Scottish Parliament, 29 October 2009

387 contributions from 83 members. The official report.

Official Report 29 October 2009

Influenza A(H1N1)

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

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

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

There have been a number of developments since my last statement to Parliament on the H1N1 influenza virus. Many of those developments were covered in the update letter that I sent to all members on 22 October. However, I am grateful for this further opportunity to update Parliament on the current situation and, in particular, on the commencement of the vaccination programme.

The H1N1 virus is continuing to circulate in Scotland, and it appears that we are now experiencing the predicted second wave. Today's weekly report from Health Protection Scotland reports on the situation in the week ending 26 October. The report, which is based on information from the all-Scotland reporting system that covers 86 per cent of all general practices indicates that, in the past week, the number of general practitioner consultations for influenza-like illness was 111 per 100,000 of the population—an increase of 27 per cent on the previous week. It is estimated that about 19,200 people contracted H1N1 over the past week, compared to around 14,600 in the previous week.

It is important to stress that, in the vast majority of cases, the virus remains relatively mild and self-limiting. However, some people are experiencing serious complications and require hospital treatment as a result. The number of hospitalisations and admissions to critical care for H1N1 has increased significantly over the past three weeks. Today's HPS report confirms that a total of 556 people with H1N1 have been admitted to hospital since the outbreak began—176 of those in the past week and 384 since the end of September. As of yesterday, there were 65 people in hospital who were confirmed as having H1N1, 23 of whom were receiving treatment in intensive care units.

As members are aware, in Scotland there has been a total of 25 deaths associated with the virus, four of which have occurred in the past week. I am sure that all members will join me in expressing sympathy for those who have lost loved ones as a result of the virus. Those deaths underline the importance of the vaccination programme in protecting the most vulnerable people from the virus. I will say a little more about that shortly.

Members will appreciate that the increase in the number of admissions to critical care has put our services under additional pressure. Increasing pressure was a key consideration in our contingency planning arrangements, which is why all health boards were asked to put in place plans to increase critical care capacity by 100 per cent, should it be necessary. Those plans are in place and are ready to be activated as and when necessary. As I announced previously, the Scottish Government has supported the plans with the purchase of an additional 43 adult ventilators, 15 paediatric ventilators and nine neonatal ventilators, which will be used as and where demand arises throughout Scotland.

I turn now to the subject of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. In recent weeks, there has been considerable media coverage of the benefits of ECMO treatment. Only last week, I had an opportunity to meet Sharon Pentleton and her newborn son. As members will recall, Sharon was transferred to Sweden for ECMO treatment during the summer. I am delighted to report that both Sharon and her son are in excellent health. Scotland already has ECMO provision for heart surgery patients and respiratory ECMO provision for children. Respiratory ECMO for adults—which is not yet a fully established treatment—is available to Scottish patients though the United Kingdom's nationally commissioned ECMO centre in Leicester and the accredited European centre in Stockholm.

Clearly, the H1N1 pandemic is having a significant impact on the demand and the existing capacity for ECMO. For that reason, UK health ministers agreed to double the ECMO capacity at Glenfield hospital in Leicester, which will be achieved by the end of this week. Nonetheless, I confirm today that, over the past week, adult respiratory ECMO has been provided at Aberdeen royal infirmary on two occasions. Aberdeen royal infirmary is currently the only site in Scotland where there are both respiratory adult ECMO machines and staff who have been trained in their use by the team in Leicester. The decision to provide ECMO for the two patients in Aberdeen was made after close clinical consultation with the Leicester team; those consultations are continuing.

In the light of the increased demand that we are seeing across critical care, I asked the Scottish expert group on ECMO for interim recommendations on the immediate capacity of the national health service in Scotland to provide adult ECMO facilities and on the contribution that Aberdeen might be able to make on a continuing basis during the flu pandemic. The group has recommended that although Leicester should at this stage remain the front door for access to adult ECMO provision, with all referrals being discussed and agreed with the Leicester team, ECMO treatment can be provided in Aberdeen in the future, but only when additional capacity is required. The decision to treat patients in Aberdeen will be subject to both agreement and clinical support from Leicester. Over the next few weeks, the expert group will report to me its recommendations for longer-term provision of adult ECMO in Scotland.

Despite the significant pressures that are being experienced, the NHS as a whole continues to respond well to the challenge of the flu pandemic. That is true of our critical care services and our primary care services. Scotland's GPs, supported by NHS 24 and the Scottish flu response centre, continue to respond extremely well to the demands that they face. The pressures have, at times, been considerable. For example, NHS 24 has dealt with call demand that has, on occasion, been as much as 50 per cent higher than the forecast demand for this time of year. NHS 24 and other primary care services have coped admirably.

Nevertheless, we are not complacent and I am aware of the potential for winter pressures further to increase demand on primary care services. However, taking into account the ability of NHS 24 to increase its capacity if necessary, I am confident that Scotland's primary care services will continue to cope over the winter. We retain the option of joining the national pandemic flu service when and if we think that is necessary. The advice remains that people in Scotland who are worried about flu-like symptoms should continue to contact their GPs or NHS 24.

I turn now to the vaccination programme, which began its roll-out last week. As I have said repeatedly—I make no apology for doing so again—vaccination is the best line of defence against the virus. As I have also said previously, supplies of the vaccine in the early weeks of the programme will be limited; therefore, the programme will proceed on a phased basis. The supply of vaccine is subject to the volume that the manufacturers can supply to us in the initial weeks, but I assure colleagues that the vaccine is being distributed as soon as it is available. Indeed, to date, 165,000 doses of the vaccine have been supplied to NHS boards throughout Scotland. By Monday, we will have received in Scotland almost 250,000 doses of vaccine, and by next Friday we will have received 367,000 doses. That is in line with our expected delivery schedules.

As members are aware, the first supplies of the vaccine have been used to vaccinate vulnerable patients in acute settings and to begin the vaccination of front-line health and social care workers. However, from this week, GP practices in Scotland have also begun to receive initial supplies of the vaccine to allow them to begin, as soon as possible, vaccination of the priority groups. I expect all GP practices to have received their initial supplies of the vaccine by the end of next week. Individuals in the priority groups will, therefore, shortly begin to receive invitations to receive a vaccination from their GP. Given the limited supply of the vaccine in the early weeks, we have provided guidance to NHS boards on how to make best use of their initial supplies. I confirm, however, that we expect all 1.3 million people in the priority groups to have been offered vaccination by Christmas.

Early anecdotal evidence suggests that, so far, uptake of the vaccine by front-line health and social care staff has been good. Over the next few weeks, we will begin to report the actual uptake figures. I am sure that members will agree that it is important that our front-line health and social care workers protect not only themselves, but the vulnerable patients and clients with whom they are in contact. A UK communication campaign will also soon begin to encourage uptake of the vaccine within the clinical at-risk groups. That includes the establishment of a new dedicated NHS 24 information helpline, which is already up and running and is providing members of the public with up-to-date information on the vaccination programme.

The final issue on which I will update members today is the publication on 22 October of the latest version of the UK planning assumptions. Members will be aware from previous discussions that those are not definite predictions; however, they use our developing data on the virus to give the NHS and other key sectors the best bases on which to plan. The planning assumptions indicate a consistent but gradual increase in the incidence of H1N1 both in Scotland and throughout the UK. The scientists consider that the overall clinical attack rate in a worst-case scenario might now be 12 per cent of the population. That is down from the figure of 30 per cent in the previous planning assumptions. Furthermore, the rate of workplace absences is now projected to be 5 per cent, rather than the 12 per cent that was previously projected. Although that is clearly good news, as the events of the past couple of weeks have shown, we cannot afford to drop our guard—nor will we.

We anticipate that pressure across the NHS will increase over the coming winter months. I fully expect that this winter will be the most difficult that the NHS has faced in many years. However, I believe that, because of the high level of advanced planning that we have put in place and the additional resources that we have secured, the NHS is well prepared to meet whatever challenges we face. I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank all NHS staff for the hard work that they are doing to ensure that that is the case.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on her statement. We have around 20 minutes for such questions.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of her statement. I look forward to working with her on the full range of issues facing the NHS in Scotland. I also join her in sending condolences to the families who have lost loved ones to the H1N1 flu virus, and in thanking the NHS staff who have worked hard to mitigate the effects of the flu.

I have no doubt that the virus has the potential to be one of the most significant public health issues to face the country as we move into winter.

The cabinet secretary will, of course, be aware of the concerns that have been raised by some GPs about delays in receiving the vaccine. She launched the vaccination programme on 21 October, but many GPs will not start to receive supplies until 2 November and it has been suggested that the amount will, even then, be insufficient. In Lothian, for example, one GP reports that he will receive barely one tenth of the needs of his practice. Similarly, a GP in Midlothian reports that he will receive a 50-dose vial next week, with no information on when further supplies will be received, although he has among his patients 70 pregnant women who all require the vaccination, and considerably more patients in the other risk categories.

Is the cabinet secretary aware of patients being told to call their GPs almost daily because the practices do not appear to know what is happening?

On 3 September, the cabinet secretary advised Parliament that 300,000 to 350,000 doses of the vaccine would be delivered each and every week from the date when the vaccine was licensed. Can she confirm that the figure of 367,000 doses from the end of next week is, therefore, barely one third of what she previously anticipated? What impact does she think that will have?

In a letter to MSPs on 22 October, the cabinet secretary told us that modelling had showed that the peak of H1N1 cases will occur from the end of October to mid-November. That, of course, is now. I therefore ask the cabinet secretary what urgent action she will take to ensure that, rather than risk a descent into chaos, delivery of the vaccine will be better co-ordinated so that it can be done more quickly. My concern, which, I am sure, the cabinet secretary shares, is that we might just run the risk of missing the boat with each and every day of delay.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I welcome Jackie Baillie to her post and I look forward to working with her. I record my thanks to Cathy Jamieson, who took a constructive approach to all matters, particularly the important issue that we are discussing today, which has united the chamber over the past weeks and will, I hope, continue to do so.

Jackie Baillie raised some important issues. At the outset, I must state clearly that there are no delays in the vaccination programme or in the delivery of vaccine. At the weekend, the Scottish general practitioners committee said that the vaccine programme remains on track. As Jackie Baillie will appreciate, however, we are very much in the hands of the manufacturers in terms of supply of vaccine: we have to wait to get the supply before it can be distributed throughout Scotland to NHS boards. In my statement, I gave Parliament an update on the supplies that we have in Scotland today—165,000 doses—and an indication of the supplies that we know, with certainty, will come to Scotland over the course of next week. We will continue to ensure that, as soon as supplies are available from the manufacturers, they are distributed throughout Scotland. As we move through the initial weeks of the programme, we hope that the rate of supply from the manufacturers will gather even more pace.

At the outset of the vaccination programme, I said that it was our intention to be able to offer vaccination to all 1.3 million people in the priority groups by Christmas. That remains our intention and it remains our firm expectation that that will be delivered.

On Jackie Baillie's comment about people phoning their GPs, we have been clear that people should wait to be called for vaccination by their GP, and health boards are giving GPs as much information as they are able to, based on what I have said about manufacturers and supply of the vaccine. As I said in my statement, an NHS 24 helpline has been established to give people information about the vaccination programme.

I am absolutely firm in my belief that vaccination is our best defence against this virus. We have always said that we want to vaccinate the people in the priority groups as quickly as possible. That remains our intention, and we will do that as soon as supplies from manufacturers allow.

This country is one of the most advanced countries in the world in terms of vaccination. Many other countries, such as the United States of America, are experiencing significant problems with getting any supplies of vaccine.

All of us want the programme to be complete as soon as possible and all of us want it to gather pace. I assure all members that the vaccine supplies will be distributed as quickly as possible and that those who are at risk will be vaccinated as quickly as possible.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for making her statement. It is appropriate that she has done so. I also thank her for the advance copies of both of this morning's statements, which were received 35 minutes prior to the start of this morning's business. I also congratulate Jackie Baillie on her new post and look forward to working with her.

It is important to acknowledge the excellent working relationship that has been developed with UK ministers to double the ECMO capacity in Leicester, and their commitment to train NHS staff in Aberdeen. I commend all NHS staff, but I particularly commend those in NHS 24, who have risen to the challenge of swine flu.

Does the cabinet secretary appreciate why so many people are calling and pressuring their doctors? They are doing so against a background of increased hospitalisation of flu patients and the fact that more than 19,000 people were diagnosed with swine flu last week, as well as the fact that, tragically, 25 people have died. There is no doubt that all that is leading to increased anxiety to get the vaccine.

Can the cabinet secretary give pregnant women the advice that they need to reassure them about the safety of the vaccine for their own health and that of their unborn babies? Will she also give advice about the potential age immunity for swine flu, given that many reports are stating that a similar strain of flu was around in the 1950s, which might mean that people over 60 or 65 might be immune? That clarity is critical if we are to ensure that all those who would benefit from the vaccine come forward to get it.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank Mary Scanlon for her on-going co-operation on this issue. She is right to point to the good working relationship that has developed between health ministers across the UK. I speak to my fellow health ministers regularly—we last spoke yesterday afternoon. All countries in the UK are in the same position with regard to trying to get the supplies of vaccine from the manufacturers and out into the system as quickly as possible.

I take the opportunity to echo Mary Scanlon's comments about NHS 24. All NHS staff have worked hard over the past months to respond to this crisis, and NHS 24 has been exemplary and has done a fantastic job. As I said in my statement, the service has sometimes had to deal with call demand that has been 50 per cent above what it would expect at this time of year, but has met all its key performance indicators in doing so. I warmly pay tribute to the staff.

Mary Scanlon is right to talk about public concern. I absolutely appreciate the reasons for public concern. As she knows, I have been at pains to encourage people to take the outbreak seriously—at times over the past few months, it has been suggested that I have been over-reacting because it is a mild illness that people do not have to take seriously. However, I have been, and remain, firmly of the view that it is serious. That is why I continue to encourage people who are offered vaccination to take up the opportunity.

The vaccine has been licensed for pregnant women and assurances have been given about the safety of the GlaxoSmithKline vaccine and the vaccine from Baxter Vaccines, which will be used at a later stage. Any pregnant woman—and anyone in the wider population—who has concerns should seek advice from their GP or from NHS 24.

With regard to Mary Scanlon's point about immunity, it has, during the current outbreak, been thought that people in the over-65 group or slightly younger have a background immunity to the virus that other members of the population do not have. That is still thought to be likely. There is also a growing view, which lies behind some of the downward estimates in the planning assumptions, that there is a greater background immunity among the population than was previously thought to have been the case. Nevertheless, I strongly encourage anyone who is in the over-65 group, or in any of the priority groups, to get vaccinated. That is a much better defence against the virus than any assumptions—accurate or otherwise—about levels of immunity in the population.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of her statement. Liberal Democrats join her in extending our sympathy and condolences to those who have been affected by the disease, and in congratulating all members of the NHS staff, who have performed so admirably during this difficult time. I, too, congratulate Jackie Baillie on her appointment, which has, I understand, caused a frisson of excitement at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

I will pick up on the remarks that the cabinet secretary made in response to Mary Scanlon, about the balance between your well-expressed view—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Sorry, Mr Finnie—I must ask you to speak through the chair rather than directly to the cabinet secretary.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Cabinet secretary, I want to pick up on the points that Mary Scanlon made about the balance between remaining somewhat calm on the one hand, and stressing the importance of the situation on the other. Although at the beginning of your statement you referred to the disease as being "relatively mild and self-limiting" in most cases, you nevertheless—if I have read the statement correctly—reported a significant increase in the number of persons who are being hospitalised and, sadly, in the number of persons who have died as a result of the virus.

Do you have any concerns that the increase in the level of hospitalisation and the number of deaths is attributable to any change or mutation of the disease? Is the situation now slightly more serious than you have otherwise been able to report?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank Ross Finnie for his very serious question, and assure him that there is absolutely no evidence at this stage to suggest that the virus has mutated in any way or that it is any more serious than it has been since it was first discovered back in April.

