements, but they are not always widely understood or exercised by patients. The patients' rights bill will aim to give clarity and openness and will create a clear framework, so that patients know what their rights and, indeed, their responsibilities are.

A children's hearings bill will be introduced. We are committed to maintaining and supporting children's panels that are made up of local people, who are best placed to take decisions for children in their community. I know that there are strong views on the subject. We want what is best for our nation's children and we will listen to those views. The reforms in the bill will ensure that the children's hearings system continues to be the best way of providing support and assistance to our most vulnerable children and families in Scotland. It will introduce support for panel members, to drive up standards throughout Scotland and to improve children's rights.

We will introduce legislation to protect our unique environment and our heritage. The wildlife and natural environment bill will ensure that efficient, effective and proportionate legislation supports sustainable economic activity and the high quality of our natural environment. It will include changes to the legislation that underpins deer management, game law, species licensing and the control of invasive non-native species, snaring and muirburn—the controlled burning of moors.

Scotland's natural environment is, of course, important in itself but it is also important in economic terms. Indeed, it is worth an estimated £17 billion to the Scottish economy. Therefore, it is vital that we do all that we can to protect and enhance it and to ensure that our legislation on wildlife and the natural environment is capable of delivering on that shared ambition.

The historic environment (amendment) bill will enhance the ability of the regulatory and planning authorities to manage our historic environment for the benefit of future generations. The bill will address a series of gaps and weaknesses in the current heritage protection framework but will place no new burdens or duties on local or central Government, owners of assets, businesses or members of the public.

Members know that the Government is committed to ensuring the future prosperity of our rural communities in Scotland. That is why we are investing no less than £1.6 billion in the rural development programme of economic, environmental and social measures over the next six years. It is also why we are investing in the groundbreaking road equivalent tariff, which has seen a spectacular increase in passenger and car numbers on the pilot routes to the Western Isles. That is a real boost to our island communities. [Interruption.] I am glad to see Ted Brocklebank's enthusiastic support for the initiative.

That commitment is also the reason why we will introduce a crofting reform bill. Declining levels of activity, absenteeism and neglect are continuing problems for crofters, and there is broad consensus that action needs to be taken to safeguard the future of their way of life. The bill will represent an opportunity to take that much-needed action. We will work with colleagues across the parties and other stakeholders to ensure that the best possible outcome is reached—that crofting remains a part of the heritage of the Highlands and Islands and a model for sustainable communities in the 21st century. We will listen, but we must act together as a Parliament.

It is ironic that the Parliament places such importance on the protection of our environment but has comparatively little say in the development of a great deal of environmental legislation. Much of the environmental legislation under which we work is led by the European Union, as are many of the policies on issues of vital national interest, such as fisheries. Responsibility for the environment may be devolved, but Scotland does not have a seat at the top table in Brussels where the key decisions are made. At present, it does not have a single vote to cast directly. When push comes to shove, land-locked Luxembourg has a greater say on the common fisheries policy than the nation of Scotland, which currently has the richest fishing grounds in the European Community.

That is a clear deficit. It is a democratic deficit and one that threatens our economic prospects. That is why I and the Government believe that only as an independent member state of the European Union will Scotland be properly represented in decision making on those and other crucial issues.

That is only one of the reasons why the Government will introduce a referendum bill in 2010. As I have noted, there is a consensus for change. The Calman commission has proposed areas for further devolution of responsibility to the Scots Parliament. We welcome those. I know of no disagreement on matters such as air-guns and speed limits. Those responsibilities can be transferred easily and simply. Let us do that now. We have already published the necessary draft orders. Those responsibilities can all be transferred with no primary legislation.

However, I recognise that there are different opinions on what other key responsibilities this Parliament should have. I know what I think is the right future for Scotland: I want it to have the same responsibilities and opportunities as similar nations. It follows that, until we can use all the economic and financial levers that are available to every other Government in the world, Scotland will always be at a competitive disadvantage.

The Scottish Parliament has led the way on banning smoking in public places, on free personal care and, recently, on climate change legislation. It is right that, collectively, we should be proud of that but we should also recognise that it has been achieved within the confines of limited devolution.

With independence, the only limitation on what we can achieve would be our own creativity, determination and sense of principle. In my estimation, Scots should never be accused of lacking in any of those qualities, but Scotland needs to have the full powers of an independent nation if it is to flourish. We need those powers so that we can exploit our massive renewable energy potential; so that we will be better placed to respond to global challenges; so that we can set our tax regime to suit Scotland and encourage the growth of Scotland-based business; so that we can ensure that our fishermen, farmers and—on social legislation—working people in Scotland are properly represented in Brussels; so that our social security system can meet the needs of the people of Scotland; and so that we can attract talented people to live and work here and to contribute to Scottish life.

I am very proud of Scotland and what it has achieved. I am very proud to lead the Government in the Scottish Parliament, but a glass ceiling threatens Scotland's progress. For as long as limits are set on what we can do and what we can achieve, we will never achieve our full potential.

The Government was elected with a popular mandate to put the question of Scotland's future to the vote in a referendum.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Indeed, over the years, the list of those who have supported a referendum that includes independence as an option is, if not wholly distinguished, certainly long. Only last month, Michael Forsyth—the man who encouraged us all to vote against the creation of a Scottish Parliament—was heard calling for a referendum on independence; only last year, Tavish Scott told us that he is

"not intuitively against making sure that people have a choice and opportunity to vote on these things";

and we all know what Wendy Alexander thought when she was leader of the Labour Party.

None of those people was breaking new ground: Donald Dewar and John Smith both campaigned for a multi-option referendum. Even Gordon Brown called for a "persistent, determined and concerted" campaign for a multi-option referendum on Scotland's future.

It is time for the people of Scotland to have their say. Not everyone will agree with our vision for the future—we know that—but the people of Scotland must be heard. The Parliament should not stand in their way. Let the people speak.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

What a cheek.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. There is a whole debate to come. We can all make the points later that members apparently wish to make now.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is the debate on the Scottish Government's programme.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

It is traditional to begin this response with some amusing words of welcome back from recess, but I fear that circumstances have rather undermined the new-term feeling and I suspect that most of us feel like we have never really been away.

Indeed, that sense of one parliamentary term blurring into another might be compounded by the fact that, when we examine the programme for government that the First Minister announced last year, we find that only five of the 15 bills that were announced were taken through the Parliament in that year. Seven of them are still with us and a couple of them have reappeared in this year's programme. Those include the children's hearings bill, which is so incompetent that it has been delayed already—before its announcement in the programme. That must be some kind of record.

Looking back, last year's flagship bill was, of course, the council tax abolition bill. It was trailed extensively and with the usual bravado and bluster, but—alas—it was a flagship that was already holed below the waterline. A few weeks later it sank without trace, to the relief of business, trade unions and the families who had faced a 25 per cent hike in their income tax bills. Now that was action to support Scotland's economy. The truth is that this Government's record of delivery on its programmes is poor indeed. It famously brings forward little substantial legislation, and much of that is then delayed, botched or just plain dropped. Therefore, we should take this programme with a large pinch of salt.

This year's flagship bill—the referendum bill—was also pre-announced last year. It starts with even less support than the late, unlamented council tax abolition bill had last year. The First Minister's coy hints about multi-options are just game playing, when he should be governing. The test of a Government programme must surely be the extent to which it addresses the crucial matters that face our country. We are in the middle of a recession, so the measure of this year's programme should be how it protects and creates jobs, helps Scots through the economic downturn and prepares us to move ahead when the upturn comes. As lain McMillan of the Confederation of British Industry said earlier this week:

"The overriding challenge to our politicians is simple—test all policies against a single benchmark: will it make Scotland a better place to create jobs and wealth as the economic recovery takes hold?"

We should all take that test seriously. The Scottish National Party should take it seriously, but nowhere more so than in the showpiece of this programme for government: the referendum bill. If ever a piece of legislation failed to reach that benchmark, it is that bill.

This is about priorities. What good is the referendum bill to the men and women across Scotland who have lost their jobs or live in fear of losing their jobs? What help is it to those who are worried about losing their home? What use is it to the young men and women who fear that they will have no future if they cannot get the apprenticeship or training place that they so badly need?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am grateful to Mr Gray for giving way. He mentioned the fact that every initiative should be tested against the measure of whether it contributes to economic growth and economic recovery. Does he therefore consider the Chancellor of the Exchequer's forthcoming public spending application of £521 million of cuts to the Scottish budget the right thing to do at a time when we need economic recovery?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The action that the chancellor took over the past year to save and preserve our financial services system, including the two biggest banks in Scotland, is the only thing that has given us the opportunity to move forward. We have benefited from it and are part of it, and we should use that to move forward. I will say more about that.

As the banking crisis deepened last year, Alex Salmond's analysis and pronouncements became ever more eccentric. From, "Don't panic, our banks are sound," and, "Spivs and speculators did it," to the bizarre claim that the First Minister would extend £100 billion of credit in an independent Scotland—overblown, ill-informed and just plain wrong.

It was indeed Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling who took firm and decisive action to reflate the banks and prevent the collapse of our financial system. That action is working. Moreover, it took Labour, on these Opposition benches, to come up with an action plan for how devolution could be used to help Scottish families weather the worst of the global economic storm: fast-tracking capital expenditure; giving more help for home owners facing repossession; restarting public-private partnerships to remove the blockage in public building that was caused by the Scottish Futures Trust; ditching the local income tax; and restoring adult apprenticeship numbers. Those are just five of the 15 practical suggestions that we made while the SNP stood frozen in the glare of the crisis. That is the core of the economic recovery programme that the First Minister has just boasted about. I am glad that he has implemented it. If he had thought of it, that might have been something to boast about.

There is worse, because at every turn the SNP Government has undermined its own economic recovery plans. Yes, it accelerated housing budgets, but it changed, changed again and changed back housing association grant arrangements, so that months went by and housing associations could not build. Accelerated capital investment is a good thing, but the Government then lost another year of school and hospital building in trying to make its Scottish Futures Trust work. In two years, the Government lost £2 billion of public sector infrastructure from the PPP pipeline and tore 20,000 jobs out of the construction industry.

The problem is not just in construction, however. Last week, I visited the Borders, the centre of Scotland's textile industry, which employs 17,000 Scots and is worth £1 billion to the economy—and it is paying people off. David Breckenridge, the chair of the Scottish Textile Industry Association, has declared himself staggered at ministers' inability to grasp what is happening and what is needed. Referring to Scottish ministers, he said that

"ministers dissemble and refer to an 'economic recovery programme' which is bereft of tangible support for businesses."

The First Minister should not have been telling us today what he has done; he should have been announcing new measures on the economy—for example, wage and training subsidies such as those that are already in place in Wales, top-ups for firms that take on new employees, or support for companies that use short-time working to keep staff on through the hard times rather than paying them off.

Last week, I also visited Borders College's excellent new campus in Galashiels, where I was told that two thirds of last year's first-year apprentices will not be coming back, because they have been laid off. The First Minister promised that that would not happen. Action should have been announced today to begin to make good the promise made to redundant apprentices that they can complete their training. The adopt an apprentice scheme is just not working.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am glad that Iain Gray went to Borders College, which I opened a few months ago. Of course, he seems to have missed the succession of announcements on new apprenticeships that were made across the summer. I have a very specific question for him.

Does he agree with the Government's analysis that accelerating capital spending into this year was a good thing? Should the same exercise be repeated next year so that there is no downturn in vital capital expenditure—yes or no?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Accelerating capital investment this year was a good thing, of course—we suggested it. However, the First Minister must first demonstrate that he can turn that money into schools and hospitals; then he can talk about bringing forward further capital investment. I am delighted that the First Minister opened the campus at Galashiels, because it was a Labour-led Administration that gave the college £30 million to build it. That is capital investment doing what it is supposed to do.

There are examples of what can be done, and Falkirk Council is showing the way. Its insistence on providing training places for young people with no other prospects, both in a proportion of its own vacancies and in contracts that it lets, is working. It has put 300 youngsters on the path to a future. The Government should be telling us how it will roll that out across councils and across the public sector.

Of course, action on the economy does not always require legislation, except when we come to the opportunities presented by the budget bill. Last year, the Government needed two attempts at a budget bill, exactly because it would not agree to measures to support the economy quickly enough. However, in the end, the bill included 8,000 more apprenticeships, £50 million funding for those who lose or face losing their jobs and £60 million for our town centres. We showed last year that we are willing to work towards a budget that serves Scotland's needs. I only hope that, this year, ministers will do that first time round, in good time and in good faith. They should have started today by giving priority to new plans on the economy and jobs.

People who face repossession have real fears. Almost three months ago, the First Minister conceded that, yes, Scottish families have less protection from repossession than those south of the border. I offered to bring Labour MSPs back to Parliament over the recess to support the Government and to get the legislation passed as quickly as possible, but that offer was declined. Every day that passes puts more Scottish families at risk and under pressure. When will the debtor protection bill actually become law, not just warm and weaselly words of comfort?