Ross Finnie is right to point out, as I did in my statement, that during the past three weeks in particular there has been a sharp rise in the number of people who have been hospitalised and, unfortunately, a sharp rise in the number of deaths from the virus. I stress that that is a reflection of the increased number of cases of the virus in the community: as the number of people who are contracting H1N1 has risen, so has the number of those who need hospital treatment and, sadly, the number who are dying from it. The important point is that that does not indicate a rise in the proportion of people who are experiencing complications or losing their lives due to H1N1.

For the vast majority of people, the disease is still very mild—well, no flu is very mild, but it is a relatively mild illness. It remains the case, however, that for a minority of people the virus can result in serious complications, and it is not possible to predict with certainty who is likely to experience those complications. It will be mainly people who have underlying conditions, but not exclusively so. I return to the point that the best defence is vaccination; when people are offered the vaccination, they should take that opportunity.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We come to open questions. There are just over five minutes available, so I ask members for one short question followed by one short answer.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The cabinet secretary tells us that that a Scottish expert group has been set up to examine the possibility of establishing regular ECMO facilities in Scotland. Can she give a more specific estimate of when that group is due to report back?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The ECMO expert group is due to report back to me in December, and that report will contain recommendations on medium-term to longer-term provision of ECMO in Scotland. The provisions at Aberdeen royal infirmary and the doubling of capacity in Leicester that I mentioned in my statement are interim responses to deal with the increased demand as a result of the flu pandemic, but it is right that we make considered judgments about how we provide a treatment that still divides opinion in the critical care community and which is still not fully established in terms of its efficacy. We should make those decisions in a considered way. The expert group will allow us to do so.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is clear that the logistical problem is, as was to be expected, a major issue. Will the cabinet secretary agree that the broad-brush at-risk group that includes front-line health and social care staff, which was announced in report 56 on those at risk, from the Scottish Government resilience room, is now too broad for this first week or 10 days in which vaccine supplies are limited? Will she therefore consider issuing a refined list of priorities that includes, for example, young pregnant women in late pregnancy rather than all pregnant women, and children who are seriously at risk rather than all children? That would allow the vaccine supply to match the actual risk needs and prevent every person who is in the at-risk group from phoning up.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

That is a perfectly legitimate question. As a politician and as a minister, I follow advice on matters that relate to vaccination, as Dr Simpson will appreciate, from bodies such as the scientific advisory group on emergencies and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. All UK ministers have followed that advice, and that is why the priority groups have been set as they are.

It is important that we vaccinate front-line health and social care workers in order to secure the services of the NHS. As I indicated earlier, GPs have been given guidance about how they should prioritise the use of limited supplies of vaccine in the early weeks. During the next few weeks, as vaccine supplies increase, greater numbers of people will come forward for vaccination. We are on track to vaccinate—or to offer vaccination to—1.3 million people in the priority groups by Christmas.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

As the cabinet secretary acknowledged in her statement, it appears that we are now experiencing the predicted second wave. Can she reassure us that, in Scotland and in other countries that are experiencing the second wave, the widely-held fears that the virus might mutate into a more virulent virus have not as yet been realised?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Yes, I can give that assurance. As I said in response to Ross Finnie, there is no evidence of mutation of the virus, although experts continue to monitor it very carefully. The revised planning assumptions that I mentioned in my statement have been revised partly in the light of the experience of H1N1 in this country, but also in light of the experience of the southern hemisphere countries such as Australia during their winter. That has allowed the experts to develop a much greater understanding and to predict with greater certainty how the virus might spread during the winter months. I repeat that the virus is not becoming more serious; it is just that as more people get it, more people will develop complications.

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

It is certain that for people who live in very remote areas, access to transport impinges on provision of health services. What consideration has been given to including people who drive buses and post buses, and volunteer drivers who provide hospital transport, in the priority group for vaccination?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

We have prioritised front-line health and social care workers, and health boards will have a degree of flexibility about determining who satisfies that definition with regard to the delivery of their services. Beyond that, our very firm expert advice at this stage is to focus on the clinical at-risk groups, and that is what we will do during the following number of weeks. We will take advice, and discussions are already on-going, about what the later stage of the vaccination programme may involve.

Ministers will consider that advice in due course during the next few weeks and take decisions at an appropriate time, but the current priorities are front-line health and social care workers, in order that we can maintain NHS services, and the clinical at-risk groups, so that we can deal with those who are most at risk of developing complications.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The minister has already been reminded about her previous expectation that the high point might be experienced soon. Can she give an idea of the current expected profile for the development of the disease?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

As I said in my statement, the latest planning assumptions and expert opinion are that we are now in the second wave, and that the spread of the virus has increased more steadily and gradually than might have been expected earlier in the year when, based on experience in the first wave, we expected a very sharp spike in cases by now. That has not happened yet, although it might happen in the next few weeks. At present, the profile of the virus is a steady and gradual increase. Experts say that it could peak in the next few weeks but could, equally, continue to spread gradually throughout the entire winter. The situation is being monitored carefully. We now have much better information on which to base predictions or assumptions about how the virus will spread, but we still cannot do that with absolute certainty.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I apologise to the members whom I am unable to call, but I must move to the next item of business, as our timetabling today is extremely tight.

Elder Abuse

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is a statement by Shona Robison on elder abuse. As always, the minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Yesterday's debate on reshaping the care of older people considered the challenge of providing appropriate and fair care now and for future generations. In doing that, we must focus on supporting people to feel safe and valued. We can and must do more to reduce instances of neglect of or harm to any of our citizens. Elder abuse is a matter of great concern to us all, so any discussion that raises awareness of the issue is welcome. We can debate whether the incidence of abuse of older people has risen or whether a greater focus on the quality of adult care and encouragement to raise concerns about it, along with features such as the recent one in The Herald , are providing more evidence of harm. Whatever the case may be, the point is that one case of abuse is one too many and we must deal with it robustly.

Mistreatment of older people has been a hidden and often ignored problem in society. Whether it involves physical injury, neglect, sexual abuse or financial exploitation, we know that older people often have difficulty reporting abuse. Abuse can lead to a lack of self-esteem and a lack of confidence to report it. We must therefore continue to raise public and individual awareness of the issue. We must promote zero tolerance of harm to those who are most at risk in our society. I am seriously concerned about any instance of abuse that could have been prevented. Although it will be difficult to eradicate completely all cases of abuse of older people, I am convinced that our work on a number of fronts will reduce opportunities for harm and provide a more effective response when harm is suspected.

Partly in response to earlier campaigns on elder abuse, the previous Administration introduced legislation to protect adults who are at risk. We are implementing the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007, which came into force only last October and which has a major role in identifying and responding to adults who are most at risk in society. The act sends a clear message that harm and neglect of those adults is not acceptable. The Herald has suggested that Scotland's older people are suffering record levels of abuse. The basis of the suggestion seems in part to be information about the use of the act—on the number of people who have been identified as being at risk or who have been referred to adult protection committees. Of course, that information was not available before the act came into force a year ago, because it is about activity that was not co-ordinated or recorded in the way that the legislation now prescribes. Awareness of the abuse of older people is therefore growing through activity to address it and through the scrutiny and reporting of abuse.

The act brings about new responses to suspected harm. It gives local authorities and their partners the power to gain access to premises to investigate complaints of abuse and it provides for various orders to protect individuals from harm, including removal and banning orders. The act involves close co-operation between local authorities and the police to address harm. The first biennial reports from the APCs, which will be produced in October next year, will provide good information on progress on implementation. The current informal evidence from local authorities shows many referrals to and from the police.

To date, the act has been backed by funding of £24 million from the Scottish Government to allow local authorities to recruit and train more staff and to establish local adult protection units. Much has been happening at national level, too, to support implementation activity. Multi-agency and multi-disciplinary training took place during 2008. The feedback from the training and awareness events was particularly positive, with evidence that the materials are being used at local level.

The quality of care, particularly in the private sector, was a major focus of The Herald investigation. We have supported the private care sector workforce initiative, in co-operation with the independent sector, to roll out training in the care sector. The aim is to ensure that adult protection training reaches staff, providers, service users, carers and families in the care home and care-at-home sectors.

Members will be aware of the role and remit of adult protection committees. To support their development, we have put in place a new network of adult protection committees that covers every part of Scotland. I recently met the committee chairs to discuss the way forward. The committees provide new opportunities to share practice and learning and ultimately to help shift attitudes towards older people. All those implementation activities will contribute to reducing the abuse of older people.

The Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007, when implemented, will deliver a system that offers further protection by excluding from working with vulnerable groups those who are not suitable to do so. For the first time in Scotland, the act will introduce a new list of those who are barred from working with protected adults. That is an important step forward in adult protection and very much complements the measures in the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007.

The Herald highlighted the incidence of abuse in care homes, using evidence from the work of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. As members know, the care commission inspects all registered care services with a specified minimum frequency. Last year, the commission introduced a grading system, which allowed clearer interpretation of the quality of care services in Scotland, thus showing people what they should expect from a care service. With the aim of improving the quality of service, the commission works with care providers to encourage and support improvements. Providers are expected to act on any recommendations, but the commission has a wide range of powers—it can issue statutory improvement notices, impose conditions on a service and, as a last resort, cancel a service's registration, which means that the service will close.

The care commission has reviewed how it inspects care-at-home services to ensure greater emphasis on the people who use them and their families. The commission has increased the use of lay assessors and is shadowing care-at-home staff to spend more time speaking directly to service users. In recognition of the concerns about the commissioning and procurement of social care, we are working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and stakeholders to draft new guidance on the procurement of social services, with a view to publication in February 2010.

Nutrition in hospitals is a major issue for some older people. We are taking forward a comprehensive programme to improve and enhance patient care. The measures include a key role for senior charge nurses with patients who are most at risk; protected meal times; better support from nursing staff for patients who need assistance to eat and drink; and clinical quality indicators for food, fluid and nutrition, which are currently being implemented across the national health service.

We recognise the need to raise awareness and challenge attitudes among the public about adults who are at risk of harm. Our new multimedia awareness-raising campaign on the issue, which runs across television, radio, the internet and print media, encourages people to be alert to and to report abuse. We want the act against harm campaign to reach those who are at risk of harm and those who think that they know someone who might be being harmed. We want to ensure that those who are at risk know that they can take steps to prevent harm. The issue can be sensitive, given that abuse sometimes occurs within the family. It is therefore crucial that we ensure that people can raise concerns in confidence.

We have been running a campaign to raise awareness of the national care standards and the work of the care commission. The campaign, which was launched in June 2008, encourages those who use services and their families to find out more about the national care standards, so that service users get the right quality of care. The final phase of the campaign will focus on people who receive care in their homes and the carers who provide that service.

We are committed to delivering the highest level of health and care services for everyone in Scotland, regardless of their circumstances or age. We are already driving forward a major nationwide campaign to stamp out age-related discrimination thorough the see the person, not the age campaign.

As I said at the outset, we must focus on ensuring that services and support for older people lead to better outcomes and that older people are valued as individuals and feel safe wherever they live. Yesterday, I outlined our major programme of work on reshaping care for older people. Our dementia strategy will be key to driving forward our commitment to provide better care for people living with dementia and to improve services in all settings. Our carers strategy, which is under development, will look at improving support for carers who play a significant role.

Poor communication between agencies has been a major contributory factor in tragic fatalities and the horrific abuse of vulnerable adults. Multi-agency inspection looks to improve that. Looking ahead, bringing together the functions of the care commission and the Social Work Inspection Agency into social care and social work improvement Scotland will bring a joint focus not just on child protection services but on all services for children and adults. That work will better help to address the findings of inquiries into critical service failures.

I do not underestimate the strength of concern about the abuse of older people. Health and care professionals, family carers and volunteers have provided and continue to provide quality care and support to thousands of older people but, sadly, in too many cases that care falls short of what we expect and demand.

As we focus on anticipatory and preventive care, we will aim to shift not only the balance of care but the balance of power between those who provide care and support and those who rely on it. Abuse of older people, wherever it takes place, is completely unacceptable. It is our collective responsibility to address that. I am happy to take questions.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We have until exactly 10 o'clock, therefore I would appreciate it if all questions and answers were as brief as possible.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am grateful to the Scottish Government for accepting our request for an urgent statement on elder abuse and I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. However, I must be honest and express my serious concern about the complacent tone that it strikes.

In June, "Panorama" exposed evidence of shocking neglect and abuse of older people in their homes, and more recently The Herald confronted Scots with the reality of abuse of far too many of our elderly and vulnerable citizens. Both are to be congratulated on work that deserves but has not received a commensurate response from ministers.

The statement said little of certainty to give confidence to those in our local communities throughout Scotland who are living in fear of abuse in their homes or in care homes. It also said little about what will be done to change those circumstances. What meetings has the minister had with local authorities since June to discuss how services are procured, and what changes have been made as a consequence? What meetings has she had with the care commission to identify what more it will do to protect people, particularly those who do not have family to speak up for them, and what specific decisions have been made as a consequence? What meetings has she had with the justice ministers to decide on action to improve the prosecution rate of those who abuse older people? What specific actions are being taken?

Given the brutal reality of elder abuse with which we have all been confronted, does the minister agree that now is the time for an independent inquiry into elder abuse to identify the extent of the abuse and measures to improve the quality of care to give older people a voice and protection, and to ensure that the justice system will act against perpetrators? Does she agree that an inquiry that will not only signal our concern, as the statement does, but make a real difference to the protection of older people is the right way forward at this stage?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I am disappointed that Johann Lamont thinks that I struck a complacent tone in my statement. What I did was to lay out the comprehensive work that we are doing on numerous levels with numerous partners.

I set out clearly that discussions about procurement with COSLA and other stakeholders are at an advanced level. The fact that COSLA will produce new guidance on procurement in February suggests to me that those discussions, which began in response to concerns that were raised, have taken place over several weeks and months. We are now taking action with COSLA to address those concerns.

I have met the care commission on several occasions. I laid out in my statement that in direct response to concerns raised in our discussions, the care commission has reviewed how it inspects care-at-home services. However, as we said yesterday, when care is delivered in someone's private home, we cannot be in their living room 24 hours a day, so we must think of ways to inspect and monitor care-at-home services as best we can. I assure the member that that is a priority for the care commission. The fact that the Minister for Community Safety is sitting beside me is an indication of his interest in the matter.

I say to Johann Lamont that the forthcoming biennial reports on the implementation of the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 will be scrutinised and monitored not only by me but by the justice ministers to ensure that the act works in practice, including in the area of prosecution that she mentioned. Informal feedback from local authorities is encouraging. Many cases are being referred not only by the police but to the police, a number of which have resulted in prosecution. That should tell Johann Lamont that a comprehensive array of work is on-going and should reassure her and other members who should support such action.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome measures to address nutrition in hospitals, but I put it on record that I feel sad that the Government needs to tell hospitals how to support patients to get food, fluid and nutrition.

My questions are short and sharp. Is the training that was rolled out in 2008 to all carers and those who manage carers sufficient and extensive enough to help them to identify elder abuse? Will the merger of the care commission with other agencies, as proposed in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill, help to raise standards and address elder abuse?

My final question refers to page 9 of the statement. Is it enough for the minister to say that the Government is encouraging service users and their families to find out about care standards? Should not that encouragement be strengthened, so that the Government gives all people who receive care and their families the right to know what to expect and what the care standards are, so that they know what to do if they feel that the standards are not being met?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

On nutrition in hospitals, it is not the case that NHS staff do not want to pay attention to food, fluid and nutrition issues. The intention is to sharpen the focus on nutrition and to ensure that in busy acute wards time and effort are put into that. The importance of the senior charge nurse's role in protecting meal times cannot be overestimated. They should ensure that attention is given to that important area, particularly when it comes to building someone up after an operation or illness.

Training on elder abuse will be on-going. We were keen to roll out quickly information that staff in all sectors required to be aware of the 2007 act and what it meant for them. That training programme will continue.

Mary Scanlon asked whether the new agency, social care and social work improvement Scotland—or SCSWIS, as it has become known—will raise standards. As I set out in my statement, it will allow for far more cohesion through joint inspections of services for vulnerable adults, in the cases that we are talking about. The new agency will be able to examine in great detail where there have been communication failures, which are a problem. Through the merger, there will be opportunities to ensure that such systematic failures are fewer, but where they happen they will be properly investigated.