Like the First Minister, I spent the summer out and about across Scotland—although I travel a bit lighter and certainly more cheaply. In many towns, I joined knife crime campaigners to collect signatures for our petition. I was taken aback by what I found. Outside one supermarket in Glasgow, the first three people I stopped all had close family members who had been knife crime victims. The next day in Greenock, the first person I met was the mother of a young man who was murdered a year ago this month. The second was a football team-mate of Damien Muir, who was stabbed by an assailant on bail for a previous knife attack. The programme for government should include action on knife crime, including the introduction of minimum sentences to send the message that anyone who carries a knife will go to jail. That would make Scotland safer.

Also during the summer, we had the report on the tragic death of Brandon Muir. I have said that even that tragedy is transcended by that of the 20,000 children who live with drug-dependent parents and the perhaps 100,000 children who live with alcohol-dependent parents. We do not how many children are living the way that Brandon Muir lived. I want us to re-examine the circumstances in which we remove children from harm. I accept that the Government and local authorities are trying to fix the system where there are not enough social workers or procedures are failing, but we also need to change the system. Barnardo's, Professor Neil McKeganey and many Scots agree with me. The programme for government should include action now on that issue.

Of course, we will be able to support some of the bills in the programme for government. Colleagues will talk more about those in the course of the debate. On bills such as the budget bill and the alcohol bill, we are willing to look for consensus if the Government is willing seriously to seek it. However, our priorities every day will be: jobs and the economy; crime and support for the victims of crime; and a refusal to accept that children should be at danger in their home in a modern Scotland. Those should be the Government's priorities every day as well.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Today we have had not so much a programme for government bound together by a common theme as a rambling list of 13 bills, which range from the feeble to the fantasy. Not for the first time has that happened under this First Minister.

Last year, Alex Salmond said that Scotland would judge harshly any MSP who voted to retain the council tax. We did not even get the chance. The First Minister blinked and threw in the towel. In the face of strong opposition from organisations all over Scotland, he abandoned his discredited local income tax before the bill was even published. It went from being the SNP's flagship to an abandoned pedalo in the blink of an eye.

I warn Alex Salmond that, far from it being the Opposition parties who will be judged harshly on the council tax, he and his SNP Government are the ones who will be judged harshly for breaking yet another promise. This Salmond Government simply cannot be trusted. It has a list of broken promises as large as Mr Salmond's ego—yes, we are talking magnitude here. In 2007, he conned the voters into voting for him, but he should be very wary of trying to pull that stunt again.

Whereas last year the First Minister's legislative obsession was local income tax, this year his new legislative obsession is separation. That will go the same way as last year's obsession—absolutely nowhere. Last year, the vast majority of Scots were against his discredited local income tax. That was why he was forced to abandon a vote on the issue. This year, the vast majority of Scots are against separation. By his own logic, Alex Salmond should abandon that bill too. He knows full well that, just like his discredited local income tax, separation will be rejected by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people. Whatever else Scotland needs, we do not need Alex Salmond's referendum.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I want to make progress.

Scotland needs a Government that is prepared to face up to the big challenges and a First Minister who is prepared to take the tough decisions. We need a Government that is focused on economic recovery, not constitutional vandalism. We need a Government that is focused on reforming our public sector, not wrecking our political partnership. We need a Government that is focused on restoring Scotland's battered international reputation.

On the constitution, Alex Salmond is on the extremes of Scottish politics. Let me take something right on the chin: the Conservatives were on the extremes of the constitutional debate in the 1990s, when we opposed a Scottish Parliament. We are now well and truly back in the main stream once again. We are the party that understands devolution. We know that there needs to be a basis of mutual respect between Governments and Parliaments—something that the SNP and Labour do not understand. Alex Salmond is a lone voice representing a minority view, but his obsession with independence is harmful to the best interests of the people of Scotland.

My final point on this unnecessary and opportunistic piece of legislation is that Mr Salmond knows that he has no chance of getting the referendum bill through. As a result, he wants to fiddle it to tempt the Liberal Democrats to join his team. He thinks that, by offering more powers as an option, he will split the unionist vote and come steaming through the middle to take his independence prize. My message to Mr Salmond is that he should stop the smoke and mirrors and just ditch the bill.

I turn to the real challenges. For some time now, I have been warning about the consequences of what Labour has done to this country through record levels of borrowing that will saddle future generations with massive debts. I have challenged the First Minister on how he will respond to Labour's £500 million budget squeeze. Where will he take the tough decisions? What will he cut? I have yet to get an answer to that from the First Minister. In fact, we have had a silence that Gordon Brown would be proud of.

Gordon Brown's Government may well be in its death-throes, but Labour's debt—and the harsh impact that paying it back will have on devolved spending—will be with us for years. Tackling Labour's debt while protecting the public services that we all value will be the Scottish Government's main responsibility this year and next. It will also be the main responsibility of whoever is in government from 2011.

Only this morning economists from the University of Glasgow said that, because of Labour's recession, Scotland's budget will be cut by £2.5 billion over the next four years. If this Salmond Government, rather than deal with that situation, chooses simply to ignore it or to make political capital out of it, Scotland will be in big trouble. Being First Minister is about more than just turning up to open everything in sight and pressing for independence. The First Minister has a job to do. From the evidence of his legislative programme, he is ducking that responsibility. Although Labour has created this mess, we must all play our part in getting out of it. That requires leadership from the Government, not parochial party posturing.

Where in the First Minister's statement are the signs of a Government that is willing to take the tough decisions that we need to reform public services to make them sustainable and affordable while we repay Labour's mountain of debt? Where are the plans for real public sector reform? We heard no serious announcements on reform today. That will make it all the more difficult to improve our public services in the future.

Where was the announcement about the reform of Scottish Water? The organisation does not need to sit in the public sector, where it consumes almost £200 million of public funds every year. The Scottish Conservatives would take Scottish Water out of state control. Will the First Minister support us?

Alex Salmond had a choice to make in framing his legislative programme and, typically, he ducked it. He chose posturing rather than public service reform. That is not good enough, because Scotland is facing unprecedented challenges.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will the member give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I will first continue this point.

Alex Salmond said that

"a glass ceiling threatens Scotland's progress."

What utter rubbish. Having a self-indulgent leader who is unable to take tough decisions is what threatens Scotland's progress.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

On public service reform, Ms Goldie's only proposal was for the privatisation of Scottish Water. In the interests of open debate and consensus, will she share some other ideas with Parliament about what else she would do to reform public services?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am just coming to an example of a glaring problem to which we must attend, the scope of which is absolutely devastating. Every week nearly 500 people go bankrupt, and every minute of every hour of every working day someone in Scotland loses their job.

I give one public service—education—as an example. Education in Scotland was once the envy of the world, and it can be so again, but where in the First Minister's statement are the measures that will allow that to happen? Where are the proposals to tackle the 1 million teaching days that are lost to truancy each year in Scotland or the increasing number of attacks on teachers in school? Where are the measures that focus on discipline and rigorous testing of the basics, and which allow parents a greater say in their children's education?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member should begin to wind up.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Why is the future of 680,000 children less important to this Government than a dodgy referendum? Education is calling out for public sector reform. My party is prepared to look at that and to explain our thinking.

We need leadership, not showmanship. It is not credible for the First Minister in one breath to call for blanket minimum pricing on alcohol and in the next to argue against job losses in the Scottish whisky industry. My party is proud of the achievements that we have made possible in this Parliament. Without us, there would not have been the increase in the number of police officers of which Mr Salmond boasts. My party is proud of the contribution that it has made to helping small businesses, which, without our intervention, would have been paying more rates in the midst of Labour's recession.

I have one conclusion. Recent events have confirmed that Alex Salmond did not step up to the mark on the international stage. Today, he has failed to step up to the mark on the domestic stage.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Amid the hustle and bustle of politics over the past few weeks, it is worth pausing to consider how events and memories come together. In his widely acclaimed eulogy to his fallen brother, Robert, in New York in 1968, the late Ted Kennedy said:

"My brother need not be idealised, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it."

Today is the 70th anniversary of Britain going to war in Europe; 70 years on, our troops are still at war. Two brave Scottish soldiers lost their lives this week in Afghanistan; another did so today. In the most extraordinary week of the past 10 years, perhaps we should take some time to reflect on a war that continues and the Scots who are involved in it.

I am grateful to the First Minister for advance sight of his statement, but I hope that after the past fortnight, the parliamentary authorities and the Parliamentary Bureau will discover some backbone in handling this Government's approach to Parliament. I cannot say that I am holding my breath.

The First Minister's statement to Parliament used to be a significant event. That is no longer the case. It is not even called a statement on the legislative programme. To describe it as such would be a challenge even for the highly talented SNP spin machine. This Government no longer stands for change—it is all desk management now. On the crucial challenges of our day—the need to tackle recession, to deal with a budget crisis and to promote reform of the public sector—the Government is stalled. Despite its bold rhetoric of this time last year, this Government lacks the commitment and desire to see through major reforms.

On reform of the children's hearings system, it is back to the drawing board. The Government lost a statutory instrument in committee this week because ministers did not tell MSPs that there were live proceedings in the Court of Session. That is not very competent.

I suspect that reform of crofting will never see the committee corridor. This week, the minister responsible lectured the crofting counties. I can tell Parliament that that went down like a lead balloon.

If the Government wants to work with people, it needs a new phrase book.

Public service reform is bogged down, as the number of people who work in Mr Salmond's quangos reaches an all-time high. How the SNP made fun of previous bonfires of public sector bodies, but the SNP's record is laughable. A record number of new brass plates have been put on the same doors in the same buildings; the same well-paid bosses and the same policies are in place. The record that the SNP will defend will be one of even more people working for the Government.

The main task of this Government—and of any Government—is to tackle recession, lift people back into work and get the banks lending again. The economy shrunk by 0.8 per cent between April and June. Economists predict a 3 per cent decline in 2009. In July, public debt reached £800 billion or 56.8 per cent of gross domestic product, which is the highest level on record. Unemployment in Scotland is rising faster than in the rest of the country.

As the recession bites in Scotland, the SNP has taken apart the local enterprise networks, completely emasculated Highlands and Islands Enterprise and narrowed Scottish Enterprise's role. No plans have been announced to reverse that. GDP in the Highlands will fall by 2.8 per cent this year. The Highland board will be rebuilt in the future, but not by the SNP.

On the biggest financial issue of the past year—banking—the SNP was ominously quiet. It did not support Vince Cable or my call for those taxpayer-owned monoliths to be broken up to help customers, competition and Scottish business. The First Minister agreed with Gordon Brown—the First Minister called the Lloyds takeover of HBOS the "deal of the century". That takeover has been an utter disaster for the taxpayer, for the customer and for every business that cannot get credit and therefore cannot get the economy moving again. They expect to have the support of their Government. From Lerwick to Linlithgow, bank branches in Scotland will close in the coming months. Deal of the century? I think not.

As far as driving our economy is concerned, Labour has put up fuel three times in a year, which has hit every Scottish motorist. Worst hit have been those in rural and island areas. Jim Murphy briefed The Press and Journal that he would introduce a pilot to cut costs in Argyll and then denied it. What has the SNP done? We could have agreed on rural fuel, but it was a Liberal Democrat motion, not a Government one, that called for action. A freedom of information request shows that the Scottish Government did not respond when it had the chance to do so. Why does the Government not use the European levers that are available, which would enable credit to be provided to small businesses?

We will support the Government when it concentrates on people's jobs, on the recession and on credit for business. We will not support the Government when the SNP's internal party politics are more important than the country. The referendum is about the SNP. The recession and jobs are about Scotland. We will put Scotland before the SNP.

There are legislative reforms that should command support across Parliament, but the SNP approach is to centralise, control and dictate. That is not our approach. On housing, we need to kick-start building work and help joiners, bricklayers and plumbers, but the SNP's legislative proposal is about centralising, controlling and dictating to Scotland's housing associations.

It is clear where the Government wants to go on policing—it wants to have one Scottish police force. We can tell how wrong that would be because Labour wants to do exactly the same. Convening a national policing board that would be chaired by the justice secretary is a slippery slope towards a single Scottish police service.

In previous statements, Mr Salmond said that reforming local government finance would be the hallmark of his term in office and that the council tax would be swept away. No legislation was produced, never mind introduced. This time last year, the SNP warned that people would harshly judge any MSP who voted to keep the council tax. That was fighting talk, but the Cabinet voted to keep the council tax. We should be told why.

I want a Government that proposes real change, that has the courage to argue for what it believes in and that wants to reform, change and improve the place of our people, but which will trust people to make decisions free from the grip of the centre. Mr Salmond's statement showed that on those tests, his Government is failing.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We move to the open debate.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Like the First Minister, I was delighted to note this week that there are now 1,000 more police officers in Scotland than there were when the SNP took the reins of Government in 2007. That represents the fulfilment—ahead of schedule—of another election promise, and it is a mark of the effectiveness of this SNP Government.