We cannot force service users to know about national care standards, but we can ensure that those standards are promoted at every opportunity. We have done that through the campaign that I mentioned, and a lot of work has been done at local level to ensure that people, including carers, are given copies of the care standards so that they know about the care standards as far as possible. We will continue to do that where we can, because it is important that people know their rights and what they can expect.

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

At Hallowe'en, old-fashioned guisers used to be happily anticipated by the elderly, but this week the Caithness Courier painted a rather more worrying picture under the headline "Elderly folk 'nervous' over trick or treating". The article stated that trick or treating is

"a none-too-subtle means for gangs of teenagers ... to torment or intimidate"

elderly people. It even said that trick or treating can be a form of casing the joint, whereby people knock at someone's door and, when they get no reply, they return to burgle the house in the middle of the night when people are asleep. None of us wants to be a killjoy, but will the minister assure me that she will look into that issue and discuss with the police and other appropriate agencies how the problem can be eradicated?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Perhaps the issue that underlies Jamie Stone's question is the fear and misunderstanding between the generations that has developed in recent years. Seeing a group of young people hanging about can sometimes cause older people fear and alarm, simply because it is a group of young people. I am not sure that that was the case 30, 40 or 50 years ago, but it is the case now. Perhaps young people also have a particular view about older people. We are doing a lot of work to try to break down those barriers and change attitudes through our intergenerational projects and our age discrimination campaigns, which challenge people's assumptions. My message around Hallowe'en, or at any other time, is that people should be respectful and realise that certain behaviour may cause fear and alarm, particularly among older people who live on their own. It is worth sending out that message from this chamber.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We come to open questions. We do not have long, so members should ask one question and get one answer. I assure members that if they do not press their request-to-speak button, they will not be called.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Who is involved in ensuring that the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 is being properly implemented?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The stakeholders who are involved include the Scottish Government and COSLA. As I set out in my statement, we have also worked closely with the independent sector, the voluntary sector and other stakeholders to ensure that we get across the message that the act places a responsibility on not just service providers but the public at large to look out for cases of suspected abuse and to do something about them. In my days as a home care organiser, there was no mechanism to do something when we had suspicions. We now have that, and we need to ensure that everyone knows about it. We are working hard with all stakeholders to do so.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I welcome the work that has been done to produce the new guidance on procuring social care services. However, does the minister recognise that, rather than seeing the action that she describes, we find that the guidance has been delayed by at least nine months? Will she accelerate that work, listen to organisations such as Community Care Providers Scotland and consider adopting the framework approach that is used in England, where care services are not retendered unless they are not performing to the required standard?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I know that Community Care Providers Scotland has raised that issue, which will be debated in the context of a possible stage 2 amendment to the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill. We look forward to that further discussion.

Jackie Baillie should remember that new guidance was produced in 2008 in recognition of the issue. However, we felt that more had to be done, given the concerns that were expressed. As I said yesterday, the procurement of social care services is about people, not tins of beans or paper clips. That is the message that we will continue to put across, with which COSLA agrees. Some local authorities have very good procurement practice, but we need to ensure that such practice exists everywhere.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I want to press the minister a little further on the issue that Jackie Baillie raised. I accept that the Government is working with COSLA and others to produce guidelines, but that still means that today, tomorrow or any other day, contracts that have caused much concern could be renewed. Has the minister considered issuing interim guidelines to prevent local authorities entering into the very worst kind of contract?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The fact that we have been having these discussions and that a spotlight has been shone on some of the bad practice has been a bit of a wake-up call for local authorities. Local authorities the length and breadth of Scotland have made it clear that they do not intend to use reverse e-auctions to procure services in the future. The message is getting through to local authorities. We have to ensure that quality is the predominant consideration. We are in straitened financial times, and we know that budgets will be tight over the next few years, which is why it is even more important to get the quality right, because that can be cost-effective in the long run for not just service users but councils. We will continue our discussions, and I hope that Ross Finnie will be reassured by the guidance that is issued in February.

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I welcome the multimedia campaign to raise awareness of elder abuse. However, what actions have been taken to ensure that professionals and the public are aware of the new powers under the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The act against harm campaign, which I hope that members throughout the chamber have seen, is powerful. It is not pleasant to watch, but it gets across the message that people in all walks of life need to be alert to elder abuse. That includes service providers, service users, carers and members of the public who might see something going on with their neighbour that they do not think is appropriate or about which they are concerned. We should send the message today that whatever concerns people have, it is better to report them so that they can be checked out than to do nothing at all. Everyone in this chamber can promote that strong message.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The minister will agree that the care commission is central to addressing these problems. Is she satisfied that downgrading the second inspection of many care homes within any one year is risk free? Is she considering extending the care commission's powers to enforce the care standards using the legislative opportunity of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill? Will she address the problems of the care commission's information technology system, which are wasting the valuable time of many staff?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The care commission's approach involves risk-based inspection. It wants to be able to spend the most time with the services that need the most time to improve. I am sure that everyone agrees with that approach.

The care commission does a hugely important job. It was established by the Parliament to ensure that the level and quality of services are monitored and that action is taken where there are failings in the system. In 2008-09, the care commission issued 134 statutory notices to 84 care providers.

I accept Malcolm Chisholm's point about the IT system. However, despite some of the issues that have arisen, the care commission is doing an important job and we should support it in its efforts.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

How have authorities, police and partners reacted to the new powers that they have under the 2007 act? How have they responded to the fact that closer co-operation to address harm is expected of them?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

They have reacted very well. I hope to be able to share more information with the Parliament about that in the new year. We have informal information from local authorities about how the act is being taken forward. My message is that there is huge co-operation between the police and the adult protection committees. A lot of action is happening throughout Scotland. We are conducting a survey with COSLA in advance of the first biennial report next October. I am happy to share the results of that with the Parliament once we have them.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The thrust of the minister's response has been on improving monitoring and inspection, but will she look again at improving the rights of individuals who are being cared for, and their families, to make it easier for them to challenge neglect and abusive behaviour?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The whole premise of the act encourages them to make such challenges. The problem is making them feel confident enough to do so. That can be very difficult, especially when the abuse is happening within the family. That is why we need to ensure that people know who they can speak to and how, and that they can do so in confidence. That is the message that all of us can try to get across within our local communities.

Marine Scotland Bill: Stage 1

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4969, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on stage 1 of the Marine (Scotland) Bill. I call Richard Lochhead to speak to and move the motion.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was not sure whether it was the convener of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee who was going to open the debate, but I am happy to follow your instructions.

Today is a momentous day for the Scottish Parliament. We have the opportunity to support the Marine (Scotland) Bill, which will, for the first time, provide a framework to safeguard our marine environment and to manage our seas properly to ensure that they continue to deliver economic benefits for future generations, within environmental limits.

I thank the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee for its diligent scrutiny of the bill, which is reflected in the detailed stage 1 report that Parliament will be discussing today, and for its support for the general principles of the bill.

I am sure that everyone agrees that our seas help to define Scotland as a nation. They have been vital to our people since time immemorial. We have a long and proud history as a maritime nation. Throughout history, we have impacted on the marine environment, and not always with the sensitivity that that important resource demands. With that in mind, we must look to the challenges ahead, such as energy security, food security and climate change, and, when tackling those issues, to how we balance conservation with development and growth.

We have a big task ahead, but it is a challenge that we can and must meet, because 21st century Scotland still relies on its seas in many ways. Our seas are among the most biologically productive in the world and we must ensure that they remain that way. Every year, they generate billions of pounds for the Scottish economy. We must balance extracting opportunities for the more traditional sectors in our seas, such as sea fisheries, aquaculture, and oil and gas, with the demands of our new sectors, such as renewable energy and wildlife tourism. At the same time, though, we must safeguard our precious and world-famous marine habitats.

For the first time, we will have a marine planning system to help us to strike a balance between the competing demands for our valuable marine resources. The bill will simplify the current complicated licensing regime and allow us to make important changes to how we protect and conserve our marine habitats and species. For instance, the historic marine protected area provision will enable us to improve our management of our marine cultural heritage. That is an important new aspect of the debate. The bill will also put Scotland at the forefront of improving seal protection by creating a new offence of killing or injuring a seal at any time, unless under licence.

The framework that we are outlining today has been developed over many years, through a series of reports and advisory groups. More than 8,000 stakeholders engaged in the consultation process last year, which perhaps speaks volumes about the level of public interest in the issue. Stakeholders' responses showed widespread support for more integrated, simpler and more effective and efficient marine management arrangements. That is one of the reasons why, from 1 April this year, we established Marine Scotland as part of the Scottish Government. Marine Scotland will champion Scotland's seas.

I am grateful for the work that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee has undertaken during the five months of scrutiny. It has worked hard to get to grips with the diversity of marine interests and the complicated management issues. Many of the committee's recommendations are in line with the Government's thinking. I will touch on key points in the committee's report.

First, the committee is keen that a duty should be placed on Scottish ministers and all relevant public bodies to have regard to the need to maintain and improve the health of Scotland's marine area. I have some sympathy for the principle behind the committee's recommendation, although we need to think carefully about the precise language to avoid confusion about competing objectives. For instance, the committee refers specifically to the marine strategy framework directive. Under the directive, we will be required to work towards achieving good environmental status in all Scotland's waters by 2020. I believe that the commitment is already there. In the next few days, together with other United Kingdom Administrations, we will be launching a consultation on the transposition of the directive.

Today, I announce to Parliament that Scotland will be the competent authority for all Scottish waters right out to 200 nautical miles, with allowances built in for reserved interests. We are agreeing a concordat with the UK Government on how those arrangements will work.

Marine planning will be an essential tool to deliver the marine strategy framework directive. Marine planning is intended to balance the competing uses of marine resources, reduce uncertainty about where activities can take place, and allow for decisions to be made in agreement with a variety of stakeholders working together. I am grateful for the committee's acceptance of the need for a flexible approach towards the drawing up of a national plan.

The committee recommended the inclusion of climate change mitigation and adaptation in the list of objectives that a national marine plan may set out, and I would be pleased to consider an amendment on that. That is a sensible idea, given the challenges facing Scotland in that regard, and the recent passage of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Under the bill, the Scottish Parliament will be able to consider and have input to a draft national plan before it is formally adopted. I am happy to explore whether a minimum period for parliamentary consideration would be appropriate. That was another issue raised in the consultation.

Marine planning partnerships are new, and I am pleased that the committee supports the Government's flexible approach to their membership and governance. In some cases, there will be more than one local authority within a marine region, so a partnership arrangement will be the most appropriate. Even where there is only one lead authority in the Scottish marine region, we would all still envisage a strong focus on partnership working in each area of Scotland. Marine Scotland is considering how the partnerships will work and will produce guidance in due course.

There is further work to do to identify marine region boundaries and I am grateful for the work of the Scottish coastal forum in establishing the views of stakeholders on how Scottish marine region boundaries could be defined. I will send a copy of its report on marine regions to the committee.

I appreciate that the Solway Firth is a rather sensitive issue and I have written to the UK Government to indicate that this Government would be pleased to work with our UK partners in treating the Solway as an integrated planning area. The UK Government has its own views on the issue, but we have agreed to work on a concordat, which will be drawn up to address arrangements for cross-border working.

The key aspect of the planning sections of the bill is the requirement that licensing decisions be taken in accordance with the marine plan. I think that members will all agree that the current licensing system is more complicated than it needs to be. One of the most complicated areas is aquaculture licences. I note that the committee was unable to reach a unanimous view on that issue. In my view, the bill provides the best practical solution to the situation that we find ourselves in regarding aquaculture consents. Overall, the bill will simplify the licensing regime.

In its stage 1 report, the committee expressed concern that there are no substantial provisions in the bill to govern the mechanisms for appealing against licensing decisions and notices. That is important. I want to get the appeals process right. I assure Parliament that we will introduce proposals for an independent appeals process. Our preference is for appeals to go to the sheriff courts. We will make provision in secondary legislation to allow for full consultation with interested parties to ensure that that process is as effective as possible.

On activities requiring a licence, as recommended by the committee I am happy to amend sections 17 and 24 to specify more clearly the criteria used to determine whether activities should be added or removed from the list, and to specify criteria for not requiring a licence. I also intend to introduce an amendment to section 35 to allow for the restoration of a damaged site.

I can also provide reassurance that the licensing provisions are designed to avoid overlap with other legal processes and to work seamlessly with other aspects of the bill, including the powers to deliver marine protected areas.

The committee would like the bill to impose a duty to create a network of marine protected areas. We are already committed to establishing an ecologically coherent network of well-managed marine protected areas and Marine Scotland is developing draft guidelines on how the proposed powers will be used to establish a network. Nonetheless, I am happy to consider further amendment in this area.

Also, I welcome the committee's agreement that the designation of nature conservation marine protected areas be science driven. The bill does not exclude the consideration of social and economic factors and the desirability of mitigating climate change in the management of marine protected areas, which is an issue that the committee raised in its report.

Another key aspect of the bill's conservation credentials is the proposals on seal conservation. I recognise the often polarised views of interested parties, but I remain confident that better protection for seals and the introduction of a new licensing system are the best means of managing those conflicts. Of course, a modern approach to seal management and protection must not be overly restrictive. I am therefore somewhat cautious about the suggestion that we should include a harassment offence in the bill. I appreciate the intent behind the recommendation, but I ask the Parliament to recognise the difficulties of achieving that without many unintended consequences for very legitimate activities. It is helpful that the committee has referred to those challenges in its report. I assure Parliament that the development of policy on seals, the deployment of renewables and the development of non-lethal deterrents will depend on a lot of scientific monitoring and reporting.

I have given a rapid account of the main features of the marine bill and the main changes that we intend to introduce at stage 2. We recognise that legislation alone will not achieve all the improvements. Effective implementation is essential. We are already developing policy on the orders and regulations that are needed under the bill. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that our seas are protected and managed sustainably for future generations. We are working to deliver enhanced economic growth while ensuring that our seas are looked after in the decades and years ahead.

Striking the right balance between the long-term viability and growth of our economy and the enhanced protection of our special marine environment is at the heart of the bill. There is huge interest in Scotland's marine environment. I know that the bill is welcomed as a significant improvement on the way in which we manage our seas.

I commend the committee's report, the debate and our motion to the Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Marine (Scotland) Bill.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am pleased to speak in the debate on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

This is a big bill on an important subject: the custodianship of Scotland's coastal waters out to the 12-mile limit. Scrutinising it at stage 1 meant some hard work for the committee, but I think that I speak for all members when I say that it was also an enjoyable experience. It was particularly rewarding to make fact-finding visits earlier in the year, when the days were longer and the weather just a little warmer, to three beautiful stretches of the Scottish coastline: at Buchan, on the Firth of Lorne and on the Solway Firth. There, we heard first hand from people who live by the sea or make their living from it about the effect that they think the bill will have on them, and what changes they would propose to make it better.

On behalf of the committee, I express my thanks to the people who gave generously of their time on those visits, one of which also involved a full committee meeting in Kirkcudbright. I also pass on our thanks to the many people, including two petitioners, who provided evidence to us in writing or in person at our five stage 1 meetings. I thank the entire membership of the committee. I also thank its clerking team, past and present, and the staff of the Scottish Parliament information centre—Wendy Kenyon in particular—for their unstinting work. Finally, I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for the hard work that they have put into getting the bill this far along the road—if that is the right metaphor for a marine bill. It is only fair to note at the outset that the bill builds on work that was undertaken by the previous Administration and on an important report that the former Environment and Rural Development Committee produced in 2007.

Scotland's inshore waters are among our most precious resources, as a source not only of food but, increasingly, of renewable energy. They are a resource for boat cruises, recreational angling, activity holidays and so on and they are also simply where we go to relax and enjoy the beauty and sea air. Our seas are also—or certainly should be—a haven for a diversity of animals, plants and birds. It is therefore vital that they enjoy adequate protection.