The election of the SNP more than two years ago did not change just who was in government; it changed the way in which we are governed. Scottish ministers now lead the country, make space for Scotland in the world and stand up for Scotland's interests. The third programme for government will take Scotland further forward. Its aspirations are to make Scotland a better and fairer place, and to build the foundations of a more successful, responsible and confident country.

I am pleased that the national conversation will come to a climax with the referendum bill, as was laid out in the manifesto on which we were elected—we are bringing it on exactly on timetable. The national conversation has engaged people throughout Scotland: there has been standing room only at some events, and responses have flooded in. Scotland's people delivered devolution by referendum—they have the right to be heard again. There are understandable differences of opinion about the constitutional direction that Scotland should take—that is healthy—but surely no member would not defend and support democracy. Who among us would deny the democratic right of a nation to choose its own future? Who would deny the right of citizens or subjects to cast their votes for that future? Scotland is moving forward, and it is for the Scottish people to decide how far and how fast it should do so.

While seeking to move our nation forward on the constitution, the SNP Government also intends to move forward Scotland's legal profession. It intends to review and renew the framework within which that profession operates. I am sure that that will be supported across the chamber. The key points are to maintain access to justice and to ensure that the integrity of Scotland's legal system is protected. That is an important piece of work.

The same applies to the debtor protection bill and the debt and family homes bill. Such bills may not create big headlines, but they will deliver improvements in the law on debt. Such legislation can show our Parliament at its best. In considering such bills, members across political divides work solidly and constructively in committees to ensure good outcomes. SNP ministers have shown their willingness to engage with committees, which I am sure will continue.

There are also proposed bills on crofting reform and on wildlife and the natural environment, further legislation on alcohol, and the Forth crossing bill. I am delighted that there will be a housing bill, which must finally end the right to buy new social housing and extend the opportunities for pressured area status. Those are sensible ways to preserve public investment in housing and to work towards everyone having a decent roof over their head.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I acknowledge that Linda Fabiani has a record of supporting housing associations. Does she share my concern about the proposal to open up registered social landlords to private companies that are entitled to distribute and make profits? Surely that is a break with the past that she would resist, as I do.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I contend that the Labour Party broke with the past when it extended the right to buy to housing associations some years ago.

In the housing bill, there will be amending provisions for ancient monuments and listed buildings that are informed by the excellent work that the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland has carried out.

The proposed introduction of patients' rights legislation and legislation to reform the children's hearings system are particularly welcome. Both will improve services for people who are at their most vulnerable. I am sure that many colleagues in the chamber will expand on those themes.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In commending her Government on dealing with patients' rights, will Linda Fabiani also commend the Conservatives, who were the first to bring in a patients charter in Scotland that gave patients rights and responsibilities?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I commend my Government for working as a minority Government with other parties around the chamber. It has often worked with the Conservatives in that context. One role of Government is that it should continue things, just as it should innovate—a Government should look back and see how things can be improved. The Scottish Government works innovatively and continues things that have happened in the past.

In addition to the bills that I have mentioned, seven bills are already making their way through the system. As in this year's programme, there are elements of legislative housekeeping. However, some of the legislation—in train and in prospect—is radical. It looks to the future and finds Scottish ways of dealing with Scottish issues.

The programme for government—the legislative outline that we are debating—is a continuation of the path on which the SNP set out two years ago. It is a necessary refreshment of government in Scotland. The mere administration of Scotland—which for far too long we had through the Scottish Office and then, with a couple of exceptions, from the Scottish Executive coalition for eight years—is now genuine government for Scotland. The Scottish Government is engaging with Scotland and the wider world. Recent events have shown that Scottish ministers can, and do, face extremely difficult situations. They meet those situations head on and take the correct decisions.

Parliament and the Government that has been appointed from within it are proving that Scotland can rule itself. That is what has been achieved over the past two years. The programme for government gives me confidence that improvement will continue.

I commend to Parliament the referendum bill and the rest of the programme for government. May we legislate in harmony.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

In June, Parliament approved what ministers like to claim is world-leading legislation on climate change. The Climate Change (Scotland) Bill set challenging targets and created expectations that action would speedily follow. I have no doubt that officials are working behind the scenes to introduce statutory instruments to meet the various deadlines in that bill. One of the deeply disappointing things in the legislative programme that we are discussing is the lack of follow-up to that bill. There was no evidence in the First Minister's statement that his Government has altered either its legislative programme or its longer-term spending programme in the light of the climate change obligations. We will have to wait and see what changes will be in the budget for next year, when it is published shortly.

However, for the First Minister and his party, it is business as usual. Pride of place this year goes to an unnecessary and unwanted independence referendum. At a time when economic uncertainty and environmental considerations are dominant concerns among the people of Scotland, the SNP is offering a bill that animates only its committed supporters, although it does not animate them much: barely half the SNP members turned up to listen to the First Minister's statement.

The First Minister enjoys talking about Scotland's green energy potential. However, apart from giving a list of his visits, he had nothing new to say about what he will do to turn that potential into new technologies and green jobs. Security of energy supply is an issue that dominates energy debates in every other country in Europe and throughout the world, but it has not been highlighted because of the Government's blinkered approach to nuclear power. Why waste time talking about energy if there is nothing to say?

In June, we discussed the urgent need for measures to reduce emissions from energy generation, energy efficiency, and transport and land use, especially in the agricultural sector. We agreed that mitigation is not a key priority for the distant future, but something that should be tackled now, if we are to make our contribution to halting global warming.

However, no new primary legislation has been proposed to address any of those matters. We are to have a housing bill, but not one that will address the carbon footprint of our housing or its residents. Given the contribution that is expected from the housing sector in the Government's climate change delivery plan, could not legislation have been proposed to help to drive change?

We are to have a transport bill, but not one that takes forward any of the mitigation options that are suggested in the recently published Atkins report. The SNP's insistence on a road-only replacement bridge across the Forth is inconsistent with its professed transport policies. At a time when priority should be given to measures that would help to reduce car use, Labour members have grave doubts about whether a road-only replacement bridge is an appropriate response to the transport needs of the residents of Fife and the Lothians. Yet again, we have received no indication from the Scottish Government about how that project will be funded and the impact that its funding will have on other transport schemes. Will the bill have a financial memorandum? If so, what will it say? There has been nothing from the Government on that.

Of course, we recognise the need to address the consequences of the deterioration of the existing Forth crossing, but the Government has failed to publish not only financial information, but the professional advice that it says it sought from international experts. It has not alleviated the concerns that have been expressed by residents who will be affected, and there are clear inconsistencies in its approach to the replacement bridge, use of the existing bridge and the balance between public and private transport.

In the meantime, before the bridge soaks up the lion's share of infrastructure investment in Scotland, there have been spending cuts in cycling infrastructure, in safer streets and in support for additional bus services. Of course, legislation may not be needed to promote walking and cycling or to increase bus use. It may be more appropriate to increase the funding that is available for such measures, which may deliver results more quickly. The fact that the First Minister's speech made no mention of transport—other than the new bridge—or of mitigation, leads me to believe that the delivery, as opposed to the trumpeting, of the Government's commitments to tackling climate change does not figure greatly in the Government's list of priorities.

It is clear from everything that has been done and said by the Government that short-term political considerations, rather than policies that are based on sound analysis, will continue to prevail in prioritisation of the Government's transport infrastructure programme. Moreover, those considerations will prevent the introduction of key measures that the Government's own research, which was published last Friday without any fanfare, suggests are needed if we are to measure up to the challenge of reducing emissions from the transport budget.

The campaigners for a Scottish Parliament based their case on the need for legislative powers. Ten years on, we have a Scottish Government that appears reluctant to use the Parliament for the purpose for which it was intended. As Iain Gray said, the programme before us does not address the concerns of the people of Scotland or progress the measures that are needed to meet our commitments on climate change. It is geared towards shielding the exercise of power from democratic influence in the Parliament. Why else would the SNP try to govern without legislating?

A lot was said yesterday about difficult choices. In his statement, the First Minister referred to difficult budget choices. The economic downturn, the pressure on public finances and the impossibility of meeting the costs of current commitments mean that hard choices are being faced by every minister. A responsible Government would examine the options and use its legislative powers to put forward its proposals. A responsible Opposition would then use the legislative process to advance its own ideas, with both sides seeking consensus. To a large degree, that is what happened in the passage of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. However, the Government seems determined to avoid a similar process happening this year.

We face big challenges in Scotland. There are big issues ahead of us; yet, the Government has a bankrupt and minimal programme. We need to address not just transport, energy and climate change issues, but a whole series of other issues, which will be highlighted by my colleagues. The SNP Government is determined to exclude Parliament from that process by presenting a minimal legislative programme. We need to change that situation, and it will be changed in 2011. In the time between now and then, we will make our best efforts to hold the Government to account not just for what it is doing, but for what it is not doing.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I welcome this opportunity to speak in the debate on the Government's legislative programme—such as it is. I will comment on some of the priorities that seem to have been identified by the First Minister this morning.

The First Minister has obviously failed to notice that we are in the deepest economic crisis that this country has perhaps seen within living memory.

The consequences of debt that exceeds in real terms that which existed at the end of the second world war are things that the United Kingdom and all its people will have to deal with over a period of time, and will endure a great deal of hardship in the process. The idea that Scottish independence is, for some reason, the solution to all the problems displays a level of naivety that the vast majority of the Scottish people will find difficult to understand.

The truth is that when people are losing their jobs daily and when, every day, small businessmen are giving up their unequal struggle and are finding alternative means to keep their heads above water, it is inevitable that they will focus on the key elements of daily life. The aspirations of a Government in Scotland that wants independence will become less and less attractive to many of Scotland's people.

I know that many people within the Conservative party—Michael Forsyth has been named—think that this would be the right time for a referendum, because it would kill the idea of independence stone dead for many years. I understand why some people hold that view, but I do not agree with it. I believe that the economic recovery of the United Kingdom—and that of Scotland as part of the United Kingdom—is the main priority that we politicians must face. We must tackle that challenge head on before we begin to deal with the airy ideas of those who would make Scotland a separate country and split it off from its main markets.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will Alex Johnstone explain the source of his faith that the incoming Conservative Government at Westminster will close the gap in economic performance between Scotland and the rest of the UK? That is something that no previous Government has managed to do.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The statistics show that Scotland did relatively well in comparison with the UK averages between 1988 and 1991—a period in which Scotland had a great deal of which to boast. Many politicians—although not in the Conservative party—choose to forget the positives of that time and instead to concentrate on the negatives from other times.

I will speak about one or two key elements of what the Government has proposed today with which I have a serious problem. The proposed housing bill has been mentioned. I will not go into great detail on that. However, the First Minister's stated objective to end the right to buy—which seems to have attracted support from several corners of the chamber—is something that I find wholly unacceptable. As I go around communities in Scotland, I find that the safest, most sustainable communities anywhere are those where a large proportion of the traditional council houses have now become the property of their occupiers. Those are the kind of communities that I want to be created in the future.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member give way?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am afraid that I cannot. I need to make progress.

I believe that, if we are to have safe and sustainable communities in the future, we must not only create the opportunity for individuals to find affordable rented housing, but where possible create communities that mix rented and owner-occupied housing. The right to buy council property in Scotland achieved that in spades, and we should not ignore the opportunity that it affords us in the future. If we cannot go down that road, we must produce a housing bill that will deliver some alternative means of creating mixed-ownership communities, which will ensure that we have safe, sustainable communities in the long term.

I will also say a little about the Government's proposals to discourage alcohol consumption. I have had particularly close contact with one company on the issue of minimum pricing. In the north-east of Scotland, not far from my home, is the Fettercairn distillery, which is owned by Whyte & Mackay. The distillery produces a local malt but it is not marketed heavily. The bulk of the distillery's production goes into Whyte & Mackay's blend or own-brand products that sell in all our supermarkets. If the minimum price is set too high, there will be a closing up of the price gap between the products that the company produces. The price gap between the product that is sold to the supermarkets for their own brands and the product that goes into the Whyte & Mackay blend, which is also widely sold, will close up. In turn, the price gap that exists between that blend and other products will also close up. That will undermine the distillery's market and will threaten jobs in some of the weakest parts of our community. All that is being done in the name of health at a time when there is no evidence to suggest that it is our whisky companies that are responsible for the problem.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Will Alex Johnstone concede that whisky will not be affected by minimum pricing? Furthermore, is he arguing that the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and all four chief medical officers in the UK are wrong in saying that minimum pricing would help to prevent alcohol misuse? If not, what does he suggest we do to tackle that problem, which is costing us dear?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Mr Johnstone, you should keep your eye on the time.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am opposed to minimum pricing. However, I am asking that, if the Government cannot be dissuaded from its minimum pricing policy, the price be set at a level that will not impact on essential local industries in areas where we need to protect jobs.

Some aspects of Alex Salmond's demeanour seem to indicate that he plans to do to Scotland what Derek Hatton did to Liverpool: he wants to turn Scotland into a country in which he provokes dispute and discord. He is willing to see the economy of Scotland sacrificed, undermined or underperforming simply to prove that Scotland would be better off independent. I do not accept that argument and will not support any measure that takes us down that road. I believe that Scotland's place is in the union and that we must ensure that the economy recovers before we begin to consider the SNP's flippant attitudes towards independence, constitutional reform or any other reform.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The Government's programme should have been a programme to re-energise Scotland's economy. Instead, in the face of continued recession, our nationalist Government puts party before country and focuses on a doomed referendum bill. Alex Salmond says that his Government was elected with a popular mandate for a referendum. The Opposition parties, which represent the majority of seats in this Parliament, stood on manifestos that made clear our opposition to that referendum, so the majority of representatives in Scotland's Parliament were elected on a popular mandate of Opposition to a referendum. The issue is quite simple.

Liberal Democrats prefer to focus on the issues that matter to Scots—health, the economy, justice and education. On education in particular, we listened in vain to the First Minister's statement for anything that we could welcome. Indeed, for some time we have looked in vain to the Government for something to welcome in education, in which we have seen more broken promises and U-turns than in any other policy area.

As we speak, many of Scotland's children are sitting in crumbling schools, with no news of when money will be available to fix them. Many of Scotland's parents will be wondering why, when they dropped their children off at school this morning, it was not to a class of 18 children, as they had been promised. Many of Scotland's students will be preparing for a new year at college or university and worrying about how they will support themselves until the end of their courses, and many of Scotland's bright and enthusiastic newly qualified teachers are sitting at home watching Jeremy Kyle.

In fact, the SNP has failed to deliver on so many of its promises that it is difficult to know where to begin. Perhaps I should begin at the start, in primary 1, where just 13 per cent of children are in classes of 18 or fewer, and progress towards the target is now actually slowing down. However, that is no surprise. A Government that can lose 1,000 teachers in one year—a record slump—should not be relied on to deliver class size promises.

Now, the Government is ordering universities to slash their intake for teaching courses, and talented students are being turned away from teacher-training places. The loss of those individuals from the teaching profession will mean that the SNP's legacy of failure on education will last well beyond its limited years in power. There will be a lost generation of teachers, thanks to Alex Salmond's Government.

Scottish Liberal Democrats have continually warned the Government that local authorities were struggling with their education budgets and class size targets. Where is the legislation to back up the class sizes pledge in the face of legal challenges? Where is the investment? Figures from last March show a decrease in revenue expenditure on secondary education, which is critical for our future.

The problem can only get worse in the coming term, as SNP's cuts and the economic downturn hit councils hard. That is without even mentioning the delays of up to a decade that the SNP Government has caused in the building and refurbishment of schools. We know that, because of the SNP's delay and failure around the Scottish Futures Trust, our construction industry has been hit hard, and many councils will not receive final payments until 2018, when many of the pupils who are currently in school will long since have left—an entire generation let down by the SNP Government.

The truth is that the SNP is in disarray when it comes to education legislation. In our first week back, we have heard the announcement of a delay in children's hearings legislation and we have seen a committee defeat on a related Scottish statutory instrument. We have also heard in the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee evidence on the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill that left many of us wondering, for at least part of the meeting, what benefits the legislation would actually achieve for service users. Further, only yesterday in this chamber, we were debating another SNP U-turn on the legislative presumption against closure of rural schools.

For those who have already left school, things are not much better. Colleges are turning away record numbers of applicants. Just last week, the Liberal Democrats revealed the true extent of student hardship across Scotland, with applications for hardship funds reaching a new high of 14,386 in 2008-09. However, the SNP Government remains fixated on replacing loans with grants, and is doing nothing to tackle immediate hardship. I am not sure whether that is because of guilt at having abandoned its earlier undeliverable pledge to drop student debt altogether.

We think that there is a better way to address student hardship right now, which is why we have joined forces with the Conservatives and Labour, as well as with NUS Scotland, to call for a new approach. What is on offer is £30 million, not the £2 billion that it would have cost to dump the debt. We think that that £30 million can be used for a £500 increase in grant for the poorest students, which will bring them up to the minimum income of £7,000, which we support. It will also give each student access to an extra £200 of student loan, so they do not have to incur as much commercial debt, and will enable £2 million to be channelled into hardship and child care funds. Those suggestions have cross-party support and are designed to help a generation of students right now. We will discuss them with the cabinet secretary this afternoon. I hope that she is ready to listen, because we are ready to talk and listen to her.

The Government also promised better local support for young people through a reformed children's hearings system. However, after delay upon delay, it brought out plans that raised such serious concerns among children's panel members and chairs that the Government has been sent back to the drawing board to think again. It would be churlish of me not to welcome the fact that the Government is prepared to do that, so I absolutely do so. However, it is unfortunate that the consultation was not conducted properly and that the Government did not get it right first time. However, we are all supportive of the children's hearings system, and it is more important that we get this right.

An issue that is particularly important to me, as the constituency member who represents South Queensferry, Kirkliston and the surrounding areas, is the new Forth crossing, which is also important to my constituents and everyone else in Scotland. There is insufficient time today to detail all my concerns about the proposals and the process to date. Let us just say that the ministers who are responsible for the matter are well aware of many of those concerns, as I have articulated them to them on many occasions. I have concerns about some of the detail of the proposals on the sites for the construction compounds, on road access and on compensation for my constituents, but I am also broadly disappointed in the Government's short-sighted approach, which has resulted in plans for a road-only crossing rather than the multimodal crossing that we were expecting. I am also disappointed that my view that a tunnel would be preferable—which was the option that was favoured by the vast majority of my constituents—was cast aside.

I urge the minister to learn from the mistakes that have been made, and ensure that residents are informed and consulted properly. The new crossing will have a massive impact on South Queensferry. The MSPs who will sit on the committee that will consider the bill have quite a challenge before them when it comes to examining funding costs.

Finally, I would like the Government to consider procurement in order to ensure that the contractors who are given the tender do not hold clients to ransom at tremendous cost to the taxpayer, and that they have a good Scottish track record of working with others.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I begin my remarks by focusing on the upcoming bill on alcohol.

In 2004, I was appointed as the SNP spokesperson on public health by the now Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. It was around that time that I started to look seriously at the damage that alcohol abuse was doing to Scotland. Although I thought that I had a reasonable idea of what was going on, l was shocked by the extent of the problem that we were faced with. Over the past five years, things have only got worse.

Billions of pounds are wasted on health and justice services as a result of alcohol abuse, but more important is the damage that is done to individuals, families and communities. For far too long, our society has been only too happy to demand action on the scourge of illegal drugs while ignoring the catastrophe of legal drugs. We finally took action on smoking, and I am delighted that we are now facing up to the issue of alcohol abuse.

As public health spokesperson, I took policy resolutions to the SNP conferences between 2004 and 2006, asking the party to support a range of public health measures including a ban on smoking in public places, a cut in the drink-drive limit, an end to the off-trade's use of alcohol as a loss-leader and the abolition of cheap drink promotions in both the on and off-trade.

A few short years ago, it was tough to make the argument that we should tackle alcohol abuse and the resultant problems, but we have moved on and I hope that we now all accept that it is time for action.

The introduction of a minimum price per unit of alcohol will target the type of strong, cheap drink that is particularly being abused. Alcohol sales are price-sensitive and, with alcohol now half the cost that it was a generation ago in real terms, I believe that we must reverse a pricing trend that has contributed to the devastation that we see in too many of our town centres and communities, as well as in our courts and hospitals.

Last Saturday night, in advance of this debate, I took the opportunity to spend several hours with the police in Paisley—I would like to thank the officers for their help in arranging that visit. They confirmed the fact that cheap drink that is bought from the off-trade is a considerable problem, and that the drinks of choice fell into the cheap and strong category at which minimum pricing is targeted. They mentioned cheap, large bottles of cider and supermarket vodka, and they related a story of a boy who spent a night in accident and emergency after his first taste of alcohol—or perhaps, I should say, his first bucket of cheap booze from his local supermarket.

I am sure that some members will trot out the usual lame arguments about why we should not interfere with the supermarkets and the off-sales right to trade, but the sale of alcohol cannot be compared with the sale of tins of soup or packets of washing powder. The likely effect of a two-for-one promotion on washing powder might be cleaner clothes, but the same offer on alcohol might mean a visit to A and E, a night in the cells or something much worse.

We might also hear the well-worn argument that the problem has nothing to do with price, given that countries such as Spain or Italy do not have such problems. However, although it is true that there are different issues and different cultures in those countries, it would be wrong to claim that they have no such problems. New laws have very recently been introduced in parts of Italy to ban drinking in the street and to impose fines on the parents of children who are found to be drinking. Those laws are being brought in because Italy is facing a rising tide of problems as a result of alcohol abuse. Although countries on the continent may be lagging behind us in this area, they are facing similar and growing problems.

When we come to consider the bill, I ask members to look at who supports and who opposes the measures, and their reasons for doing so. I have no doubt that opposition will come from the supermarkets, but it is clear that support will come from the medical profession, the police and even those who represent the on-trade and who realise that it is the irresponsible promotion of cheap, strong drink by some in the off-trade that fuels many of the problems that we face.

I urge the Government to stand firm and be bold with its proposals on tackling alcohol abuse, particularly on the minimum price. It must be set at a price that has the desired effect, as anything less would be a missed opportunity. I say to Alex Johnstone that setting a minimum price so low that it has no effect is frankly laughable.

I turn briefly to the housing bill that will be introduced. I was privileged to be able to work as a minister on the housing bill proposals that are now being brought forward, and I am delighted that there will finally be an end to the right to buy for new-build social housing. I accept that that policy has had some positive impact—in producing some more mixed communities, for example—but the downside has been enormous. The loss of thousands of some of the highest-quality rented housing stock to future generations has been detrimental to our efforts to house people who are in desperate need of a home. The change in the bill redresses the balance and will be widely welcomed.

However, that alone will not solve the problems that we face. I am delighted that the latest figures for house building show that the SNP Scottish Government is building more social rented houses than the previous Lib-Lab Executive, and that we are seeing the start of a new generation of council houses.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Will the member concede that the Scottish National Party's council house building programme will in no way match the Conservative Government's programme, part of which was financed from the proceeds of sale under the right to buy?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am happy to concede that the previous Labour-Lib Dem Executive at no point built the same number of houses as the previous Tory Government did in 1995. That is true, and it shows how desperate things have become in the past 10 years.

The Scottish Government's programme includes a wide-ranging package of bills that are designed for the benefit of the people of Scotland, and I look forward to the successful passage of those bills through the Parliament.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Before I attempt to dissuade the Government from its foolish referendum policy, I want to say how glad I am that it overestimated the £500 million that Labour will keep from it. I have figured out that £3.3 million is going spare, which suits me fine for the capital city grant. I thought I would get that in quickly.

Why on earth is the Government persisting in bringing forward a referendum bill? It knows that it cannot get the thing through. It does not really have to stand on the dignity of its manifesto commitment; these days, people outside the Parliament like politicians who are able to say, "Whoops—I got that one wrong, and I'd like to change it." Why does the Government not do that? It did so with the local income tax, and, as far as I am aware, its rating has not gone down in the opinion polls.

Unfortunately, the SNP has tactically boxed itself into a corner. It confused—as the Deputy First Minister and I once discussed—a tactic with a policy or strategy. It is a tactic that one would only use to pursue a campaign, and the Government will not manage to deploy it properly, so it should forget it. The time is not right, as umpteen members in the chamber have said. People are not concerned with that just now; it is not their priority.

The Government has not done enough to inform people in Scotland of what independence feels like, what it actually is and how it applies to them in their small corner of the world. Not nearly enough work is being done to get the Parliament to start thinking constitutionally. I do not see why the SNP feels that it has to shoulder the whole burden now, because there are members on all sides of the chamber who agree that the present set-up is not satisfactory. We need to explore together how we can advance the Parliament.

I would like there to be sovereign powers, because I am certain that that is the best delivery mechanism for the policies of any of the parties in the Parliament that might be elected to Government. There is much more common ground among current members of the Parliament than they allow themselves to express, but the constitutional question has become so enmeshed with party politics that members cannot concede that their party opponent might have a good idea. The aspirations that the First Minister outlined this morning were noble: the sort of standards that we should set ourselves and the targets for which we should aim. I do not believe that any member in the chamber disagreed with those aspirations, but they could not say, "Oh, I agree with that," because they were in the wrong party. I would like the SNP to drop the whole idea of forcing people into a position that their experience of being an MSP has possibly taken them out of, if ever they were in it.

We waste time in party politicking when the world is marching ahead. The world is setting up all sorts of new institutions and forms of co-operation, and methods of delivering services for people. We should be thinking about that, but we cannot do so properly if we are too busy playing ducks and drakes in the chamber over a constitutional question that is still very academic for most people outside the Parliament. They do not view it as the delivery mechanism for policies, and I sometimes think that the SNP does not either.

We heard from Annabel Goldie, who thinks that it will all happen when David Cameron gets into power. That will be another false dawn. I have nothing against the man, but he is operating in a system that has been failing us for a very long time now. It has kept us relatively successful, but I do not want to be relatively successful compared to some regions in the United Kingdom. I want us to be optimally successful: as successful as we possibly can be.