That said, anyone making a living from our seas might be forgiven for thinking, "Oh, no, more laws about marine management are on their way!" Fishermen, in particular, complain with some justification that, at times, they are practically drowning in a sea of rules and regulations. I want to make it clear that the committee would not have supported the bill at stage 1 if we had thought that it was likely to add to the administrative burden. On balance, we do not, which is why we recommend in our report that the general principles of the bill be approved.

Indeed, we are hopeful that the bill has the potential to make things less rather than more complicated and that it will improve channels of communication between the many diverse users of the sea. In particular, we are cautiously optimistic that the introduction of statutory marine planning will enable more rational and well-informed decisions about the use of the sea to be made and allow misunderstandings about controversial matters such as inshore dredging or the siting of fish farms to be sorted out sooner rather than later. Meanwhile, the creation of a national marine plan should provide an opportunity for the Scottish Government to demonstrate leadership in identifying national priorities, including in emerging industries such as offshore wind and tidal energy production.

Another key aim of the bill that we broadly welcome is the new rules on the marine protected areas, which will increase the opportunity to designate appropriate sites.

A further key area of the bill that the committee supports is the provision to modernise our laws on seal conservation. We agree that that is overdue and that the provisions that are set out in the bill are a step in the right direction.

Presiding Officer, you would not expect any lead committee convener to conclude a speech at stage 1 without expressing at least some reservations, and I do not propose to disappoint you. In the remainder of my speech, I will refer to some of the matters in our stage 1 report on which we said that we would welcome movement or clarification from the cabinet secretary. I expect other committee members may wish to focus on matters of particular concern to them.

First, as our evidence gathering made clear, there are serious concerns about the state of Scotland's seas and the loss of biodiversity within some marine ecosystems. There is on-going debate about the causes: are they the result of overfishing in some areas, natural or man-made environmental changes or some sort of complex interplay of factors? Whatever the causes, the evidence gives rise to concern. The committee is under no illusion that domestic legislation will, of itself, turn things round; we simply query whether the bill in its current form has grasped every opportunity to try to put things right. We make a number of recommendations, two of which I will highlight.

First, we suggest that the bill should set out an overarching duty on all public bodies in Scotland, including the Scottish ministers, to have regard to the need to safeguard the health of the sea when exercising any relevant function. Secondly, we propose that the bill should make it mandatory rather than discretionary for the Scottish ministers to create a coherent network of marine protected areas. The committee considers that the two proposals, if taken together, would help to strengthen the conservation element of the bill.

Another concern relates to the proposals for the regulation of fish farming. In the main, the bill proposes the retention of the status quo, with licensing decisions being made at local authority level rather than becoming subject to a centralised licensing system. It is important that, as convener, I make it clear that the committee was divided on whether the approach that is set out in the bill is the right one. This was the only matter on which we formally split.

I respect individual members' right to agree to disagree. Nonetheless, a clear majority of the committee is not satisfied that the approach that is set out in the bill is the right one. We think that it goes against the entire philosophy that the bill seeks to champion of making the marine licensing system more streamlined and consistent. Our report tentatively suggests that there might be room for some compromise whereby Marine Scotland sets the licensing rules for aquaculture but they are administered at the local level.

Finally, I draw the Parliament's attention to the provisions on seals. The committee is satisfied that the overall direction of travel under the provisions is towards improved conservation and animal welfare, which we welcome. However, we make a number of suggestions about how the provisions could be strengthened. For example, we suggest that the licensing conditions relating to the skill or training of the marksman or the type of weapon that is used should be mandatory. On the basis that prevention is always better than cure, we think that implementation of the bill affords an opportunity to ensure that the aquaculture industry takes all reasonable steps to apply preventive measures against seal incursions, such as the installation of anti-predator netting, to ensure that shooting a seal is truly a last resort.

Those reservations aside, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee is happy to support the general principles of the bill and to wish it a safe journey as it negotiates the remaining shoals and narrows of the parliamentary process.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Scottish Labour supports the principles of the Marine (Scotland) Bill and welcomes many of its provisions. However, in our view, the bill could be improved and strengthened in parts by amendment at stage 2. As Maureen Watt said, that is also the view of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

I was slightly disappointed that we did not receive the Scottish Government's response to the committee's report until last night, but I appreciate that this morning the cabinet secretary has gone through much of it in detail. He and Maureen Watt mentioned the competing interests of stakeholders in the marine area. There is a huge marine area in Scotland, which has an estimated coastline of 16,500km and a territorial sea of around 88,600km2.

A report published at the beginning of this month for Scottish Environment LINK by David Hughes and Thom Nickell of the Scottish Association for Marine Science advises that

"Scotland's marine environment is in a far from pristine state and is in real need of recovery."

It goes on to say that the

"Marine Bill as it stands will only manage the status quo. It will not bring about any improvement in the wider seas outside marine protected areas".

The report cites evidence of declining stocks of a number of species in the North Sea.

During stage 1 consideration of the bill, we heard similar evidence from the Community of Arran Seabed Trust and the Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network. Ian Burrett told the committee:

"on the west coast of Scotland, 20 species either have disappeared or are now found only as juveniles."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 10 June 2009; c 1753.]

Howard Wood of the Community of Arran Seabed Trust said of the Clyde:

"Having dived in it for 36 years, my experience is that it is in a dire state. The fish that I saw as a teenager diving in the Clyde no longer exist. They are ecologically extinct."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 9 September 2009; c 1869.]

The committee recommended unanimously that a duty be placed on ministers and all public bodies to have regard to the need to maintain and improve the health of the Scottish marine area in the exercise of their functions. I am sorry that the Scottish Government's response to the recommendation is a bit lukewarm, but I am sure that the matter will be discussed further at stage 2. Improving the health of the marine environment is in the interests of all stakeholders and should be a key objective of the bill.

We support the committee's recommendation that climate change mitigation and adaptation be included in the list of objectives of the national marine plan under section 3(3). We agree that, because the plan is of considerable significance, the draft plan needs to be properly scrutinised by Parliament; a minimum period for consideration of 40 days should be stipulated.

Other members have mentioned the boundaries of the marine planning regions, which will vary from one marine area to another but should encompass single ecosystems. It makes sense for the firths to be single marine planning areas. As other members have said, that is a little more tricky when the firth spans the border, as the Solway does. The Solway Firth Partnership pointed out to the committee that the Marine (Scotland) Bill enables ministers to delegate planning responsibility to a third party but that that provision does not exist in the UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill. The SFP had proposed an amendment to the UK bill but, after a meeting a couple of weeks ago with Huw Irranca-Davies, organised by my colleague Russell Brown MP, it is satisfied that appropriate memorandums of understanding can be put in place to allow a single planning process for the Solway, resulting in the production of a single plan document that will be agreed by both ministers. Legally, there will be two plans, but they will be identical. I am pleased that there has been a resolution of some of the concerns that have been aired.

Inshore fisheries groups are being set up in Scotland; two have already been established, and others are planned. However, the groups include only commercial fishing interests. The committee questioned the need for such groups to be established, given that they may be overtaken by the proposals in the bill. If they remain, there is a strong case for other fishing interests, such as sea anglers, to be members, as their industry is also dependent on the condition of the marine environment. Like commercial fishing, sea angling contributes significantly to the economy, especially in rural areas. That was demonstrated in the Scottish Government's recent report "Economic Impact of Recreational Sea Angling in Scotland", which stated that recreational sea angling contributed almost £141 million annually to the economy and sustained 3,148 jobs.

The bill does not require ministers to create any marine protected areas, but the committee received advice indicating that the European Union marine directive does. Scottish Labour supported the committee's recommendation that the bill impose a duty on ministers to create a network of MPAs, which should be regularly monitored and reviewed.

Other members have mentioned the repeal of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, which is probably the most contentious part of the bill. More than half of the more than 8,000 replies to the bill to which the cabinet secretary referred were on that topic. Despite the contentious nature of the provisions, the oral evidence session on them was positive and suggested that a compromise could be reached. Such a compromise might not be ideal for the different sides of the argument, but it would provide a reasonably satisfactory way forward.

During a previous debate, I said that I understand that there are circumstances in which seals must be shot; the sea mammal research unit agrees. However, lethal methods of seal control should be used only as a last resort. Statutory conditions should be placed on the issue of licences, covering, for example, the skills requirements of the marksman, the weapons that can be used and the distance from which a seal can be shot. Applicants should be required to demonstrate that other, non-lethal methods of control have been tried and have failed. The number of seals that are shot should be reported, perhaps not on an individual basis, but certainly regularly.

Labour is pleased to support the general principles of the bill. However, as was the case with the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill and the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, we believe that cross-party work by the committee and ministers at stage 2 will result in improvements to it. I am sure that by the time we reach the end of stage 3 we will have a bill of which we can all be proud.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I begin by thanking our clerks and SPICe for their help. I also thank those who gave evidence in oral and written form and those who hosted the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee as we visited various parts of Scotland.

The Scottish Conservatives welcome the bill, which we hope will dovetail with the UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill that is currently being produced at Westminster. I sound a note of regret about the unfortunate coincidence of timing that means that the bills are being considered simultaneously. Notwithstanding that, the Scottish Conservatives welcome the proposed new legislative and management framework for our seas out to 12 nautical miles and acknowledge that the Government has genuinely tried to balance the competing demands of the users of our seas with the need to protect our marine environment better in future.

For too long, the sea has been regarded purely as an exploitable asset. An absolute need now exists to look after our seas more carefully than we have done in the past. In our view, that should be done, wherever possible, using a connected and integrated ecosystem approach. Marine ecosystem objectives should be part of both national and regional marine plans.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Hear, hear.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Thank you.

Local, broadly based and appropriately sized marine planning partnerships must develop integrated plans to achieve the responsible management and improvement of their designated areas, as well as to deliver national policy and objectives. In my view, the Clyde Scottish sustainable marine environment initiative, which was developed after much hard work, is an excellent model to follow. I note the cabinet secretary's intention to be flexible in that regard.

Wherever possible, marine region boundaries should match up and tie in with inshore fisheries group boundaries as well as river basin management plans, to provide an intelligent and coherent unified approach to terrestrial and marine environmental improvement in the designated areas, using Scotland's well-known firths as the starting point. As the minister has said, the Solway Firth will require special attention, including some adaptations to the UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill. I welcome his determination to address that by drawing up a concordat, as well as the remarks that Hilary Benn made in that regard in Westminster on Tuesday 27 October.

In overseeing the development of a national marine plan and several regional plans, Marine Scotland and Scottish ministers will need to do all that they can to address and simplify the current complexity of legislation governing marine areas. Of course we accept that there will, of necessity, be limitations in what can be achieved, but determination must be shown to streamline and simplify the proposals, perhaps by consolidation or by the codification of legal rights and duties.

As the minister will be aware, concerns remain that part 3 of the bill will not lead to the much-needed simplification of the marine licensing system. Although the minister's brochure "Scotland's First Marine Bill" diagrammatically and dramatically shows the creation of a one-stop-shop approach, industry stakeholders are having difficulty seeing how that will work in practice. The most likely effect could be a huge expansion of the function of Marine Scotland and in the tasks that it will be expected to undertake. The question must be asked whether that expansion will be either sensible or affordable. The threshold between the licensing and registering of marine activities also needs to be made clearer in the bill, as does the development of an appeals procedure. I welcome the Government's response on the establishment of an independent appeals process.

The committee believes that the bill should impose a duty to create a network of MPAs, and I welcome the Government's intention to lodge an amendment on that at stage 2, but it is vital to recognise that, however desirable MPAs may be in environmental terms, they could threaten people's existing and traditional livelihoods. Such designations must of course be achieved by the appliance of science, must integrate with the national marine plan, and should wherever possible seek to mitigate the effects of climate change, which is a growing daily threat. I am pleased that the minister proposes to lodge a stage 2 amendment on that, too. It appears that, unless climate change is addressed, we will, for instance, lose many of our native corals in the next 100 years as sea acidification rises. The concern is that, notwithstanding our best intentions, dramatic and irreversible change could be about to take place in our seas and oceans because of climate change. The report from Scottish Environment LINK highlights the challenges that face us.

Conservatives believe that a balance must be struck between encouraging fish farming and the preservation of grey and, in particular, common seals, both of which are protected species. I appreciate the unwelcome cost to fish farmers of installing and maintaining anti-predator nets or other deterrents. There is a danger of rendering fish farming uneconomic internationally; getting the balance wrong between protecting seals from their own instincts and protecting fish farms from predatory attack could mean exporting the industry and jobs to other parts of the world. For that reason, more research must be done to find out why common seal numbers are declining, and also to develop better and cheaper methods of protecting fish farms from seal attack. Conservatives believe that seals should be destroyed only when "no satisfactory alternative" exists, but a clearer definition of that term is needed.

Conservatives welcome the advent of the bill. We will work constructively with the Government, other parties and stakeholders to improve it further at stage 2. The bill represents Scotland's best opportunity in recent times—and for the foreseeable future—to improve the health of our seas, and we must seize it with both hands for the sake of future generations as well as our own.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am delighted to open the debate on the Marine (Scotland) Bill on behalf of my party. Scottish Liberal Democrats have been long-standing supporters of such legislation, not just here but at Westminster. I am proud of the role that my party has played both north and south of the border, especially with the efforts of my colleague Ross Finnie, who did so much to help establish the platform and principles underpinning the bill. There is much work to do in the coming weeks to ensure that we have a piece of legislation of which we can be proud. Like other members, I believe that we have made a very good start.

We have been well served by all those who have provided evidence to date. It has been detailed, insightful and, in the main, remarkably consensual. I look forward to working with many of those same individuals and organisations as we begin our stage 2 scrutiny. I, too, thank the committee clerks and SPICe for all their hard work to date.

As Orkney's MSP, my interest in the bill is more than academic. Economically, socially, culturally and environmentally—in every way imaginable—Orkney's past, present and future are forged in the seas all around our archipelago. However, this is not a virility test as to which community can lay greatest claim to having a reliance on the marine environment. As the cabinet secretary reflected, Scotland and the UK as a whole depend hugely on our marine resources, so ensuring that they are properly understood and protected, and indeed exploited, is critically important to all of us.

Like the committee convener, although I support the general principles of the bill I wish to make a number of points looking ahead to the task in front of us at stage 2 and beyond. For the proposed legislation to be effective, it needs to be properly resourced. That recommendation from the committee might appear self-evident, but it enjoys strong support across the board from witnesses who are concerned that ministers might be willing the ends without necessarily willing the means.

I also encourage the cabinet secretary to rethink his present unwillingness to accept duties rather than powers in the bill. It is hard to imagine Mr Lochhead piloting the bill through Parliament only then to stubbornly refuse to put in place a national marine plan, yet that point simply lends weight to the case for the Government to accept such a plan as a duty on ministers rather than as something that they are empowered to produce.

Similarly, the committee unanimously supported calls for the bill to

"place a duty on the Scottish Ministers and all relevant public bodies ... to have regard to the need to maintain and improve the health of the Scottish marine area."

That would be backed by indicators that make it clear what constitutes a healthy marine environment. I accept that that might not be straightforward, but I am sure that the committee will be happy to work with the minister and his officials to find a workable solution.

The committee supports a flexible approach to the membership and governance of marine planning partnerships. That is surely the only way of reflecting the diversity of our marine environment, and that of the communities and interests that are reliant upon it. It is not inconsistent to argue, however, that Marine Scotland has an important role in guiding and supporting those partnerships, particularly in the early stages. Likewise, we should consider whether it is helpful to establish a framework to consider what local plans might look like. That need be no more than a requirement for each plan to set objectives and indicate the policies and programmes to achieve them, but it could avoid partnerships wasting time in putting together plans that are subsequently rejected.

As for the national plan, I am pleased that the Government accepts the need for climate change mitigation and adaptation to be included in the list of objectives in section 3(3). With there being the potential to deliver more than 30GW of power from offshore wind, wave and tidal sources over the next decade, the contribution that marine renewables can make to cutting harmful emissions as well as meeting our energy needs is a matter of record, and they can also play a major role in conserving our seas and helping to address issues such as acidification.

Marine region designations should be based on an ecosystem approach. Nevertheless, as the committee suggests, the case

"for the major firths and for the seas surrounding Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles to be considered discrete marine regions"

is

"reasonably clear-cut".