We know that the Westminster model does not deliver that, so I cannot see why Alex Johnstone persists—och well, perhaps I can. Perhaps he will relax a bit in the next session of Parliament when he, along with Annabel Goldie, realises that David Cameron does not have all the answers.

Des McNulty made an excellent speech in which he pointed out some of the things that we could and should be doing. I wonder whether he will be as enthusiastic and feel that those things are as feasible when the Tories are in power. He should be thinking structurally rather than along party political lines; I certainly agreed with much of what he said.

I wish that the SNP had stuck to explaining that sovereign power for Scotland would deliver customised policies for Scotland. That is what we need, as it is obvious not only that our economy is different, but that even our society has diverged so much from the way in which society south of the border has developed. We have different potential and different futures, but that does not mean that we have to separate—for goodness' sake, the Government should get that out of the lexicon. People are interested not in separating, but in finding new ways of working together to their mutual advantage.

That is how we should be talking in the chamber. We can still fall out over whether, as Margaret Smith said, the SNP's education policies are rubbish—some of them are, but not all—but we can separate discussion of that particular specific from the constitutional question. I wish the SNP would do that. It should perhaps take a tip from someone who has been through quite a number of referendums: just forget this one.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

This year's programme for government is another unambitious one—the third in succession. The central aim of any Government at this difficult time should be to do everything possible to boost economic recovery to help small businesses and ordinary families that are struggling and nervous about their future. They look to both Governments—the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government—to prioritise their issues.

The Government will be judged on its concern for the person on the street—the first-time home buyer, the struggling small business, the person who unexpectedly becomes unemployed in the twilight of their career, and the school leaver who is now competing against more applicants than usual to get into higher education. A recession with global trends, a global impact and worldwide ramifications is not the time to reduce our focus to asking the public whether Scotland should look inwards and be independent from the UK by divorcing ourselves from the union that has protected Scotland's interests during the global recession.

This is not the time for a referendum on whether the SNP Government should be given a mandate to enter negotiations to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom. It is a time to pull out all the stops and give Scotland's economic recovery every possible chance, to get back on track and to return to strength. No distraction from that goal is justified or supported in the Parliament. The people out there want their Government to govern for the people and not for the party. The masses out there are not lobbying the Scottish Parliament for a referendum. There have been no petitions and no campaigns. The single obstacle to independence is the lack of support from the Scottish people, not the Opposition parties.

People are petitioning the Scottish Parliament on issues such as the rights of disabled people, better housing, hospital cleanliness and knife crime. There are no petitions for a referendum on independence. The SNP chickened out with a no-thanks response. It did not really suit its carefully crafted timetable. It thinks that it can woo the Scottish public into feeling patriotic on St Andrew's day and voting for independence. Margo MacDonald wrote in her column yesterday that it is a strategy and not a policy. She is right. It is a tactic. Whatever reason the SNP has for its 2010 timing, we can be sure that it is for its own ends.

The SNP is desperately trying to force an interest where one does not exist. The nationalist conversation has persuaded no one of the need for independence.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Support for independence has actually fallen. It has never risen above—

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

If Mike Russell gives me a chance to develop the point, I will be delighted to take an intervention.

The nationalist conversation has not yet persuaded anyone that support for independence has risen. Indeed, it has fallen. It has never really risen above a third of those who have been asked for their view.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I simply wanted to repeat my invitation to every Labour member who raises the issue, as none has attended a national conversation event. They are prescient about what takes place. If they attend an event, I think everybody will listen to them. Unfortunately, they have not been to any, so they do not know.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

We were told earlier that there is standing room only. I do not really believe it.

Despite the 40 meetings around the country and the fact that the Government has made the nationalist conversation its centrepiece, Mike Russell cannot get away from the fact that it has not shifted public opinion one iota. If anything, the current climate has resulted in more Scots supporting the union, perhaps with some changes. We call for the Government to end this waste of public money. Its monologue is impressing no one.

It was indeed Mike Russell who said that the current economic circumstances make the case for Scotland to have more say in its own affairs even more urgent and compelling, but the only person I can find out there who agrees with him is Michael Forsyth. The First Minister says that there is a consensus for change. That may be true, but the consensus is for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom. Devolution is still the settled will of the Scottish people and we believe that it will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, although there is a consensus that we should work towards stronger devolution. In the form of the Calman commission recommendations, there is work that can be taken forward as a package of measures to improve our governance of Scotland, but they are not a menu of convenience from which the SNP can cherry pick the measures that suit its purpose—we on this side of the chamber will not allow that. New powers for Scotland, new financial arrangements, more accountability, borrowing powers—there is some consensus on those issues and we should take them forward, but not for the SNP's ends.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member say what would satisfy her as regards an improvement in Scottish life and our economy if the powers that she advocates were introduced? Would she be like Alex Johnstone and want just a relative improvement or would she want something much better than that?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

It is easy to answer that. Whatever the powers of the Parliament are, or are changed to be, I, like everyone else, want the most successful Scotland that we can have.

That leads me to an important point. The Scottish Parliament led the way on issues such as the smoking ban and climate change, but we did not need independence to do that. In case the SNP has not noticed, those achievements, which were mentioned in the First Minister's statement, came about through devolution. The suggestion that we can be proud Scots only if Scotland is an independent nation is nonsense, if not insulting. It is suggested that we can choose to exploit our massive renewable energy potential only if we have independence, but that is certainly not a fact. Tell that to those who work on renewable energy in Scottish universities and collaborate with English universities within a UK framework.

Margo MacDonald is right to say that the SNP's tactics are about what is in its own interests. To discredit the union is part of its propaganda campaign. It says that Scotland faces cuts, but the reason why the SNP cannot fulfil its promises is its own behaviour. As Gordon Brewer said on "Newsnight" when he was questioning the finance minister, the SNP is not batting with a straight bat on this one.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I will concentrate my remarks on the proposed referendum bill. We all know that independence for Scotland is the objective of the Scottish National Party and that it is intent on pursuing a referendum as its favoured way of securing independence. Unfortunately for the SNP, the desire to break up the United Kingdom is not shared by the majority of people in Scotland and, as a result, a clear minority of votes cast at the most recent Scottish Parliament election were for the SNP—I repeat, a clear minority. That is reflected in the current minority Government.

This morning, the First Minister outrageously and entirely wrongly said that his Government has a mandate from the people to introduce such a bill and that the Parliament should not stand in his way. We are used to arrogance from Mr Salmond, but that takes the biscuit. What arrogance to treat the people's Parliament and the people of Scotland with such contempt. Mr Salmond does not have a mandate of any kind from the people of Scotland. It was the Parliament that was elected by the people. The First Minister was elected by the Parliament, and what a mistake that has turned out to be.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

Will the member acknowledge that a clear majority of the Scottish public and a majority of Liberal Democrat voters support being given the right to choose in a referendum?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

What absolute nonsense. If we asked the people of Scotland whether they would like to change the future of the country by armed insurrection or by a referendum, I think that they might choose the latter. What the member says is complete nonsense. [ Interruption. ]

Earlier, Annabel Goldie talked about the lack of a majority in Parliament for the abolition of the council tax. [Interruption.]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Order.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

On 11 February, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth said:

"In short, we cannot put together a stable majority to enable us successfully to steer detailed local income tax legislation through this Parliament. Indeed, Parliament's vote in December last year made it clear that there is no consensus on the best way forward for local taxation.

The Cabinet has therefore decided not to introduce legislation to abolish the unfair council tax and replace it with a local income tax".—[Official Report, 11 February 2009; c 14896.]

As someone who supports the abolition of the council tax and its replacement with a local income tax, I regret that the cabinet secretary felt it necessary to drop the proposed legislation. However, I appreciate his pragmatism on the matter and accept that at the present time there is no parliamentary majority for abolishing the council tax. It therefore makes sense for the Government and the Parliament to spend a limited time on matters that can make a difference to the people of Scotland. Unfortunately, as we have heard today, the SNP Government is not acting pragmatically on the issue of the referendum; instead, it is bulldozing ahead with it dogmatically.

The SNP knows that it will lose a vote on the referendum. After all, it has done so already. Less than six months ago, our Parliament voted by a clear majority for an amendment that I lodged calling

"on the Scottish Government to concentrate its efforts on economic recovery and abandon its divisive plans for a Referendum Bill for the remainder of its term of office."

It is a matter of sincere regret and disappointment that the minority SNP Administration has, once again, chosen to disregard the clear will of Parliament. The contempt—and I use that word correctly—that the nationalists have consistently shown Parliament and the people of Scotland on this and other issues by ignoring parliamentary votes is to the detriment not only of Parliament as an institution but the people of Scotland. I remind Mr Russell that we serve those people.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I will, in a moment.

The parliamentary time and, of course, monetary costs associated with taking forward a bill that the Government knows has no hope of being passed could be put to better use in taking forward measures to aid economic recovery and to improve the lives of millions of people throughout Scotland.

Although the Government sometimes forgets the fact, we live in a representative parliamentary democracy. Anyone who wanted the United Kingdom to be broken up had the opportunity to vote for it by supporting the SNP at the previous elections. Two years ago, more than two thirds of those who exercised their right to vote chose not to vote for the SNP and for the break-up of the UK. Those of us who were returned to this Parliament by the people have a duty to respect the clear view expressed at that election that the break-up of the UK is not wanted; indeed, as I have already said, the Parliament did so six months ago. The SNP continues to ignore the Scottish people's wishes.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am afraid that I am in my last minute.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

It is all right, Mr Rumbles. You can give way if you wish.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I have already nailed my colours to the mast. For the reasons that I outlined in my speech, I do not think that there should be a referendum. That said, does the member accept that we have a difficulty as a result of the habit of referring back to the manifesto and claiming that that is what people voted for? Of course, I do not think that that is what they voted for, but I presume that that difficulty is shared by all the parties in the chamber. My plea to them is, "Get out o' it!" After all, we are in the 21 st century; no one expects them to keep stupid promises.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Mr Rumbles, you should keep your eye on the time now.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Oh come on, Deputy Presiding Officer! Can I respond to the intervention? [ Laughter. ] When people vote for the parties in the Parliament, they expect them to keep their promises. That is a fundamental part of parliamentary democracy. However, the parties must recognise that if they cannot get support for an issue it is fair enough to drop it.

We are being told that the proposed referendum bill is the flagship of the SNP. I compare it to the Swedish flagship, the Vasa. When, in 1628, the ship started out on its maiden voyage, the beaches around Stockholm were filled with spectators, among them foreign diplomats and the equivalent of the modern media pack. This maiden voyage was to be an act of propaganda for the ambitious Swedish leader Gustavus Adolphus. The ship set sail, fired a salute and, after only a few minutes of sailing, began to heel over. She righted herself slightly—then heeled over again. Water began to gush in through the open gunports and the mighty warship suddenly sank. This flagship referendum bill is the homegrown product of our First Minister's personal ambition. Just like the Vasa, it is an act of vainglorious propaganda—something that Mike Russell is, of course, very much used to—and it, too, will sink before it ever leaves the harbour.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That concludes the morning part of the debate, which will continue this afternoon.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last had discussions with VisitScotland. (S3O-7658)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Scottish Government officials are in almost daily touch with VisitScotland, discussing matters concerning the wellbeing and development of tourism in Scotland. Indeed, over the summer recess, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and I visited many parts of Scotland and met representatives of VisitScotland as well as very many tourism businesses.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

How is it that, at the VisitScotland information point in Zeebrugge, there is not one item of literature or handout of any sort for tourists destined for Rosyth? Moreover, how has the minister's SNP Government managed to persuade Norfolkline, Scotland's only passenger ferry, to carry tourist brochures only for the SNP-controlled areas of Perth, Angus and Tayside? Why is the ferry not carrying any tourist brochures for Fife and all the other parts of Scotland that rely so heavily on tourism? What deal have he and his colleagues done with Norfolkline and VisitScotland? [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank the member for that question. Fortunately, when I visited Fife in the summer, I encountered a more positive frame of mind.

VisitScotland now lives on the web and the high-quality brochures that it has produced are there for all to see, access and receive. I hope that those that the member flagged up in her question take full advantage of that facility.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

During his discussions with VisitScotland, has the minister asked for an assessment of the displacement of tourists from Orkney and Shetland to the Western Isles as a result of the decision by ministers to heavily subsidise ferry services to the latter area? If not, why not?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am sure that that issue will feature in the full assessment of the road equivalent tariff. My anecdotal experience in Argyll and Bute suggests that even routes that have not yet benefited from RET have benefited from increased traffic.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has a timetable for implementation of the measures contained in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. (S3O-7652)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Scottish Government intends to lay the commencement order to the 2009 act in October. The majority of provisions in the act will commence in that month.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

What timetable does the minister have for implementing the provisions on council tax and business rate discounts that we agreed to in the act? What discussions has he had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on implementation? Finally, does he agree with the suggestion that a stakeholder working party should be set up to ensure that all the key players are pulled together and to iron out the details? Such a move was suggested by his officials in discussions before stage 3. Even if he does not want to say yes to the idea today, will the minister agree to look favourably on and consider it?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The provisions for council tax and business rate reductions related to improvements in buildings are clearly important parts of the armoury in taking forward the climate change agenda. We are still in the early days of working up those proposals, but the member can absolutely rest assured that we will do so in partnership with councils and stakeholders more widely. After all, the proposals will affect industries' ability to supply to householders and building owners and operators the equipment that will qualify for the rate reductions. It is important that we bring together all the stakeholders to take forward these important proposals.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister agree to publish information that compares the carbon footprint of recycling with that of incineration and tell us how it will inform the secondary legislation on decarbonised heat and energy production that will be made under the 2009 act?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member makes an important point. Clearly, when we recycle things that we no longer require, we can recover much of what is in them. Incineration is a way of capturing energy. It is important that we understand the role that each of those methods can play in reducing our carbon footprint.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what representations it will make to the United Kingdom Government on the proposed high-speed rail link connecting central Scotland to London. (S3O-7640)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Our high-level Scottish stakeholder group, which was announced in June, is well on the way to developing a robust business case for high-speed rail links between Scotland and London. It will submit its report in October. The group has maintained regular contact with High Speed Two throughout its work and will submit its report to HS2. That will be used to press the case for Scotland and will feed into HS2's work in advance of its report to the Department for Transport at the end of the year. I will meet Sir David Rowlands, chairman of HS2, in the near future.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Scotland was promised a direct link to and through the Channel tunnel, but that promise was not kept. It is vital that any development of high-speed rail infrastructure includes Scotland. Will the minister do his very best to encourage the UK Government not to do the same again and ignore Scotland's travelling public and commerce?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Our not getting a link to the Channel tunnel was indeed a lost opportunity. I welcome the work that Network Rail published recently, which shows that the addition of Scotland to a high-speed rail network would improve the rate of return on investment. Andrew Adonis, who is Secretary of State for Transport in the Westminster Administration, shares my enthusiasm on the issue. However, I note that Theresa Villiers, speaking on "Beyond Westminster" on Saturday morning, said:

"if there's a Conservative government elected we will build a high-speed rail connection between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. That's our commitment."

There are real dangers when some of the potential players in future decision making do not understand the importance of Scotland.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Does the minister accept that the increasingly acknowledged environmental case for high-speed rail services is contingent on the impact on aviation? If we grow both modes, emissions will go up, not down. If short-haul flights are replaced by long-haul ones, emissions will go up, not down. Does the minister accept that we must have a substantial reduction in aviation if high-speed rail services are to be justified in environmental terms, and will he raise that issue with the UK Government?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It is clear that one environmental benefit that would derive from reducing the journey time from London to Glasgow to two hours and 16 minutes and from London to Edinburgh to two hours and nine minutes—as the Network Rail study suggests is possible—would be wholesale transfer of journeys from aircraft to rail. I do not think that we would ever see an expansion of long-haul flying that would offset that. That issue will certainly form an important part of the discussions between the Administration here and the Westminster Administration.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The minister will be aware that, even if the trains get to Edinburgh and Glasgow, Network Rail has left its options open as to exactly where they will terminate. Does the minister agree that, for reasons of public connectivity, it is essential that the trains terminate at, near or under existing stations, and that it is perfectly possible for high-speed trains to run the last couple of miles on conventional tracks, as the French have done with the Gare de Lyon, for example?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We see the value of central city termini for high-speed rail, as we do for other important connections. That is why we welcome the Network Rail study, which shows that the line should go straight to the centre of London in the south and to the centre of our cities in the north, and that it should not go by an international connection point at Heathrow, which we think would not best serve the need for high-speed connections to the south.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

To ask the Scottish Government what support it will give to further develop the biotechnology industries in Aberdeen. (S3O-7618)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government is supporting Aberdeen's strengths in biotechnology and life sciences. For example, we invested in an incubator facility at the Foresterhill biomedical campus. Scottish Enterprise and the University of Aberdeen are discussing the next stage in that exciting development. In addition, Scottish Enterprise is promoting an ambitious project to accelerate the development of new food and health products to capture a greater share of that growing market. The Scottish food and health innovation centre will be based at the Foresterhill campus in Aberdeen.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I am glad that the minister recognises the successes in the north-east. Will he commit to encouraging Scottish Enterprise nationally to reinforce success, wherever that happens in Scotland, by showing flexibility in its future capital programme?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise show flexibility wherever success happens in Scotland. That will increasingly be the characteristic of the Government and our enterprise agencies. We recognise that success comes from increased interaction that helps maximise activity and investment. We take a comprehensive view of investment and intervention across Scotland—which means across all of Scotland.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does the minister recognise that Foresterhill is the largest medical campus in Europe and that the recent investment by Wyeth adds to Aberdeen's success in attracting private finance to biotechnological research? Will he ensure that the prominence of Aberdeen, particularly the Foresterhill campus, is reflected in the priorities that Scottish Enterprise sets and that the investment that Scottish Enterprise makes in the field is not restricted to any one city?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The member is absolutely right—£17.5 million is being invested in the translational medicine research collaboration. In addition, 12 Aberdeen life sciences companies are being account managed going forward. The Government is considering the totality of the life sciences sector in Scotland. We will continue to do that and to prioritise the sector on that basis.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

To ask the Scottish Executive what criteria are being used to select the 55 schools to be built by 2018 under the Scottish Futures Trust. (S3O-7653)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We are engaging with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, councils and the Scottish Futures Trust on the £1.25 billion school building programme that will follow on from the current £2 billion of school investment that is being supported by the Government. In identifying the first tranche of secondary schools that will benefit, I am taking into account the distribution of needs throughout Scotland; the best available information about schools' condition and unsuitability to deliver the curriculum for excellence; additionality; and authorities' plans and priorities and readiness to proceed.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

After two and a half years of the Scottish National Party Government, we are still waiting for an announcement on new schools. That is simply not good enough. Will the minister give the Parliament a cast-iron guarantee that the criteria and the workings that are used to make the decisions on the first 14 schools will be published? Will she guarantee that the process will not be influenced by the political composition of the local authorities in which the schools are based? In the interests of transparency, will she publish those workings?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Having heard my explanation of the criteria, the member might have changed her question. I point out that it took the previous Administration until 25 June 2002—three years into its term in office—before it announced its programme, and that it took it five and a half years to deliver the first refurbished school, which was Dunbar grammar school. I am delighted that, under the SFT programme, a primary school will be delivered in 2011, on top of the 250 schools that will be supported and built under the present Administration.

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

If the cabinet secretary has not already met Highland Council to discuss how a new Wick high school can be built, will she undertake to do so? Furthermore, will she discuss with the council how it can meet its share of the big bill that will ensue?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

As I outlined, part of the discussions will be with individual councils on what they consider to be appropriate schools in their areas, and on their plans and readiness to proceed. Many councils have already done that work. We are engaging not only with COSLA and the Scottish Futures Trust but with individual councils such as Highland Council.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that she is able to build so many schools because of the generous settlement from the UK Government?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Scottish Government is able to invest in schools because we prioritised capital investment in local authorities. In this year alone, we are accelerating £75 million of capital to support construction workers and to ensure that schools are built. The £2 billion of investment in our schools is a result of the Government's spending priorities to ensure that we have schools that are fit for Scotland's children.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive in what way the new Scottish clinical leadership and excellence award scheme for hospital consultants will reward outstanding performance in a fairer manner. (S3O-7636)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The new scheme has been developed to ensure that it is as fair and transparent as possible. It will emphasise contributions to the national health service above and beyond those contractually required and will be linked to NHS objectives. It is subject to equality proofing to provide equality of opportunity, whatever a consultant's role. The route from nomination to award has been simplified and streamlined. There will now be a consistent, standard format of electronic self-nomination as the sole route to an award. In addition, the requirement to publish the objective scoring system for the evaluation of applications underlines the scheme's commitment to greater fairness and transparency.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Although outstanding performance over and above the call of duty deserves to be rewarded, I am sure that the cabinet secretary is as concerned as I am that the current system results in half of all retiring consultants being in receipt of distinction awards. In view of the fact that other health service workers, such as nurses, are taking on more responsibility for decision making in patient care these days, does the cabinet secretary feel that a system that relates only to hospital consultants is still fit for purpose?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank Ian McKee for his question and his interest in the subject. As I have explained before, the purpose of the scheme is to ensure that we are able to attract and retain the very best medical professionals to the NHS in Scotland. This Government did not introduce the scheme; it has existed since 1948. We did not establish the review group either, although I am happy to endorse its conclusions.

Ian McKee asks about other staff groups, and it is a legitimate question. He will appreciate, however, that the remit of the review group was to review existing schemes and make recommendations to improve them. It was not asked to look at other staff groups—that would require an additional review. In the interests of being open and constructive, I am more than happy to consider any suggestions from Ian McKee or others.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will work with Orkney Islands Council to find an acceptable alternative site for the Stromness ferry terminal lorry parking and marshalling area if a new school is built on the existing site. (S3O-7605)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

As it is a council planning matter that could still be appealed to the Scottish ministers, it would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government to be involved yet, as any involvement could potentially compromise the appeals procedure.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I appreciate the constraints that the minister mentions. I confirm that my constituents are also looking forward to having a new grammar school and halls of residence in Kirkwall, as well as a new primary school in Stromness. However, in relation to the latter, is the minister aware of concerns about the potential knock-on consequences of siting the lorry park in front of the existing ferry terminal close to the centre of town? Should it be necessary, will he agree to work closely with OIC to explore what alternative options might be available to safeguard delivery of all three school projects while meeting the needs of ferry travellers and the local community in Stromness?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am sure that the new school will be very much welcomed by people in Stromness and surrounding areas. I have a keen interest in ensuring that the ferry terminal continues to deliver on its part of the transport infrastructure. Within the limitations of the planning system I will ensure that we step up to the mark so that no unnecessary barriers to good decision making derive from this Government's activities and that we assist the council in a proper way at the appropriate time.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions have taken place on the draft children's hearings (Scotland) bill. (S3O-7666)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Scottish Government has held a wide range of discussions with a variety of stakeholders on the draft children's hearings (Scotland) bill. That follows our publication of the draft bill in June to seek the views of key partners.

As I am sure that the member will already know, we have decided to take the necessary time to discuss proposals further with stakeholders before bringing the bill to Parliament early next year. Given the wide range of comments that we have received about the proposals, it is clear that the reforms must be right, not rushed.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I welcome the fact that the draft bill has been withdrawn in order to be reconsidered. The minister will be aware of concerns about proposals to scrap the 32 local children's panels and replace them with one body. Will he give an assurance that the view expressed by a Scottish Government official before the Finance Committee on Tuesday—that the Government is still actively considering that proposal to help meet its target to reduce the number of public bodies by 25 per cent—will not see the light of day?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I have had interesting and enjoyable discussions with all the stakeholders, all of whom are committed to the children's hearings system and, in particular, to the objective of improving outcomes for vulnerable children and young people. That is what we are focused on with the bill on children's hearings reform.

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-1827)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Later today I have a range of engagements to carry forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

I ask that the chamber gets the opportunity to recognise the tragic news of the deaths of Sergeant Stuart Millar from Inverness and Private Kevin Elliott from Dundee of the Black Watch, 3rd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland. Those men were killed as a result of an explosion while on active service in Helmand province on Monday morning. I know that all colleagues throughout the chamber will wish to join me in sending condolences to the men's families.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The First Minister knows that he has the condolences of the Labour Party to pass on, too.

Perhaps members will indulge me in asking them to note that, within the next few minutes, Royal National Lifeboats Institution stations throughout Britain will be paying tribute to the 778 lifesavers lost in the line of duty. Like many others, my constituency, which has stations at Dunbar and North Berwick, owes much to its lifeboat volunteers.

Yesterday, the First Minister and his Government were resoundingly defeated in the Parliament over the most important decision that they have had to take. He personally failed to carry the chamber. All the evidence shows that he has failed to carry Scottish opinion. Most Scots believe that the reputation of Scotland has been damaged. Does the First Minister have any regrets about how his Government has handled this matter?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have regrets about how the matter was handled in the chamber. In particular, I have regrets that Opposition parties, on what was a matter of principle and justice, chose to whip and dragoon their members into voting against the Government. Iain Gray should understand that choosing to use such a vital issue of justice in an attempt to destabilise a Government is a very foolhardy strategy, particularly given that the Government that he has started to destabilise is his own one in London.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Let us talk about principle and justice. If a single thing characterises what was wrong about how this decision was taken, it is Mr MacAskill's visit to Greenock prison, which compromised the whole process. Every explanation for it has collapsed.