I encourage the cabinet secretary to be a little less coy in supporting that proposition.

I spoke earlier about the consensus that exists with regard to many aspects of the bill. Sadly, however, I must, like others, report an act of rebellion within the committee on one particular issue. Steps were taken by the previous Administration to give local councils responsibility for licensing fish farms. The system is bedding in well, and it commands strong support among the councils and communities that are most directly affected. I do not accept that it creates undue burdens or confusion for the aquaculture sector, and I cannot agree that administrative neatness should override the right of local councils to take important decisions in that regard if they wish. Indeed, any decisions will require to adhere to the overall national plan. The cabinet secretary should rest assured that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues stand shoulder to shoulder with him in resisting the call from his own colleagues and others for those powers to be centralised.

Turning to the issue of nature conservation MPAs, although I accept that designation needs to be based on robust science, I believe that it is critical that, when marine conservation orders are drawn up, specific regard is given to social and economic factors as well as to climate change mitigation. The fear is that MPA designation will result in areas being off-limits to economic activity and development, and ministers can best deal with that myth by being more explicit on the matter in the bill.

On the sensitive issue of seal protection, I congratulate Advocates for Animals on the way in which they have made their case to the committee so far. I agree with members that improvements have been made, but I am concerned by claims that without close seasons during breeding times seal populations might be under more threat than they currently are. We might return to the issue at stage 2.

The bill is a good one and our collective efforts have contributed to it. It demonstrates the benefits of a consistent approach on the part of successive Governments in Scotland and collaboration between Governments north and south of the border. Liberal Democrats will be happy to support the principles of the bill at decision time.

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

As with that long return to Ithaca, with its many trials and tribulations, so, no doubt, will be our journey to a healthier marine environment. We lack good baseline data, we lack research, and we have depleted the biodiversity of our seas. There is much to be done. Confucius said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step; today we witness the first flap of a tail.

The recent Scottish Government report, "Economic Impact of Recreational Sea Angling in Scotland", concluded that the sport benefits the Scottish economy to the tune of £114 million. The figure sounds substantial, but it could be considerably greater. Twenty years ago there were some 118 sea angling charter boats on the Clyde; now there are three.

Why has sea angling on the Clyde declined so drastically? Have sea angers simply found another enthusiasm? Have they prawned their fishing tackle to buy season tickets and abandon the sunny Clyde for the terraces? I suspect that St Mirren and Greenock Morton football clubs wish that it were so, but the truth is far less pleasant. The Clyde has a sad history of overexploitation, the most recent chapter of which begins with the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984, which allowed fishing by all methods within a three-mile limit. Since the 1980s, when I used to fish the Clyde—with a notable lack of ability or success—there has been a significant decline in biodiversity. Some 20 species of fish are at the point of commercial if not ecological extinction.

According to the Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network, the Clyde has become a nephrops monofishery, with no sign of whitefish recovery. As nephrops stocks decline too, there is talk of moving further down the food chain to brown shrimp and smaller shellfish. That is not sustainable. When commercial fishing is obliged to move down the food chain, something is wrong. The Clyde has become a degraded environment; a once-rich estuary is now a relative pauper. Where do we go when we reach the bottom of the food chain? How can our environment recover if there is nothing to recover with? The current state of the Clyde white fisheries brings to mind that well-known verse by Walter Wingate:

Sirs, row in; ye may as weel Fish till a' the licht is lost Fish till day begins to speel Ye'll get naething but a hoast.

Why have I spent so long talking about the Clyde? Because the Clyde makes abundantly clear why the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee recommended

"that the Bill place a duty on the Scottish Ministers and all relevant public bodies, when exercising functions, to have regard to the need to maintain and improve the health of the Scottish marine area."

Other members mentioned the recommendation, which I urge the cabinet secretary to accept. Are other regions in Scotland's seas as depleted as the Clyde is? We lack the data that would enable us to be certain about that, but the evidence casts doubt on the health of Scotland's seas.

There should be no doubt as to our commitment to the sea's recovery, which would be good for our environment and our economy. If our fishing communities are to survive we must have healthy seas. For that reason I encourage the cabinet secretary to accept the committee's recommendation that the bill impose a duty on the Scottish ministers

"to create an ecologically coherent and representative network of marine protected areas".

The creation of such a network should be based on science and it is essential if we are to restore the health of Scotland's seas. Failure to ensure a coherent network might leave vital elements of biodiversity vulnerable to extinction. There is currently no obligation in the bill to designate protected areas when the scientific evidence supports such designation; the existence of evidence will merely make designation permissible. That might be understandable when several sites are similar, but the reasoning is less clear if the site is unique. The requirement to create an ecologically coherent network would remove fears that such sites might escape designation, regardless of the scientific evidence.

If we are to ensure that the health of Scotland's seas is maintained and improved, continual monitoring of such sites is essential. It would be all too easy for ministers to designate a site and then rest on their laurels—or seaweed, or cockles, or whatever ministers rest on after a bill such as the Marine (Scotland) Bill is passed. Given that much of what goes on in the sea is not readily visible, and given the progressive development of marine science, continual monitoring is essential to ensure that marine protected areas continue to function as they should. Furthermore, as species and communities adapt to global warming it is not inconceivable that MPAs will not be static and, over the decades, will need to be relocated as species and ecological communities adapt to the changing environment.

Like other members of the committee, I found it difficult to understand why fishing activities require additional legal protection. When an MPA is designated, there should be a clear statement about why it has been designated and what activities are prohibited or permissible. Prohibition should be on the basis that an activity conflicts with the stated aims of the MPA. If fishing or other economic activity does not negatively impact on those aims, the activities should be permissible within the MPA. It should therefore be clear to fishermen what they may or may not do in the area. If their activity is legal, they should be left in peace; if it is not legal, action should be taken. I repeat: the reasons for designation should be clear, as should the activities that are not permissible. There should be no need for additional protection.

I cannot discuss all the recommendations in the committee's report; there are far too many. I simply make the additional point that there was little dissent in the committee—we have heard about the one notable exception. I hope therefore that the cabinet secretary will be able to adopt most of the recommendations.

The bill has, rightly, been widely welcomed. William Topaz McGonagall, in the opening lines of his "A Tale of the Sea", wrote:

A pathetic tale of the sea I will unfold Enough to make one's blood run cold Action by the Government will ensure that those sad words will not ring true for the generations that follow us.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Like other members, I very much welcome the bill and support its general principles. As the cabinet secretary and Liam McArthur said, the bill has had a long gestation and there have been efforts over many years to pull people together to find answers to a series of questions and challenges that we face in relation to our marine environment.

The bill can be strengthened, which is typical of any bill that comes before the Parliament. Adoption of the committee's good recommendations, on which we were unanimous—with the exception of Liam McArthur on one point—would help to strengthen the bill substantially.

I have spoken before in the Parliament about how we have taken the health of the seas for granted for far too long. Because most of what lies beneath the surface is unseen by the vast majority of the population, as Bill Wilson said, it has been out of sight and out of mind for all too long. Mankind has abused the seas throughout all generations until perhaps this one, when we have recognised that the sea does not have infinite power to restore its health. We have heard from Elaine Murray and Bill Wilson about the condition of parts of our seas that we know about, but we do not know the condition of an awful lot more areas.

If the bill is to mean anything, it must make a clear statement that the health of the seas is the overriding concern that drives the legislation. That is why the committee recommended that there be

"a duty on the Scottish Ministers and all relevant public bodies, when exercising functions, to have regard to ... the health of the Scottish marine area."

That is not just about arresting decline and maintaining the current condition of the sea; it is about restoration and improvement where we have made the condition of the sea bed, in particular, significantly worse. We will need more scientific evidence as a basis for greater understanding of the situation, and I hope that most of the evidence will be independent. We need to develop indicators so that we can judge our progress.

Like other members, I am disappointed by the minister's response to the committee's recommendation. Our national Parliament is debating our interest in our seas and therefore must have a chance to say what it wants about the matter. I am sure that the recommendation will lead to the lodging of amendments at stage 2. Where there is a will, there is normally a way to accommodate what members want. I urge the cabinet secretary to work with members to secure a way forward, and I am sure that we can find a form of words that will address everyone's interests and concerns.

A motivation for the bill was the complexity of competing issues to do with our seas. There is a myriad of institutions, organisations and management concerns with competing interests in renewables, oil, gas, commercial fishing, sea angling, a variety of forms of recreation and transport. Therefore, I support the mechanism of regional marine planning partnerships, which will help to reconcile those interests and create opportunities for dialogue, debate and agreement about the way forward. Partnerships will vary in size and composition, and it is right that there should be such flexibility, but clarity is needed on their composition.

We also recommend that the minister appoint the chairs of partnerships. I noticed that the Government's response made no reference to that, and I would be interested to hear from the minister on that point.

The MPPs will involve a lot of process, administration and complexity, but I can think of few other solutions that would allow people to get round the table and try to reconcile the management of their seas.

I support the power of the minister to sign off the regional plans, because that will give them status. The minister needs a context in which to do that, which is why the vision of the national plan is important. As other members pointed out, it is slightly paradoxical that the bill contains no duty on the minister to produce a plan. Scottish Environment LINK drew that to our attention, and I am sure that the matter will be tidied up in due course.

Other members have also talked about the vital part that marine protected areas can play in helping to restore the health of our seas and preserving important features. The provisions on MPAs also need strengthened. I recognise that there are international obligations, but we should make it clear that there is a duty to create a coherent network of MPAs.

MPAs can be highly controversial. As a first cut, the conservation measures in them have to be based on science, but social and economic factors must also be taken into account. We must at all times seek to take local people with any proposal for an MPA, to engage them and to give them ownership of the process and as much of the local management control of the MPA as is possible. We need look no further than Barra, where local people are demonstrating to Scottish Natural Heritage their concerns about a different designation and the impact that it would have on their way of life and their ability to make a living.

MPAs must not be about a loss of economic opportunity alone. If that is the way they are perceived, they will be opposed—understandably so. There seems to be plenty scope for more development of offshore renewables, for example. Not only can that co-exist with other uses of the sea, but it may be complementary to them and help to achieve some of the bill's objectives.

The bill's provisions on seals are potentially controversial, but I am glad that, so far, there seems to be a broad consensus on what can happen and how we could manage the situation. Generally speaking, I welcome the bill's approach to the culling of seals, although it can be strengthened and tidied up. The key to that is tough licensing and tough mandatory conditions on any regrettable need to take seals out and shoot them.

I see that you are glowering at me, Presiding Officer. I am coming to the end of my time and I will happily sit down. I am very happy to support the general principles of the bill.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sure that I never glower, Mr Peacock.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Marine (Scotland) Bill. The bill has been a long time in coming and the Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called for it. Overall, it achieves its principal aim of finally delivering simplicity in a sector that has become increasingly complicated, with many different Government departments dealing with different marine consents.

We must consider how the proposed legislation will affect certain industries. There needs to be a balance among the environment, the environmentalists and those who live and work in coastal communities. Fishermen and fish farmers need to have an interest in, and an input into, marine planning. They have practical knowledge, as they spend a great deal of time at sea, and an interest in ensuring that their industry has a sustainable future. That is why they must be included as much as possible in the establishment and workings of Marine Scotland.

The bill will succeed only if stakeholders from all sides are involved in future planning for the marine environment. If we rely too heavily on scientists without adequately consulting those in the industry and drawing on their knowledge, we may harm the fishing and fish farming sectors. As we heard from my colleague Peter Peacock, SNH is trying to convince the local population and the fisherman that another special area of conservation is required around the island of Barra. I do not think that it is getting much support for its proposals. Instead, a conflict is developing between the local community, which depends on the sea, and a quango.

The same argument applies to the development of Scotland's potential as leader in marine renewable energy generation. Scotland boasts 25 per cent of Europe's tidal power and 10 per cent of its wave power resource. We must use that advantage to our best interest by allowing the industry to flourish and allowing Scotland to benefit from the employment that it would create, but to make that happen we need to consult the industry experts, not only environmentalists. Furthermore, we need a clear and coherent marine planning system to uphold substantial development. Although the bill makes gallant attempts at producing a clear code, it does not present strong guidelines and leaves the marine energy sector in uncertainty.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I do not support one aspect of the bill: the handing over of planning powers for fish farms to Marine Scotland. Planning consent for fish farms should be granted democratically at a local level so that the concerns of communities and other interests can be taken into account when planning information is asked for. Marine Scotland will undoubtedly be of great benefit for marine planning as a whole, but it will not be democratic and would ultimately be unresponsive to the needs of small communities in relation to the siting of fish farms, which is often controversial.

I petition the Government again not to take any rash action on the management of seals. Fishermen and fish farmers need to retain the ability to cull seals under licence. Seal populations are at a high level and cause immense difficulty for all those who attempt to make their livelihoods from fishing and related activities. Any legislation that would restrict fishermen and fish farmers from responsibly protecting their businesses must be reconsidered. Seals are not the friendly, cuddly mammals that many people imagine them to be; they are prolific and aggressive killers that have decimated large areas of our inshore fishing grounds. Their numbers must be controlled.

Overall, I welcome the proposals to the bill and look forward to the benefits that Marine Scotland will bring to our coastal communities.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

John Farquhar Munro expressed concern about paying too much attention to scientists and marine science because it might slow things up. However, the problems that we face exist because we have consistently ignored scientists' advice not only for decades but for centuries. We must heed the scientific advice if we are to make any improvement in our marine environment.

Many of the committee's recommendations on seals are to be warmly welcomed and their inclusion would represent a significant improvement in the bill's provisions. However, one proposal that has been brought to my attention causes concern because it represents a step backwards in relation to closed seasons. It is simply wrong—close to barbaric—to kill mammals that are accompanying their offspring and leave the vulnerable and defenceless pups to survive alone. That kind of approach would never be tolerated on land. We do not take cows away for slaughter as soon as they have calved or ewes just after they have lambed. Seal pups should not be deprived of their parents just after birth. We cannot ignore that point simply because the killing takes place at sea, and I will work with the committee to have an amendment accepted, I hope, at stage 2.

I am delighted that the Marine (Scotland) Bill has reached stage 1 and welcome most of the committee's recommendations. There is a way to go before the bill is fully fit for purpose. I also welcome the cabinet secretary's apparently flexible approach. I hope that he continues to be flexible and to listen.

The Scottish Association for Marine Science's recent report for Scottish Environment LINK makes it abundantly clear that the regulation of fishing activity is fundamental to any strategy that is designed to promote marine ecosystem recovery. In response to Liam McArthur's earlier comments, I say to him that we cannot have an MPA without it restricting fishing activity. In that regard, I cannot understand why the cabinet secretary keeps insisting that the legislative control of fisheries is unrelated to the bill. If marine protected areas are to mean anything, the cabinet secretary must make clear his intention to use legislative powers to restrict fishing activities within them, especially bottom trawling and dredging, which he has mentioned.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

The member rightly says that we should listen to scientists. Does he concede that we should also listen to communities and that one reason why the European Commission's proposals in Barra are so unpopular is that there is no obvious opportunity for the community to have a voice in the consultation process?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The Liberal Democrats have already voiced their concerns in that area. All that I have to say on that issue at present is that it is clearly up for further discussion. However, I believe that science is still being driven into a corner. If the point of the bill is to get healthy seas and restore the marine environment, the science must come first.

We would be well advised to follow the UK Government's lead by altering the make-up of inshore fishery groups. I do not believe that we need to wait three or four years before we do that. Frankly, the position at the moment is absurd, because we have the fox in charge of the chicken coop. We must ensure that marine planning partnerships are constituted more sensibly. Elaine Murray and Bill Wilson made excellent speeches. I am so glad to hear scientists in the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee express strong views on how the bill is to be progressed.

Another species that I believe deserves specific protection under the bill is the cetaceans. People are often surprised by the diversity in Scottish waters of cetacean species, including bottle-nosed dolphins, minke and killer whales, and humpback, fin and sperm whales. The bill provides the perfect opportunity for Scotland to demonstrate how much we value those animals by designating our waters as a whale and dolphin sanctuary. I know that we and the UK are already signed up to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, so such a sanctuary might seem extraneous, but it would send out a clear and strong message, and cost us nothing.

Such a designation would also boost Scotland's burgeoning ecotourism businesses and send a strong message to the world's few remaining whaling nations that Scotland values and wishes to protect those cetaceans that live in and migrate through our waters. It may have been many years since whales and dolphins were actively hunted in Scottish waters, but they still find themselves under threat from development, pollution, loss of habitat and lack of food. If we can do anything to help those beautiful, peaceful, charismatic creatures, we should. I am confident that other parties in the Parliament will share that view, and I hope that other marine nations will be inspired to follow suit.

For some, our marine environment provides a livelihood, from fishing to ecotourism; for others, it represents a chance to escape, relax and enjoy themselves, whether through the world-class surf in Thurso or international sailing competitions on the Forth. It also provides us with an enormous opportunity for renewable energy.

Scotland's seas are an ocean of opportunity. Therefore, given the heavy demands on our coast and inshore and offshore waters, the Marine (Scotland) Bill must put environmental protection and enhancement at the heart of all decisions about how we use our seas. It is critical that the bill is designed not only to rein in activities that continue to damage our marine environment but to promote actively and effectively the regeneration and restoration of maximum biodiversity. I am glad that that long-term view seems to be shared by most of the speakers in the debate.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am delighted to take part in the debate, not as a member of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee or as a scientist, but as someone with an interest in promoting Scotland—internally, and to the wider world—as a marine centre of excellence. I commend the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee for its valuable report and congratulate the Scottish Government on bringing the Marine (Scotland) Bill to the Parliament in the first place. I am delighted that legislation dealing with one of Scotland's major resources—the most important resource, of course, is its people—is being considered by the Parliament. I am sure that, whatever the outcome by the end of stage 3, Scotland will have a legislative environment in which our marine resource will be cherished for the long term.

As a west of Scotland MSP, I do not have to look far to see water. I grew up in Inverclyde and I still stay there. I honestly do not believe that everyone in Inverclyde, including me for a while, has fully appreciated the beauty of the Clyde as well as its positive economic impact on the communities both north and south of the river, and the recreational benefits that the river brings. As a result, I will focus some comments on the River Clyde. Much of the river's shipbuilding industry has been decimated, for reasons that include the UK Government policy that nationalised and then privatised the industry, and the lower Clyde being designated for oil platforms just as the bottom fell out of platform construction. The death warrant for yards, with thousands of men being placed on the dole queue, was sealed by the Tories in the 1980s. The river has therefore had a chequered history, to say the least. Thankfully, there is still a yard left on the lower Clyde—Ferguson's in Port Glasgow—but it does not seem to build many ships these days. It is clear that the river must not only be utilised in a different manner, but protected.

My members' business debate in November 2008 on sailing and recreational boating was the first debate on that issue in the Parliament. I was stunned that it took nine and a half years to have such a debate, particularly given that the Scottish coastline is more than 13,000km long and therefore of substantial interest to many of Scotland's communities. Since that debate, I have established the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on recreational boating and marine tourism to ensure that a voice can be provided for everyone who uses the Scottish marine resource. Next month, the group will discuss the Marine (Scotland) Bill and I look forward to representatives of Marine Scotland coming along to the meeting.

I fully welcome the bill for three reasons. First, it aims to simplify legislation by consolidating some 80 pieces of legislation. Secondly, the collaborative working relationship between the Scottish and Westminster Governments is to be commended. Thirdly, the Scottish Government's open approach during the consultation on "Sustainable Seas for All: a consultation on Scotland's first marine bill" was warmly welcomed outside this chamber. A representative of the Scottish boating alliance told me that asking the SBA for its views and opinions was an extremely positive approach that showed the Scottish Government's willingness to get stakeholders to participate in Scotland's legislative process. It also showed that the Scottish Government wanted the bill to be the best that it could be from the outset.

Having read the submissions from the SBA and the Royal Yachting Association Scotland, I know that those organisations have issues with aspects of the bill. I am sure that those issues will be discussed with Marine Scotland at next month's meeting of the cross-party group. Given the massive economic benefits—some £270 million—that recreational boating brings to the Scottish economy, not to mention the sporting and health-related benefits that it also brings, the Scottish Government should consider fully the input from the SBA and the RYAS. Further, as others have discussed, we learned recently that the Scottish Federation of Sea Anglers, which is a member of the SBA, estimates that sea angling brings in some £150 million to the Scottish economy. If we can get the bill correct, there is no reason why those substantial sums of money should not increase, thus benefiting communities the length and breadth of Scotland.

I return to the subject of the Clyde. The Stornoway Gazette is not a publication that I read very often—we do not really get it in Greenock—but an article in the paper was brought to my attention as I prepared for the debate. The article—"First Class Facilities for Yachties Make the Clyde Attractive"—encapsulated what is excellent about the River Clyde and some of the facilities that it offers. I do not sail, but having had three opportunities in my life to do so, I have learned that one does not need to be an oil oligarch to enjoy the pastime. In fact, recently I met constituents from a community-based sailing club who reiterated that point. However, I do not know whether we fully appreciate what we have on our doorstep. The article highlighted the excellent facilities at Troon and at the Largs yacht haven, the latter of which I can vouch for. However, if one considers facilities such as the Kip marina in Inverkip, the Fairlie quay marina and Ardrossan marina, to name just a few, it is clear that we have an abundance of top-quality, successful marina developments, which have set the standard for the rest of the country.

I am sure that the Marine (Scotland) Bill can and will deliver for the whole country. I look forward to it complementing the fantastic facilities that we have in place on the River Clyde. I am sure that they can raise the bar across the rest of the country.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

I welcome the chance to sum up this debate on the important subject of the Marine (Scotland) Bill. As Liam McArthur and John Farquhar Munro have stated, the Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the bill, which must of course complement the UK legislation, complex though that process may be. However, I regret the time that it has taken for the proposals to reach this stage.

The debate has highlighted our marine and coastal environment, which contains many special, and some unique, landscapes of national and international renown. Our distinctive habitats, sea lochs and maerl beds are synonymous with Scotland. Scottish waters are among the most diverse in the world, given that they support some 8,000 complex and more than 36,000 single-cell species and animals. The two examples that always come to my mind are the basking shark and the leather-back turtle. The latter species is threatened by our humble plastic bag, which it confuses for its jellyfish prey.

As a South of Scotland MSP, like the Deputy Presiding Officer, I represent a region that contains a large part of the Scottish coastline. The mild Solway and Ayrshire coasts on the west and the East Lothian and Berwickshire coasts on the east are estimated to include—depending on how one measures such things—more than 600km of coastline. The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's stage 1 report highlights the need to consider the Solway Firth as a single marine area, as recommended by the Solway Firth Partnership. Like Elaine Murray and John Scott, I agree with that proposal. I look to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment to work with the Westminster Administration to draw up an agreed strategy, as hinted at in the Government's response to the committee's report and in the cabinet secretary's opening speech today.

As well as helping biodiversity within our seas, the coastline provides important economic benefits in supporting communities through activities such as fishing, aquaculture and tourism. Fishing provides 16,000 jobs. Aquaculture generates a landing value of some £300 million from Scottish boats and a farm-gate value of £340 million. Indeed, Scotland produces about 90 per cent of the UK's farmed fish and shellfish. The opportunity for renewable energy from tidal and wave power is also huge and, as yet, untapped. Fishing is not only a vital industry for my region, but lies at the heart of many coastal communities. As such, fishing must be a major consideration in any marine legislative proposal. Liberal Democrats have consistently fought for the rights of Scottish fishermen, as we recognise that a balance must be struck between considering our natural environment and allowing Scotland's world-renowned sustainable fishing industry to flourish.

In addition, visitors to Historic Scotland's staffed coastal and island properties generate some £2.5 million of income per annum. Recreational diving opportunities attract many thousands each year to places such as St Abb's Head in Eyemouth—with its flora and shipwrecks, including a U-boat—and have given opportunities to companies such as Marine Quest, which was set up following fishing-boat decommissioning. Offshore British oil and British gas support 164,000 jobs. There is cross-party agreement that Scotland's seas should be managed in a coherent way that addresses social, economic and environmental factors.

Some key issues need to be addressed through the bill. Scotland will now have responsibility for planning and conservation measures out to a distance of 200 nautical miles—as was originally suggested by Scottish Lib Dems—so an integrated system of marine spatial planning is needed. Crucially, those measures will build on current powers over sea fisheries and offshore renewable energy. Therefore, the Scottish Government must continue positive dialogue with UK ministers to achieve those benefits. Without a streamlined framework for coastal zone management, there has been increasing evidence of environmental degradation. A more integrated approach would reduce uncertainty and bring real benefits to all marine and coastal users. It is vital, therefore, that the Westminster and Holyrood bills complement each other.

It is also vital to note that many of the bill's proposals were recommended by the advisory group on marine and coastal strategy, which is the task force that was established in 2005 under the chair of the Lib Dem minister, Ross Finnie. The AGMACS report of 2007 appears to have formed the cornerstone of the Government's proposals—as is the case with many of the SNP Government's recent achievements.

Given that the previous debate—on the marine bill consultation—highlighted the issue of licensing arrangements, I hope that the cabinet secretary can assure us that the licensing arrangements will be aligned with the measures to protect the marine environment that will be introduced under the UK's Marine and Coastal Access Bill. There are concerns that British gas and British oil have already been removed from the remit of the marine management organisation that will be established under that bill. There is also no guarantee that the MMO will have responsibility over carbon capture and storage. That suggests that the protection of the marine environment is not being sufficiently considered. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether Marine Scotland will play a part in that?

Licensing for offshore storage of natural gas and carbon dioxide needs to take full account of environmental risks and should integrate with future provisions for managing and protecting the marine environment. We should ensure that consultation with stakeholders takes place before licences are granted for the importation and storage of combustible gas and carbon dioxide. I ask the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment or the Minister for Environment—whichever of them winds up the debate—to provide assurances that that is being considered.

Around 50 per cent of respondents to the consultation believed that Marine Scotland should be established as a statutory body at arm's length from the Government, whereas the other 50 per cent believed that it should remain a Government body. Can ministers clarify, therefore, why they took the decision that they took? What measures will be taken to ensure the independence of any scientific advice?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I refer members to my fishery interests in the members' register of interests.

As my friend John Scott indicated in his opening speech, we strongly welcome the Scottish Government's intention to consolidate current marine legislation. We believe that the Scottish Government's legislation must be complementary to the Marine and Coastal Access Bill that is going through Westminster. That is a crucial requirement, which ministers must recognise.

Scotland's marine environment is of huge importance to our country, especially my region of the Highlands and Islands. It is right that we take every possible step to protect and enhance our marine biosphere while recognising that people's livelihoods—and, thus, the future of many of our coastal communities—depend on sustainable utilisation of the marine resources. It is crucial that at all stages we involve key stakeholders, such as fishermen's associations and the representatives not only of conservation bodies but of the aquaculture and marine tourism sectors. They must all work together.

Given that many members have mentioned marine protected areas, I want to raise a connected issue that relates to a proposed special area of conservation that is of huge concern to my constituents. I refer to the proposal to establish a marine SAC around east Mingulay and the Sound of Barra, which has been mentioned already. After I secured a members' business debate on a similarly controversial proposal in a nearby area during the first session of the Parliament, the idea was dropped at that time. I seem to remember standing shoulder to shoulder with the well-known SNP councillor from Barra, Donald Manford, in opposition to that proposal. Local people had enormous—and, I think, genuine—fears that the SAC could remove their ability to make a living from what they and other independent organisations believed to be a sustainable fishery. Ministers rightly want decisions to be taken on the basis of science, but what happens when the constituents who have direct experience of conditions at sea question the accuracy of the science? What options are open to hard-pressed constituents who face the loss of income and livelihood?

I agree with the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's stage 1 report, which recommends

"that provision be inserted into the Bill requiring the Scottish Ministers, when drawing up a marine conservation order for an MPA ... to have regard ... to social and economic factors",

which are the factors that affect people. That is a crucial point. I would also be interested to hear what lessons ministers believe they have learned from their experience of SACs that will improve the consultation on, and implementation of, MPAs.

On the issue of seals, which other members have mentioned, let me repeat the comments that I made in the aquaculture debate. No one wants to see such beautiful mammals culled unnecessarily, but we need to respond to the fact that each year approximately 20,000 to 30,000 seal attacks take place on Scottish salmon farms. Last year, the industry admits that it was forced to shoot 489 seals—the estimated figure from some lobbying groups has perhaps been exaggerated. Although the industry makes it clear that it wants to bring down that number by making significant investment in more sophisticated acoustic deterrents, it maintains that, from time to time, as a last resort, it needs to shoot persistent rogue seals that attack the nets.

Of course, there are also seal attacks on our valuable wild salmon. The welfare of the salmon must surely be considered as well as that of the seal, and we should also consider the welfare of the people whose jobs depend on the fish farms and the wild fisheries. I support the fact that the bill will allow the culling of seals but only in particular circumstances and under strict licensing.

On an issue of detail, aquaculture representatives have identified a small but, they believe, important technical omission from section 98(f) of the bill, where there is a need to insert a phrase that allows the humane killing of seals to protect the health and welfare of farmed fish, because that protection is a requirement on farmers under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006.

The minister will know that 58,000 young salmon escaped recently from a farm in Loch Striven in Argyll. That single escape, which was apparently caused by a hole in the net, is larger than all the escapes of last year, and it could be an ecological disaster for wild fish. The chief executive of the fish farm is quoted as saying:

"As the fish are very small and young, it is unlikely they would survive in the wild."

However, what will happen if some of them do survive and they breed with the wild fish? They will surely introduce a weaker strain to our wild stock, which is already under pressure, as we have seen from the poor runs this year. Roger Brook of Rivers and Fisheries Trusts of Scotland said:

"This is yet more proof that escapes, both major and minor, will persist until such time as the companies put the necessary resources into robust equipment and training ... If the cages are located in open waters to which the natural wildlife ... has access, then they must be capable of withstanding any attack."

Jon Gibb of the Lochaber district salmon fishery board, said:

"After 20 years of serial escapes, the industry has proven that it is incapable of containing its fish."

I know that fish farming is important to Scotland, but it is also important that a proper code of good practice is law and that lessons are learned from the infectious salmon anaemia crisis in Shetland, which almost wiped out our indigenous salmon and smolt production industry. That industry is equally important to many of my constituents. It is vital that a code of good practice is followed and there should be severe penalties for any fish farmer who breaks it. Why should a few spoil the reputation of a good industry?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member should wind up.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On the subject of aquaculture, one other concern that industry representatives have put to me is that the bill proposes to introduce a universal licensing system for all marine activities except aquaculture. Why? There are worries that the proposal will result in additional complexity—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member must sit down.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

—and inconsistency. Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

The debate has been interesting and, in the main, remarkably consensual. The areas of concern as well as the areas of consent are broadly accepted by the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and indeed by the parties in the chamber. That also reflects our discussions and deliberations with stakeholders. I add the thanks of members on the Labour benches to those which other members have expressed to both the stakeholders and the committee's clerking team and SPICe for all the help and information that they have given to committee members, especially those, like me, whose constituencies do not contain any element of coastline. It has been a steep learning curve for us.

We all recognise the value of our marine environment and we want to get the bill right. That is why I urge ministers to look again at the timetabling. I have made this point to previous Administrations as well as to the current one. Parliamentary scrutiny of bills is vital because we have only one chamber. If members receive the Government's response to a committee's stage 1 report only late on the night before a morning debate, that does nothing to encourage effective scrutiny. Perhaps ministers could reflect on that and ensure that members are given at least 24 hours to read and reflect on Government responses before we comment on them in the chamber. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment always wants to work with the committee, so I hope that he will take that point on board.

The Scottish seas are a source of great pride to us all. One of the key issues in the marine debate is that there is a three-tier system between Scotland, the UK, and our international partners. It is imperative that that remains in place and we welcome the fact that the bill does not seek to rock the boat in that regard. Fish swim and boats move, so it is important to have a co-ordinated approach throughout the UK and with our international partners. However, there is clearly a case for Scotland-led legislation regarding certain sectors of activity. The bill's proposals are therefore broadly to be commended, including the new systems of marine planning, streamlined licensing, and the establishment of marine protected areas.