Yesterday, Mr MacAskill said that he did not want a media circus if al-Megrahi stayed in Scotland, so why did he orchestrate one in Greenock? I refer to the Press Association diary from the night before the visit. In between references to the exam helpline and a rehearsal for the tattoo, it states,

"Justice Secretary meets Lockerbie bomber",

and provides a Scottish Government press officer's contact number. If the First Minister cannot explain—he failed to do so yesterday—why Mr MacAskill had to go to Greenock, can he explain why the media had to go, too?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The note on that was exactly the same as the notes for the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's meetings with the American Government, the Libyan Government, the United Kingdom families, the Lockerbie family and the Spanish family. All the justice secretary's intentions to conduct meetings were announced in public, because it would have been a grave mistake to hold secret meetings as part of a judicial process.

Although we have been over this territory a number of times, I have yet to hear a convincing answer to this point that the justice secretary made: if we were conducting direct meetings with all interested parties in the case, if this was the first prisoner transfer agreement that did not require the consent of the person to be transferred, and if direct meetings were held with all other parties, why would it not have been a breach of natural justice and an open invitation to judicial review if a meeting was not held with a party under discussion? Perhaps Iain Gray will take the opportunity to make an observation on that rather simple point.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I am happy to do so because those meetings were not all the same. Although the justice secretary was prepared to go to Greenock to meet the bomber face to face, he chose not to cross the Atlantic to afford the American families the same courtesy. We know that he was prepared to cross the Atlantic earlier this year to go to a Burns supper when he should have been right here with knife crime victims. Does the First Minister now accept that he should have insisted that his justice secretary afforded the same respect to the families of the victims as he did al-Megrahi by meeting them face to face? Would that not have been natural justice?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

There were meetings with the families by videolink to the United States. There were direct meetings in person with families in the United Kingdom, the Lockerbie relatives and the Spanish relatives. The justice minister was totally open about the process that he was following and totally punctilious about the prisoner transfer agreement. I remind Iain Gray that the prisoner transfer agreement was not sought by the justice minister or by this governing party but signed between the Governments in Libya and Westminster. However, once it became part of the law of Scotland, a justice minister was duty bound to carry out the issue by due process.

The problem that Iain Gray has on this matter, and the reason why he concentrates unavailingly on process, is that he cannot take on the issue of principle. The heart of this matter is the one that is being consistently addressed by the justice secretary, which is whether we should, in our justice system, be able to offer compassion and mercy to a dying man, even one who has committed a great atrocity. That is the issue of principle that people in Scotland are debating. It is unfortunate that in his desire for party-political advantage, Iain Gray cannot rise to that issue of principle.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The issue of principle here is the balance that is struck between compassion for the prisoner, and compassion for the victims, the length of the sentence remaining, and the courts' view of that sentence. At no stage, either yesterday or last Monday, has that issue of balance been addressed.

At the beginning of the Lockerbie story is an act of terror. I agree that the principles and integrity of our justice system are exactly our greatest bulwarks against terror, but so, too, are our parliamentary democracy and its integrity. Yesterday, the First Minister lost, in the Parliament. He cannot simply, like the Sid James of minority government, carry on governing, as he said last night he would. Will he at least support my suggestion of a Justice Committee inquiry to look further into the Scottish Government's handling of this matter? We can then find out how, for example, the American families feel about the equivalence of treatment they have received in the process.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The justice minister and I will be delighted to appear at the Justice Committee to account for the Government's actions. I hope that there is the same enthusiasm on the part of ministers at Westminster to appear before their committees to account for the actions of their Government. The contrast between Labour's posturing in Scotland and Labour's silence in London has been glaringly obvious over the past few weeks. It illustrates the great mistake that Iain Gray has made in trying to party politick on the grave issue of justice.

On the question of removing the Government, Iain Gray has his opportunity. It is only two weeks since Labour members were speculating and briefing the press that there would be motions of no confidence and motions of censure. They ran away from that as they run away from every big issue in Scottish politics.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I call question 2.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The Scottish Parliament has established that, in deciding to release the Lockerbie bomber, the Salmond Government made a bad decision badly. It has also been established that the United Kingdom Labour Government was involved in double-dealing diplomacy. I now want to move on to whether the Scottish Government also failed to act in an up-front and proper way and whether it was involved in dubious deals and nudge-and-wink diplomacy. In all the Scottish Government's dealings with Arab states, seeking money for the First Minister's Scottish Futures Trust, did the issue of Mr al-Megrahi's release ever come into play? Was it raised in any form?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The documents that we published are all the documents that we have relating to the decisions on Mr al-Megrahi. That is why we put them in the public domain. I am sure that Annabel Goldie, as a woman of fairness and dispassion on such matters and one who has read those documents, will agree that the commitment that I gave to the Parliament in May that the Government would always look on such issues on a judicial basis is borne out by every single one of the documents. We released so many documents into the public domain not just in the interests of transparency, to which I am committed, but because we were confident that they would vindicate our position that, right through this matter, judicial considerations and the protection of the integrity of the Scottish judicial system were the sole and only motivation for Kenny MacAskill's decision.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am afraid that there are suspicions—and facts. Fact: the First Minister is seeking money for his Scottish Futures Trust from Arab states. Fact: on 11 June 2009, he met the Qatari Government and discussed trade and Mr al-Megrahi's release at the same time. Fact: on 17 July 2009, the Qatari Government wrote to the Scottish Government, supporting compassionate release. Fact: one week later, Mr al-Megrahi applied for compassionate release. That does not look good.

The First Minister has told Mr Gray that it would be a grave mistake to hold secret meetings. Is the First Minister still going to Qatar later this year to ask for money? Will he publish all the correspondence, notes and minutes of meetings— and the details of all proposed meetings—between his Government and Arab states?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

All the information that we have that is relevant to Mr al-Megrahi's case has been published by the Government. If Annabel Goldie revisits the correspondence, she will find that everyone who contacted the Government was advised to put their views to Mr MacAskill, who was adjudicating on the issue as the justice minister of Scotland. In that correspondence, she will read that some people, including a former Conservative defence minister and a current Conservative MP, suggested that we should use Mr al-Megrahi as a "bargaining chip" for other issues or suggested that the matter should be considered as one of trade and investment. She will also see that the Government gave exactly the same answer to anyone making representations: that the justice secretary would consider his decisions only on the basis of matters of justice and upholding the integrity of our legal system.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Nothing that we can do can bring back the 270 lives of the Lockerbie victims. What faces us now is to reflect that many victims' families feel that they will now never know the true story of Pan Am 103. Does the First Minister believe that the Scottish Government has a duty to those families? Will he explore any avenues where any new information and evidence can be considered? Have any discussions taken place between ministers and the judiciary to consider whether, in the special circumstances of the case, evidence that has been gathered for the appeal can be made public?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Kenny MacAskill addressed that issue in his statement on 20 August, when he indicated our full confidence in the prosecution and police forces of Scotland. In the context of wider international matters, which many people think are relevant to the case, he also indicated that if a legitimate authority made inquiry into those matters, the Scottish Government would of course fully co-operate.

I draw Tavish Scott's attention to the fact that a body of examination, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, sat, if I remember correctly, for three years considering the issue. Although in practice not all its evidence can be released into the public domain, the body published a full account of its conclusion. I believe that there were four grounds on the basis of which the matter was sent back to the appeal court. That indicates that within our justice system there has been review, care and examination and that information has been published on which people can base their arguments and interest in the case.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Because of the appeal, which was dropped, these matters are within Scottish jurisdiction. Will the First Minister agree to start discussions with the judiciary to examine how the evidence that has accumulated could be taken further, as I asked? The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission believes that it has information of value, but that has now in part been locked away as a result of the ending of the appeal. The victims' families want the opportunity to see and test that information and to learn what closure and resolution it can bring for them. If the First Minister takes action on the matter, including by changing the law, he will have our support. Does he agree that securing closure and resolution for the families is particularly important?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I certainly believe in the interests of the families in the Lockerbie case. I met two of the families yesterday evening and considered some of those matters. As I have said before, I would never criticise a grief-stricken family for its comments on the case, but it is wrong to assume that all families have the same view of the decision that was taken. Indeed, the families who were with us yesterday supported the decision on compassionate release.

On the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and its report, I have discussed with law officers what matters could be published. I am prepared to continue those discussions, because if it were possible—and if it were helpful to people—to publish more information than the commission was able to publish under its normal procedure, under current circumstances I would be interested in seeing that done. Throughout this affair, the Scottish Government has been committed to the maximum possible transparency.

During yesterday's debate, I found it interesting that material that was published in 2007 was perhaps not familiar to all the members who contributed. If it helps Tavish Scott, I can confirm that I have already had discussions to see whether further matters could be published, over and above the summary of 2007.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

As we were unable to call her in yesterday's debate, I will take a supplementary question from Margo MacDonald.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Thank you. Will the First Minister consider a further inquiry, which might be elicited from organisations in Scandinavia that specialise in conflict resolution, mediation and so on? Does he intend to co- operate with the American senator who has flagged up the possibility of a Senate investigation?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I stand by what Mr MacAskill said on 20 August. Members should acknowledge two things. First, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has expressed his full confidence in the Scottish prosecution services, the Scottish judiciary and the Scottish police forces in terms of the conduct of the case. We have nothing whatever to be ashamed of in our country about the way in which our judicial forces acted. Secondly, the wider international ramifications of many aspects of the Lockerbie atrocity are beyond the jurisdiction of Scottish courts or indeed Scottish inquiries, which would not have the ability to summon either key witnesses or, indeed, key documents. Mr Kenny MacAskill made that point on 20 August.

Of course, if a legitimate international authority launches an inquiry, the Scottish authorities will co-operate with that, because we have nothing to hide in the matter and have given maximum transparency at every stage in the entire process.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The statistics that were published on Monday show that almost three out of four of those who were sentenced to six months or less in prison will offend again within two years. By contrast, three out of five of those who were sentenced to community service have a clean record after that time. The figures are entirely consistent with the findings of the Scottish Prisons Commission, which noted in paragraph 2.22 of its report

"a large body of evidence showing that when"

people imprisoned for short sentences

"return to their communities, they are more likely than those on community sentences, to be reconvicted and reimprisoned."

The Scottish Government is working to improve community service provision throughout Scotland. As well as the measures that are contained in the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill that is now before Parliament, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice announced on 23 June an additional £5.5 million to help to deliver swifter and more effective community justice by allowing local authorities to employ more staff to support community service projects.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The commission on English prisons today, which is chaired by Cherie Booth, has described the Scottish Government's actions as taking

"a courageous lead in the UK by taking serious steps to address its prison crisis"

by changing prisons policy. Does the First Minister welcome that support? Does he agree that the reoffending figures that were released this week—which he mentioned and which show that short sentences consistently fail to cut reoffending—make it imperative that, after years of failed prisons policy, Scotland tackles reoffending behaviour rather than simply locking people up? Does he also agree that those figures show that Scottish National Party justice policy is taking Scotland in the right direction?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I welcome the support that the commission on English prisons today—led, as it is, by a highly distinguished English barrister—has offered for our coherent offender management strategy. As Cherie Booth QC said:

"more widespread use of effective community sentences would both allow us to reduce the use of prison and allow for reinvestment of resources into local communities to cut offending."

Those seem to me to be words of profound common sense and I hope that that view is shared by the maximum number of members.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I did not know that the First Minister was such a fan of Cherie Booth. Does he not acknowledge that plans that will introduce a presumption against any custodial sentence for 65 per cent of those who are convicted of knife crime will not address reconviction rates and that they send entirely the wrong message on that key area of crime? If he is so committed to robust community sentences, why did his Government scupper plans for the Glasgow community court?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

If Richard Baker cares to look at the statistics, he will see that the average sentence for knife crime has increased under this Government to more than six months, whereas it was less than six months under the previous Administration. He can put that together with the latest statistics on police numbers, which show something that he said would never happen: we have record numbers of police in Scotland. Our manifesto commitment has been totally met and, furthermore, that is matched by the lowest recorded level of crime for a generation. Surely even Richard Baker should manage to welcome that.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Does the First Minister not recognise that so many prison sentences fail to have an impact as a result of his Government's policies? A six-month sentence for domestic violence or housebreaking, for example, is reduced to four months because of the Du Plooy ruling and reduced to 60 days because of automatic early release. Because of powers that his Cabinet Secretary for Justice has sought, those sentences can be reduced to one quarter of the actual sentence. Is that not why so many prisoners spend such a short time in jail and are unaffected by the sentence? Prison is, in effect, a scoosh.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The first two examples that Bill Aitken cited were policies that a Conservative Government introduced. I know that that goes far back into the mists of time, but it is worth recalling that a Conservative Administration introduced automatic early release. I know that Bill Aitken and his Labour counterpart are engaged in a competition as to who can be the hard man on crime in Scottish politics, but I hope that the Conservatives at least will acknowledge that the record police numbers in Scotland and the lowest level of recorded crime are very substantial achievements for—let us be generous—the Parliament as a whole.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has to improve inter-agency information sharing following the significant case review and review for chief officers reports into the death of Brandon Muir. (S3F-1843)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The tragic death of Brandon Muir has shocked and saddened us all, and the Government will implement the national recommendations of the recently published significant case review as part of the wide-ranging review of national child protection guidance that is under way. We are also taking practical steps to improve information sharing, one of the major findings of the inquiry, through investing some £15 million between 2008 and 2011 to develop the e-care framework and fund a vulnerable persons system for Scottish police services.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Has the First Minister considered the recently published report, which stated:

"In the short three week period when Cunningham resided with Heather Boyd and her children, the authorities, while active in personal engagement with the family, were not able to assemble, process or assess all the available information on Boyd or Cunningham. The Inquiry revealed gaps and inaccuracies, some caused by pre-existing systems, others by a lack of available resource."