As well as being a source of pride, our seas are a source of beauty, but they are also a source of economic activity for many of our coastal communities. That is why the committee's comments on genuine community engagement— which were articulated well by others, particularly Peter Peacock—are crucial in the area of policy that we are discussing. We need to take people with us. It seems to me that the dual mandate proposal to pursue economic prosperity alongside strict, regulated conservation through one Government body and the variety of stakeholders will be highly conflicting. The minister needs to explain how he proposes to ensure that there is a strong commitment to promoting both national economic development and the cultural and historical preservation of our seas, which are often on opposite sides of the debating table. It seems likely that, when the choice is polarised between prosperity and sustainability, as it will inevitably be in the discussions between local authorities, conservation groups and ministers, the short-term interests will trump the long-term interests. For the future of Scotland and its seas, we need to ensure that we take the long-term approach.

One of the key issues in the committee's report is community engagement. The committee found from the evidence that it took that there are polarised views on certain issues and it is important that we ensure that the broadest possible range of people are represented. Paragraph 105 of the committee's report deals with the issue, but the ministerial response is not as positive as we hoped it would be. I am sure that we will return to the issue at stage 2, given the overwhelming evidence that we have had.

The issue of seals clearly demonstrates those differences and debates. I appreciate John Farquhar Munro's comments. Indeed, only yesterday, we took evidence from marine scientists who outlined the impact that the seals are having on fish quotas and the availability of fish to our fishermen. John Scott and Jamie McGrigor outlined their concerns about fish farming and the potential impact on economic stability if our decisions are too stringent. However, Robin Harper passionately made the case for the seals. I agree with him that science is vital in that regard, or in any regard. My experience in 10 years as an elected member has been that lobbyists on both sides always overegg their pudding to make their case, so clear, independent scientific advice will be crucial to the committee when it makes decisions.

As my colleague Elaine Murray articulated, the committee's consensus to date has been that seals need to be controlled but that that must be done as humanely as possible and that legal methods should be the last resort. When licences are made available, they should be issued only to those who can demonstrate high levels of marksmanship to prevent unnecessary suffering and the painful and prolonged death of the seal.

Only yesterday, members received the Law Society of Scotland's concerns about sections 37 and 38, on fixed monetary penalties and the appeals process. Its letter states:

"The Society suggests that it would seem appropriate for a person in receipt of a notice to have a clear right to appeal to a Sheriff and that the current provisions within the draft Bill did not appear to be fair and reasonable."

Perhaps the minister will comment on that concern before stage 2, either when he sums up today or in a letter to the committee.

For me, the key issue in the debate is the balance between the economic needs of our coastal communities and the needs of future generations to have a vibrant ecosystem. That is why a whole ecosystem approach is crucial to the debate. I understand our fishing communities' concerns about their future economic activity, but we need to ensure that the fishing industry is sustainable for the long term, not just the short term. That is what the bill is about. It is about protecting our marine environment for future generations so that members, who are growing older in years, can be assured that those who come after us have a marine environment that they, too, will be able to celebrate, share and use for their purposes in a positive and sustainable way.

I commend to members the stage 1 report and the bill. I am sure that a constructive approach ahead of and during stage 2 will lead to positive legislation at the end of the process. I look forward to working with ministers and the rest of the committee in that regard.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

There has been a lot of unanimity in the debate, which I welcome. Only the Liberal Democrats reverted to type from time to time. They said that everything was a bit too late, that there is not enough money, and that all the Government's successes are down to historical figures and Liberal Democrats in the annals of history. However, there has been unanimity on important issues.

We all agree that Scotland is a marine and maritime nation. Members have underlined the relationship between many of our communities and our seas. Sometimes it is good to take a step back and think for a moment about the importance of Scotland's seas to our people. It is estimated that we have the biggest share of Europe's coastline. We have 20 per cent—a fifth—of Europe's waters and some of the most important and biggest shares of Europe's seal populations. We have some of Europe's richest and most valuable fish stocks in our waters and a growing sea angling fraternity that has a big future—we are determined to develop sea angling with a new strategy, which we are discussing with that sector. We have the potential for the biggest offshore renewables industry in Europe. That will be extremely important in the 21st century. There is the economic role that our ports and harbours and marine transport play, and we have, of course, the biggest oil and gas sector in Europe. Many of Europe's most rare and unique habitats and species lie beneath our waves, and we must protect them for future generations. We have more than 6,500 species of plants and animals in our waters, including 22 species of porpoises, whales and dolphins. We must protect precious species and habitats such as the tall sea pen, the flame shell, native oyster beds and the deep-sea sponge communities. Our scientists deem all of those to be under threat. I hope that the bill will help us to protect them.

There is also historical heritage beneath our waves. Members have spoken about Scapa Flow and the remaining wrecks of the German high seas fleet, which attract tourists and divers and are good for the local economy. I was impressed by recent images of HMS Campania, which was the first-ever aircraft carrier—it was converted from an 1892 Cunard liner. The first flight from it took place on 5 May 1915 and it was lost in November 1918. I hope that the bill will shine a light on the heritage that lies beneath our waves, which not many people know about. The people of Scotland are fascinated by Scotland's seas and what lies beneath the waves.

Wildlife tourism is a growing sector of the economy. Spey Bay in my constituency is attracting tens of thousands of visitors every year to witness the local dolphin populations. We all recognise the importance of Scotland's seas to the people of Scotland.

I wish that we had full control out to 200 nautical miles so that we could further streamline marine activities and the relevant regulations in Scotland. However, following negotiations with the UK Government, we have won executive devolution and we are now in the driving seat for marine planning and nature conservation out to 200 nautical miles. I take issue with those who think that, even with the powers that we will have under the bill, we are not doing enough streamlining. We are streamlining the arrangements for marine renewables, for instance, and there are numerous other examples of streamlining. Where possible, Marine Scotland will be the first point of contact for marine licensing issues. There is the food and environmental protection legislation, and coastal protection licences now form a new single licence. Section 36 consents for renewable marine energy projects are to be considered at the same time as marine licences. Once the bill is passed, activities with a low environmental risk can be registered rather than have to be licensed. Therefore, there will be streamlining for important marine sectors.

In my opening remarks I mentioned that the committee did not take a unanimous view on aquaculture, but we believe that the position that is reflected in the bill is the best way forward. It will enable any local authority that wishes Marine Scotland to take responsibility for aquaculture licensing to do so. However, if local authorities wish to retain that power for reasons of local accountability, they can do that. I welcome the fact that many members support that position.

Perhaps seals represent the best example of an area in which we have to strike a careful balance between conservation and allowing some economic activities to continue. I welcome the many comments that members have made about our having struck a balance. I reassure members who think that we need to go further that the Government will have a general power through the bill to amend licensing conditions. That means that we can address issues that members have raised. There will also be a code of practice, to which those who are issued with licences will have to adhere. We will be able to debate the content of that code of practice in the future.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

During the first parliamentary session, I think that Ross Finnie, who was a minister, mentioned the possibility of a seal commission. Has the minister given any more thought to that possibility?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The bill mentions seal management plans, of course. We believe that they are a huge step forward in addressing issues relating to Scotland's seal populations.

Many members have mentioned the debate about whether duties should be included in the bill, as against ministers simply taking powers in a number of areas. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have an open mind about where we should stipulate duties in the bill and where amendments might be possible in that regard. We will discuss that with the committee in the weeks ahead. I echo the comments of my UK counterpart at Westminster, made in the past couple of days, I think. The point was made that the more duties that are placed on ministers through legislation, the more effectively a lawyers charter will be created. I do not think that any member wants to go down that road. There may be a case for introducing duties for ministers in some areas, but we want to avoid that in other areas if possible.

I remind members that by establishing marine protected areas we will acknowledge the value of those areas of the marine environment that we think are precious and need to be protected. If we wished to go a step further and to introduce restrictions, we would have to introduce a marine conservation order. Of course, the Parliament will have full opportunity to scrutinise such orders to ensure that factors that members have mentioned are taken into account. There will be a full process in the Parliament for such orders. I hope that that addresses concerns that members have expressed.

Marine Scotland, which will be the champion of Scotland's seas, will play a leading role on some of those issues. Members have mentioned that. We set up Marine Scotland to avoid a further year's delay while we waited for the bill to go through Parliament. Most people acknowledge—the stakeholders groups do—that getting it up and running as soon as possible was a good idea.

Members have expressed concerns about the independence of the science that Marine Scotland will use. Only last week, Marine Scotland advertised for members of the science advisory board that is being established to ensure that independent scientific advice will be mainstreamed into the workings of Marine Scotland. I hope that that reassures members.

I remind members that the marine strategy framework directive, which, as I mentioned earlier, will be transposed into Scottish law, will put an obligation on the Scottish Government and all UK Administrations to establish an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas. The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic—the OSPAR convention—which Scotland has already signed up to through the UK Government, also places such an obligation on the Scottish and UK Governments.

I hope that I have addressed the key issues that members have raised. Again, I thank the committee for all its hard work, and I thank all our stakeholders and the general public, who have taken an intense interest in the bill. The bill has attracted comments from many members of the public in the past year or so.

I have listened carefully to the points that members have made and we will take forward many of those ideas. We will reflect on the comments that have been made by members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and by other members in the chamber. As I have said, the Scottish Government intends to lodge amendments at stage 2, and that dialogue will continue in the weeks ahead.

Our seas are very special, as the chamber has acknowledged. Our seas will feed the nation in the decades ahead and they will power our nation, helping us to tackle climate change. We need our seas and our seas need us to protect them—that is what the bill is all about. I thank members for supporting it at stage 1.

Marine (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S3M-4518, in the name of John Swinney, on the financial resolution for the Marine (Scotland) Bill. I call Richard Lochhead to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Marine (Scotland) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rules 9.12.3(b)(ii) and (iii) and 9.12.4 of the Parliament's Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act.—[Richard Lochhead.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

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

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it has made with its commitment paper that outlines work to support military personnel through improving access to housing, health, transport, education and training. (S3O-8256)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We have made considerable progress with the development, introduction or expansion of support and public services for the armed forces community in Scotland. A report detailing our achievements will be issued in the next few days.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Can the minister confirm that the information that will be issued tomorrow will include details of access to further education and job opportunities?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am delighted to confirm that the annual report will cover a range of issues, including health, housing, education, employment and employability. It will contain details of what has been achieved so far, work that is in progress, our future plans in each of those areas and the consultations that we intend to have with key stakeholders.

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

There are 31,700 individuals in receipt of a pension under the war pensions scheme in Scotland. That is the minimum number of people in Scotland with a health condition that is related to military service. However, over the last period, only two health boards have recorded having treated veterans under the priority scheme. Eight health boards do not collate information on priority treatment. Will the minister ensure that the publication that will appear in the next few days addresses specifically the collation of information on treatment under the priority scheme?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We are aware of the issue and we are addressing it. We will report back on progress as and when there is progress to report back on.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

To ask the Scottish Executive what recent discussions it has had with voluntary sector organisations about future funding issues. (S3O-8189)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

We engage often and regularly with the third sector at all levels about a wide range of issues, including funding. As a result, we have provided funding that fits the circumstances of today, including the recently announced resilience fund, which is providing £1.7 million to help organisations that have unexpectedly run into difficulty due to the recession. Our effective dialogue with the third sector has enabled us to understand its needs better and to ensure that its skills, knowledge and experience are available to support our shared goal of a successful Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

In a written answer to a parliamentary question from my colleague, Tom McCabe, Shona Robison said:

"We are confident that the effects of the concordat and SOAs"—

single outcome agreements—

"will have a positive impact on mental health services".—[Official Report, Written Answers, 16 September 2009; S3W-26855.]

Is the minister aware that voluntary organisations that deliver mental health services are expressing concerns about the impact of the concordat and single outcome agreements on those services and their sense that they are not being given sufficient continuity and priority at a local level? When will the analysis of single outcome agreements that was promised by Nicola Sturgeon for September be made available? Will the minister give a commitment that he will act if the analysis confirms the fears of those in the voluntary sector who support people with mental health problems?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Government works with local government to assess the effectiveness and impact of single outcome agreements. Reports will, of course, be given to Parliament when they become available.

Questions relating to the funding of services are significant. We recognise the important contribution that the third sector makes to a range of services for people with vulnerabilities, and we will take note of any concerns that are expressed by organisations in that respect. We must ensure that there is an effective range of services across the country, and the Government will work with the third sector and other public sector providers to ensure that that is the case.

If Johann Lamont has particular concerns about relevant issues, she knows that I am happy to consider those points, as is the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that ministers are responsible for oversight of the procurement and delivery of major transport projects in its capital programme. (S3O-8198)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Responsibility for managing the delivery of that programme has been assigned to Transport Scotland and others. Scottish ministers exercise appropriate oversight.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

What discussions have taken place with TIE Ltd and the City of Edinburgh Council to ensure that the Edinburgh trams project is procured and delivered on time?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It is for the City of Edinburgh Council to ensure that the project is delivered on time. Obviously, officials of the Scottish Government, which is responsible for providing up to £500 million in finance for the project, meet regularly with TIE officials to discuss the progress that is being made. Payment is made against achievement that is demonstrated. Of course, I have met the chief executive in recent times, but it is a matter for the City of Edinburgh Council.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

What specific actions has the minister taken since June this year to progress the Aberdeen western peripheral route, which is vital to the economic wellbeing of north-east Scotland? Can he advise Parliament when he will conclude his consideration of the reporters' findings in the public local inquiry?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We expect to conclude our consideration of the reporters' findings and recommendations this calendar year. The report is, of course, substantial, and reflects the concerns of more than 9,000 objectors. It is important that we ensure that we have a robust decision-making process that does not lead us into interminable court actions, as happened with the M74, which would compromise our ability to deliver this vital project at the earliest possible date.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister assure us that he will try to tighten up the management of contracts, particularly in relation to the significant number that now appear to be running well over budget and which have necessitated the significant pruning of the capital budget in recent weeks and over time? Will he guarantee that he will keep an eye on the costs that are involved in the projects and ensure that his involvement in the process will mean that such pruning is not necessary in the future?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It might be as well to remind the member that our budget issues derive from the reduction in the funds that are available to this Government to spend. There is a catalogue of successful projects that I expect projects that are in course to mirror, such as the project that delivered the upper Forth crossing—the Clackmannanshire bridge—slightly ahead of time and on budget, and the successful project on the rail network to improve the platforms and facilities for trains at Edinburgh Waverley, which came in under budget and on time.

The arrangements that we have made for major projects such as the M80 and the M74 ensure that we will be able to control the costs. We will pursue that approach with all the major projects with which we engage.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 4 was not lodged.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with the Strathclyde partnership for transport on protecting socially necessary bus services. (S3O-8187)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Scottish Government has had no discussions with SPT on protecting socially necessary bus services.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

The minister will be aware that many communities throughout Scotland are facing swingeing cuts in bus services. That will have an adverse effect on areas such as Cambuslang and Rutherglen in my constituency, where there are high numbers of pensioners. What support will the Scottish Government provide to local councils and SPT in order to protect bus services and promote transport in communities throughout Scotland in these difficult times?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We have provided substantial support to local authorities across the board. By relieving local authorities of many of the constraints of ring fencing, which accounted for around 25 per cent of their expenditure, we have given them the flexibility to address the priorities of their own populations.