What specific steps will the First Minister take to improve and identify the systems for identifying children who are at risk because their parents abuse alcohol or take drugs? What will he do to provide sufficient resources to make that possible so that we know the scale of the problem and who those children at risk are? Will he finally agree to Labour's proposal to set up a national inquiry into child protection in Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

There have now been two reports into the death of Brandon Muir. There was the independently chaired significant case review and an independent inquiry by former Fife chief constable Peter Wilson. I have read both of the reviews and the inquiry report, and the Government is acting on all the recommendations that were contained therein.

Peter Wilson's report makes a number of key recommendations, but one of its conclusions is that

"In Brandon Muir's case - collecting, sharing and assessing all the information in the short time frame when he was at acute risk, was not helped by difficulties in accessing records, and evaluating information."

That is exactly why I pointed in my first reply to the investment in the e-care system to allow agencies to share information and allow the urgent child protection messages to be sent and received.

The circumstances of this tragic case have been examined in the two reports, but I think that we should remember and acknowledge that the system of inspection that has been moving authority by authority across Scotland—I think that I am right in saying that only one authority has now to report inspection—has not only given us the best possible information on how child protection services are being deployed across the country but, in the few authorities that have had unacceptable reports, including Dundee City Council, has allowed key improvements to be made. We should acknowledge and have confidence in the inspectors and in the system of inspection, which is not just finding out how the services are being deployed, but, critically, resulting in substantial improvements where service providers have been shown to be wanting in their facilities or techniques.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

In March, the First Minister admitted that between 10,000 and 20,000 children could still be living with drug-misusing parents, but he failed to answer Tavish Scott's question at that time on how many of those cases were being reviewed in light of the tragic case of Brandon Muir. Can the First Minister answer that question now?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The processes are being reviewed in terms of the information and the reports that we get. The authority-by-authority examination gives us the best possible handle on how child protection services are being deployed across the country. The concentration that the Government and the ministerial team are putting into the issue is very substantial indeed. The issue has been discussed—I think that a question under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 asked about this—at innumerable Cabinet meetings, and rightly so given the importance of the subject.

However, let us remember that there are no easy answers to the question. Per head of population, we have more children in care in Scotland than there are in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is just a fact. The number has been increasing very substantially in recent years. That has been necessary to protect children, but no one should think that that is the underlying issue. The underlying issue is substance misuse and, indeed, alcohol misuse. As well as ensuring that the services to protect children are as good as they can be, and as well as reinforcing what the Parliament should be doing in supporting social workers in the extraordinarily difficult job that they do, we must also accept as a society that the key underlying problem is the substance and alcohol misuse that is causing the problems in the first place.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We started late, so I will also allow question 6.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government has taken in response to the anticipated problems in implementation of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005. (S3F-1837)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

First, I pay tribute to Sheriff Principal Gordon Nicholson, who died suddenly last week. As members know, Sheriff Principal Nicholson was the architect of the new licensing regime. I know that those who worked with him appreciated the careful thought and wise counsel that led to the changes that came into effect this week.

The changeover to the new licensing regime has been a major task for the licensed trade, the police and licensing boards. The 2005 act set a broad national framework, with a huge amount of flexibility for licensing boards to decide what is right for their area. Inevitably, the application process has raised some issues at local level. I know that some licensing boards are working hard on the transition process. At national level, the Government has already worked with stakeholders to simplify the bureaucracy, worked with the Accounts Commission to review the fee arrangements and used the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill to put right some of the glitches in the 2005 act.

The 2005 act is a major step forward, but it will undoubtedly take time to bed in. The act gives us a platform to build on with the new measures in the Government's alcohol framework. Those will continue to process our aim and intent of rebalancing Scotland's relationship with alcohol.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I associate myself with the First Minister's comments about Sheriff Principal Nicholson.

Is the First Minister aware that the initial guidance that the Scottish Government issued under the 2005 act stated that ministers did not believe that restrictions on irresponsible promotions could presently be extended to off-sales promotions? Will he confirm that that guidance has in effect been dumped by Scottish ministers, which has given licensing boards the green light to restrict off-sales promotions? Does he agree that, although there is a strong case for banning irresponsible promotions by off-licences, such matters must nevertheless not be introduced by the back door? That is an issue on which the Scottish Government has got form.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am sorry that Robert Brown has chosen to introduce the matter in that way.

The Government's intention on such matters could not be clearer. That is why we have introduced the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill and why we will bring forward the new legislation that I outlined this morning. Robert Brown should not confuse the undoubted deficiencies in the 2005 legislation with the Government's intent to attack the scourge of alcohol misuse in Scotland.

I do not know whether Robert Brown has looked back to the press on the day that the 2005 legislation was passed, but I have done so. It reads: "shambles", "farce", "booze laws confusion". It talks about an open confrontation on the floor of the chamber between Tom McCabe, the Labour minister in charge, and his Liberal deputy, George Lyon. Mike Rumbles MSP is quoted as summing up the matter by saying that the passing of the legislation that we are now implementing was

"a sad day for the Scottish Parliament".

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Justice and Law Officers

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

In the sheriffdom of south Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway, the Scottish Court Service has consulted further with the sheriff principal and local authorities as prescribed by the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007.

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

Given that when the cabinet secretary introduced proposals to close courts, including those in Cumnock and Girvan, he was sent homeward to think again, does he think that it would be better to address the legitimate concerns that have been raised by local justices and East Ayrshire Council rather than simply make the same proposal again?

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

I am not making the same proposal again, because I have not received further submissions or recommendations from the Scottish Court Service. When I do, what Cathy Jamieson suggests might be the case, but I cannot confirm whether it will be, because I have received no submissions.

I am surprised by the criticism of the procedures, because, after all, the procedures that I follow are those that are laid down in the 2007 act, which was introduced not by me as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice or by my Government, but by yourself, Ms Jamieson, when you were the Minister for Justice. If you do not like the legislation, you should have thought about that before you implemented it.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

The Justice of the Peace Courts (Sheriffdom of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway) Order 2009, which proposed the closure of the district courts at Annan, Cumnock and Girvan, was rejected by the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee only in May this year. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is somewhat arrogant of the Scottish Court Service to reintroduce exactly the same proposal after only four months?

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

It has not done so. No recommendations have reached me and until such time as they do, no decision can be taken. I cannot comment on whether the SCS is being arrogant, but I can give you the factual position that no further decision has been made, because no recommendations have reached me.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I remind all members that remarks should be directed through the chair and not made directly to each other.

Question 2 was not lodged.

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

The council tax freeze and the commitment to 1,000 additional police officers are both priorities for the Scottish Government and have been agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities as part of the concordat. Accordingly, they are both fully funded by the Scottish Government. That is why earlier this week I was able to announce that in June 2009, there were 17,278 police officers employed by Scottish forces—the highest number ever recorded. For the first time, we have passed the milestone of 1,000 additional police officers, well ahead of our pledge to do so by the end of this parliamentary session, with an increase of 1,044 since March 2007.

Strathclyde police authority has considered the potential impact of spending decisions that have not yet been made. The Scottish Government will publish the draft 2010-11 budget later this month, which will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and debate in the usual way. We await the next spending review, which we expect to be delayed until after the next general election.

George (Labour, Lothians)

With all those extra police officers, why was it not possible to keep al-Megrahi in a safe house in Strathclyde?

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

It would have been possible; the deputy chief constable said that his force would have risen to any challenge. However, it was made clear that there would have been significant operational difficulties—48 officers would have been required simply to monitor him in the house. To move him to hospital or elsewhere would have required additional policing above and beyond that.

As I have said before, I find it ludicrous and grotesque that we should have imposed—I heard the word "impose" used by some speakers in the chamber—Mr al-Megrahi on a Scottish hospice. People go to a hospice to die with dignity, surrounded by friends and family in their dying moments, not to have Mr al-Megrahi, an international press corps and, indeed, a police camp there. I say to Mr Foulkes that that would have been unacceptable and I stand by my decision.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is the cabinet secretary aware that Strathclyde police authority has applied to fund 60 new trainee police officers at the Scottish Police College in addition to the trainees who are funded by the Scottish Government? The SPA is doing that at a cost of £2 million, which rather flies in the face of the claim of a possible shortfall in funding.

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

Absolutely. I pay great tribute to the chief constable of Strathclyde. It is to his enormous credit that he is not only delivering the Government's commitment to provide additional officers to Strathclyde but is, through his own actions, and supported by every officer of whatever rank in his force, ensuring that additional recruits are taken on, that officers are retained and that officers who are behind desks are redeployed.

When the convener of the SPA referred to the potential problems and the difficulty that it may face in terms of recruitment, he did not point out that, for the first time, the SPA has recruited a press officer.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the cabinet secretary accept my genuine congratulations on implementing Conservative policy in ensuring that the appropriate number of police are in place? Can I look forward to receiving the same degree of co-operation from him in future when budgetary matters are discussed?

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

I accept that in the spirit in which it was given. The Scottish Government is delighted to deliver the additional 1,000 officers. We are happy that the Scottish Conservatives have supported us on the matter. I will seek to work with Mr Aitken where I can on other financial matters, albeit that—in many instances—that work will be done by our colleagues who cover the finance portfolio.

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

We are currently considering whether any changes to the eligibility rules for civil legal aid are desirable.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

As the cabinet secretary may be aware, last month, the convicted rapist and former police officer Adam Carruthers lost his appeal against the removal of employer contributions to his police pension. It has been estimated that the appeal cost the taxpayer more than £100,000 in legal aid fees. Moreover, he received legal aid for his appeals against sentence, at least one of which was abandoned. Will the cabinet secretary give an assurance that he will consider curtailing the use of legal aid for repetitive or vexatious appeals? On some occasions, including the example that I have raised, such appeals are tantamount to harassment of the victims of crime.

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

I am aware of Dr Murray's concerns on the issue—concerns that she has raised on previous occasions. Many in the chamber will share those concerns. Indeed, I discussed the matter with the chief executive of the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

It is important to bear in mind two points. First, there are the legal aid regulations, which we seek to monitor—indeed, we are happy to review them and change them if and when it is necessary to do so. In many instances, primary legislation may be required to do that. I assure Dr Murray that I hope that frivolous and vexatious appeals will be precluded by the Legal Aid Board. The legislation that is in place is subject to interpretation by the board.

Secondly, and without reference to any specific case, it is important to bear in mind the fact that we require to have cognisance of the European convention on human rights. Simply because someone may have done something reprehensible should not necessarily mean that, in other matters, they should not be eligible for legal aid. That is part of our strength as a democracy. It is also part of an obligation that is contained in the legal aid rules and regulations that were brought in on an all-party and non-party basis.

Dr Murray is correct to raise the issue, which is a matter of concern. As I said, the Legal Aid Board is aware of her constituents' concerns—concerns that I am sure are felt by others elsewhere. The matter is under constant review.

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

Ministerial decision making in cases involving offenders was examined by the late Sheriff Principal Gordon Nicholson QC, to whom the First Minister gave testament at First Minister's question time. Sheriff Principal Nicholson undertook that examination at the request of the previous Administration. His report was published last year, and made no recommendations for change in relation to the process for compassionate release.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Yesterday, you came under a great deal of criticism—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Through the chair, please.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Sorry. Yesterday, the cabinet secretary came under a great deal of criticism for his mishandling of the al-Megrahi decision. Mr MacAskill and his officials misdirected themselves about the basis of their decision by not giving proper legal consideration to the guidance, and to the balance of considerations in it. Parliament has highlighted that, in that decision, the powers were judicial but were exercised poorly in a way that no judge would entertain.

Given the enormous power wielded, scrutiny should apply to quasi-judicial matters as well as to more regular policy matters.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question, please.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Will the Government therefore support our calls for the Parliament's Justice Committee to commence an inquiry to allow genuine scrutiny of the decision and the manner in which it was taken?

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

I made it clear previously in Parliament and I make it clear again that it was my decision and my decision alone, and I stand by it. It might have been more appropriate if those who are throwing brickbats around had taken a view before the decision was taken, but there we go.

We do not rule anything in or out. The late Sheriff Principal Nicholson—who did the Parliament and the country a great service with the licensing reforms, and with his service as a sheriff principal, and a sheriff before that—carried out a review. That review was instructed not by my Administration but by the previous Administration. He reviewed compassionate release and felt that it was appropriate that it should remain a ministerial matter.

If members want to have an inquiry, the Government is prepared to consider one. If they want to press the issue further, we have nothing to hide, although perhaps others must answer for their bit.