In the area that is covered by SPT, the subsidy for bus services works out at around £3 per head of population, as against a range throughout Scotland that goes up as high as £23 per head of population. We have appointed a senior bus development adviser, who is, I believe, already making progress in assisting local councils and regional transport partnerships to make effective use of the powers and moneys that are available to them.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 6 was not lodged.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions ministers have had with Orkney Islands Council about the funding for the next generation of vessels for Orkney's internal ferry services. (S3O-8212)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth first met councillors on 28 February 2008 and again on 26 August 2009, and he hopes to meet the convener of the council shortly to discuss the council's most up-to-date proposals for taking forward the ferry replacement project.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As the minister knows, those are lifeline ferry services that help to sustain some of the most fragile communities in the country. Is he aware that there are now serious concerns in Orkney about the lack of progress in the discussions with the Government during the past two years? Does he acknowledge that in that time, the point at which certain vessels will need to be removed from some of the more exposed routes has grown ever closer? Does he realise that expecting the smallest council in the country to bear the full cost of that investment is simply not tenable?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member may recall—although he may not be old enough—that in the 1980s, the responsibility and the funding streams for supporting ferries in the Orkney islands were transferred to the council. Nonetheless, despite the fact that responsibility for the provision of services clearly lies with Orkney Islands Council, we will continue to engage with the council to ascertain the best way for it to use the resources that it has available and the assistance that we can provide to help to solve the problem, which I acknowledge exists.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I reinforce Liam McArthur's point, and stress that European Council directive 98/18/EC will not, although it allows retrofitting of Orkney's internal ferry fleet, prevent the inevitable need to replace all nine vessels in the fleet. Orkney Islands Council has already contributed a quarter of a million pounds for the programme. Will the minister make a commitment today to replace the fleet and save the first-class lifeline inter-island service in Orkney?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am certainly not able to make that type of commitment today. I return to my point about the transfer of assets and funding streams to Orkney Islands Council that took place—by agreement with the council—in the 1980s. It is against that backdrop, which makes it clear that responsibility lies with Orkney Islands Council, that we will continue with discussions—which have so far been fruitful—to establish an appropriate way forward that reflects the need to replace all the vessels in the not-too-distant future.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Can the Scottish Government explain whether it is possible to consider the need to replace not only the Orkney ferries, but those in Shetland and in other places? Is there any potential for those lifeline service vessels to be built in Scotland?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We very much wish to see vessels being built in Scotland. The member will be aware that we currently have a vessel for the Islay service on order from a shipyard in Gdansk. When we were progressing that procurement, I specifically contacted Scottish interests to ensure that they were making every effort to see whether they could bid, but—alas and alack—they did not wish to do so at that stage. We will continue to engage with shipyards in Scotland that can build ferries for our services, and ensure that they are in a position to bid when vessels are being sought in the future.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment it has made of the impact of the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland's plans to suspend its grant-making activities for the foreseeable future. (S3O-8215)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The enduring nature of the covenant between the Lloyds Banking Group and its predecessors and the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland has provided a substantial and welcome contribution to the funding of charities in Scotland in the past couple of decades. We hope that continuing discussions between parties will enable as much as possible of that independent funding stream to remain in place.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

The petition that the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations launched earlier this week shows clearly that charities throughout Scotland are rightly becoming increasingly concerned about the future of their funding should an agreement not be reached between Lloyds and the foundation. Will the minister commit to continuing to explore all possible avenues with Lloyds representatives to enable the foundation to continue its work while preserving its independence? Will he also give a commitment to work with the British Government to examine interim funding options for the foundation should an agreement not be reached?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As Mr Pringle might know, I have already met with the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland and have spoken on two occasions with the deputy chairman of Lloyds Banking Group, Lord Leitch, to discuss the issue. I am happy to continue those discussions. The situation will be helped if agreement can be reached between the banking group and the foundation. I am also happy to co-operate with the United Kingdom Government to exercise some influence to try to resolve the matter. The United Kingdom Government and the public purse have a significant involvement through the Lloyds Banking Group.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

This morning, I received a letter from Circle, an organisation that provides resources for the children of drug and alcohol abusing families. I have also been contacted by the Answer Project in Whitburn and several other charities, saying that the funding that they have received in recent years is at risk. I am sure that other members will have had similar issues raised with them. Will the cabinet secretary answer the question that my colleague Johann Lamont raised in a debate yesterday about what charities can expect when local authorities consider match funding to ensure that the funding continues in future?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As I said to Johann Lamont a few moments ago, the decision making on individual financial contributions to voluntary sector organisations is for the appropriate authorities to undertake. I have taken a number of initiatives to provide certainty and security of funding to the third sector throughout the spending review period. We secured an agreement between the SCVO, COSLA and the Government on how public organisations in government and local authorities should interact with the third sector. I certainly hope that, within the public expenditure constraints that we all know about, we find a way to support organisations that provide important services to vulnerable people in our society.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it endorses the people's charter as supported by the Trades Union Congress. (S3O-8227)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Scottish Government is pursuing a broad programme of action to offset the consequences of recession. We have also expressed directly to the United Kingdom Government our views about the case for continued public investment. We have not been asked to endorse the people's charter.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

The minister will be aware of the laudable objectives that underpin the charter, which in essence is a campaign for change that aims at reconstituting the fabric of our society. What does the minister see as the best route to delivering the people's charter in Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Many of the objectives of the people's charter accord with the Administration's programme and actions. The arguments that the Administration has made in relation to accelerating capital expenditure to provide investment in our housing sector or in infrastructure in Scotland are part of the intervention that is essential if we are to ensure that we achieve our objectives. The Administration's on-going and enduring work to tackle inequality in our society and to provide opportunities for all to flourish through sustainable economic growth strikes me as being the most appropriate way in which to make progress on the agenda.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am not sure whether the cabinet secretary is aware that the TUC motion on the people's charter was amended by the Unite trade union, which called on the TUC to work with the Labour Party in pursuing the progressive policies in the charter. Can we look forward to the Scottish National Party engaging positively with the Labour Party on some of the key issues that are outlined in the charter?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am noted in this Parliament for being one of the most co-operative ministers, always desperate to work with others and seek common ground.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

But what competition is there?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I say to Mr Rumbles that there is not much competition over there on the Labour benches.

This Administration will commit itself to working with the United Kingdom Government, whether it takes forward initiatives that we think are the appropriate choices for the people of Scotland or whether we can influence it to change its mind on certain questions. I note with delight that today we have had a great concession from the Labour Party in Scotland—it has come to the conclusion that more accelerated capital expenditure is required in the Scottish economy. I am delighted to welcome that conversion and I am sure that Mr Park had something to do with bringing about such a common-sense solution.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Before we come to questions to the First Minister, I am sure that members will wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery His Excellency Louis B Susman, the United States ambassador to the United Kingdom. [ Applause. ]

First Minister's Question Time

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1953)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. This evening I will attend an ecumenical service of commemoration for members of the armed forces who have been killed or wounded on active service. This is an appropriate time of year to remember all those who have been killed or injured in service of their country in conflicts past and present.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I am happy to echo the First Minister's comments about our armed forces and those who serve in them.

It is not enough for our First Minister to have a purpose. According to his website, his Purpose—with a capital P—is

"to create a more successful country where all of Scotland can flourish through increasing sustainable economic growth."

If that is his purpose, why are the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses all saying this week that the Scottish National Party is doing more harm than good to Scottish business?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Along with the finance secretary, I was going to welcome the Labour Party's Damascene conversion to accelerated capital spending, which, incidentally, is supported by all the organisations that the Labour leader listed. Let us welcome that developing consensus in Scottish society.

The CBI seems to have a disagreement with the Government, particularly about minimum pricing for alcohol. I hope that in the forthcoming debate we can reconcile such disagreements, whether with a business organisation such as the CBI, or internally with an Opposition party, for example. The best way to get through such disagreements is to debate them and recognise that we all have a huge interest in the human, business and economic cost of rebalancing Scotland's relationship with alcohol.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I have written to the chancellor to say that he should consider accelerating capital spending, but if and only if the SNP gets its budget sorted out.

It is not just the CBI that says the SNP is getting it wrong, and the disagreement is not just about minimum pricing. The Federation of Small Businesses says that small businesses are receiving much better support from the Labour Government in England than from the SNP in Scotland. The Institute of Directors says that it is disturbed by the cancellation of the Glasgow airport rail link and the cuts to enterprise budgets. When will the First Minister start listening to those organisations?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I listen carefully to the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland. The FSB tells me that it is severely worried that some parties in this Parliament do not recognise the importance of the small business bonus that has assisted tens of thousands of small businesses the length and breadth of Scotland.

In the interests of the developing consensus in the chamber, as Iain Gray pursues his questions he will, no doubt, take the opportunity to say that, along with accelerated capital spending, he understands the vital lifeline nature of the small business bonus to small companies the length and breadth of this country.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Labour is already listening to small businesses and we understand their importance in the economy. That is why the Federation of Small Businesses says that small businesses get more support in England under Labour than they get in Scotland under the SNP.

This is not just about the public debate about the economy. Today, we read about the First Minister's personal approach to important business meetings. He is

"aggressive ... unwilling to listen to reason .... extremely rude"—

in fact, those are all the signs of somebody who has lost the plot. That is damning stuff.

I do not care whether the First Minister damages his own reputation, but I care whether he damages Scotland's reputation. Does he really think that that is the appropriate way to represent Scotland abroad to companies that employ thousands of Scottish workers?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am not certain that it was the best idea in the world for Iain Gray to quote the Daily Mail . I read the sister paper of the Daily Mail , the Mail on Sunday , on 25 October, which quotes—unlike the article that Iain Gray mentioned—a "senior source" in Labour as saying:

"He is just not visible. Name one big idea he's associated with—you can't. No one can ... he hasn't got any."

Another source said:

"There is a leadership vacuum at the top of the party."

If Iain Gray is going to resort to quoting newspapers, he should be a wee bit careful about which newspapers he wants to quote.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

When the First Minister decides how he is going to answer questions, he should think about the topic—"It's the economy, stupid." It simply cannot be that everyone is out of step except the First Minister. Is it not the truth that Alex Salmond is a banker who got it wrong on the banks; an economist who is getting it wrong on the economy; and a Scottish First Minister who is getting it wrong for Scotland? Never mind "The Purpose"; when will the First Minister realise that he is The Problem—with a capital T and a capital P?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Iain Gray is an Opposition leader who is struggling to such an extent that he has to appoint 29 shadow spokespeople to his team, out of a group of 46. I congratulate him on building a majority within his party on the payroll vote.

Iain Gray last asked about the economy on 11 September, when he expressed legitimate concern about 300 potential job losses at T-Mobile in Larbert. In the atmosphere of consensus that is developing around the economy, I am delighted to tell him that we acted to save those jobs three months earlier. I am even more delighted to tell him that, two weeks ago, David Turner, the chief executive of that operation, was able to write to me to say that another 170 jobs are to be created. He went on to thank, in glowing terms, the Scottish Government for its work in securing those vital jobs for Falkirk and Larbert. Even if Iain Gray will not appoint me to a job, I know that he will join me in welcoming that jobs boost for an important area of Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-1954)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State in the near future.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The irony of Labour masquerading as the party of business is obvious to everyone except Iain Gray. This is a man who was such an impressive minister for enterprise that he lost his seat.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The question should be addressed to the First Minister, Ms Goldie.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

This week, the Scottish National Party's pretence of being a business-friendly party collapsed. Iain McMillan of CBI Scotland said:

"At the moment there are more harmful things for business than positive ones from the Scottish Government. The SNP is talking the talk, but not walking the walk."

David Watt, head of the Institute of Directors in Scotland, criticised the treatment of Diageo, and Liz Cameron of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce expressed concern that growing the Scottish economy is not the Government's first priority.

The SNP Government has lost the confidence of the business community in Scotland, and the business-friendly image of the SNP at the election was clearly just another charade to get votes. Why has the First Minister allowed that dreadful situation to develop, or are all those business organisations wrong?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Annabel Goldie mentioned concern about the treatment of Diageo. That concern was illustrated by the fact that I went on the march and rally in defence of Diageo jobs in Kilmarnock. I remember that march and rally very well, because marching beside me was Annabel Goldie.

Perhaps the Institute of Directors in Scotland was concerned about the criticism that Diageo brought on itself. Like Annabel Goldie that day in Kilmarnock, the vast majority of Scotland was concerned about the treatment of the Diageo workers.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The First Minister and I may have jointly demonstrated to the workers of Kilmarnock that we were concerned and that we wished to represent those concerns to Diageo, but the difference between us is that I do not believe in telling business what to do. The First Minister thought that he could get away with that and failed.

This is the business-friendly First Minister who on the one hand campaigned to save Diageo whisky jobs while, on the other, pursued a minimum pricing policy that will destroy whisky jobs. This is the First Minister who wanted to introduce an anti-business local income tax and who said that he could save the Dunfermline Building Society for £25 million, when the actual cost was £1.6 billion. This is the First Minister who leads a party that is hostile to the private sector, as was made abundantly clear at his recent party conference. And, yes, this is the First Minister who tramps over to France and causes offence to the bosses of one of Scotland's major employers.

In these tough economic times, Scotland needs a business-friendly Government, not a fractured relationship with business. What is the First Minister's big new idea to help business in Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We can start with the Conservative and Unionist Party joining the growing consensus in favour of capital acceleration so that we can keep jobs in Scotland next year. I would welcome such a conversion.

If Annabel Goldie was not seeking to change Diageo's mind about its treatment of the workforces at Kilmarnock and Port Dundas, what on earth was she doing at the rally? Presumably she did not go to the rally just to show her presence; she went believing that it was part of a campaign that would help to persuade Diageo to stay loyal to its Kilmarnock workforce. She was therefore trying to influence and change a business decision.

As far as the meeting with Pernod Ricard is concerned, I have known Mr Patrick Ricard for a number of years and we have a strong and positive relationship. In our meeting, he gave me a number of gifts, all of which will be suitably declared when the time is right. However, the gift I was most impressed with was the booklet that I have before me, "Alcohol: I'm in Control", which has very much been his personal project.

The booklet says that the company intends to pursue premium brands

"and hence promote the reasonable enjoyment of our high quality products.

While our products can form an enjoyable part of our lifestyle when we choose to consume them, we also know that excessive or inappropriate consumption can cause harm. That is why we have adopted a proactive attitude to promoting moderation and responsibility when people drink our products."—[Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

It is certainly correct to say that Pernod Ricard is not advocating a minimum pricing policy, but it is also true to say that it does not want to peddle cheap booze. The challenge for us as a Parliament is to recognise not only the economic benefits but the health benefits of having a more responsible attitude to alcohol. The challenge for all industries, including the drinks industry, is to live up to—as I am sure Pernod Ricard will—the fine sentiments that are published in the booklet.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1955)

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)

The challenge is to understand how the Tories can attack the First Minister on business and then vote for the Scottish National Party's motion on the economy this afternoon.

There is another Royal Mail strike today. People worry that there will not be much of the Royal Mail left to deliver letters to every part of Scotland, for the same price, for much longer. Why did the Scottish Government give an £8 million postal contract to TNT and not to the Royal Mail?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As Tavish Scott should know, the process was administered under competitive tender arrangements. We have an obligation to take account of value for money. Under the same proposal, I was delighted that a contract worth twice as much was awarded to the Royal Mail. That was a sensible decision that was fully in line with public expenditure guidelines.

On the current dispute, I hope that we can agree that it would be beneficial to the company and the entire community if a resolution were found. I also hope that Tavish Scott believes, as I do, that the shadow of privatisation is one of the underlying causes of the dispute. If that shadow were to be removed, a resolution might be easier to find.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I certainly agree with the last point.

In March, when the United Kingdom HM Revenue and Customs gave a contract to TNT, and not to the Royal Mail, the SNP's spokesman spoke of concerns and said:

"A private partner will only be concerned with profit, and Royal Mail must not lose its social focus".

When the UK Department for Work and Pensions gave a contract to TNT, the SNP said that there was "outrage" at the decision, that

"effectively the government"

was

"abandoning the Post Office to its fate",

and that

"The government must display a commitment to our postal service by using its services."

I could not agree more, so what is the difference between the Scottish Government and the Labour Government in London?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

It is probably that we awarded a £17 million contract to the Royal Mail.

I am glad that Tavish Scott agrees with me that the shadow of privatisation should be removed from the Royal Mail. That is an important aspect in finding a resolution to the dispute. I hope that he also agrees that if he is going to claim that we should not follow the procurement directive, he had better start explaining where the £2 million that would otherwise have been lost to our public services in Scotland would come from.—[Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Incidentally, given the growing consensus on capital acceleration, I hope that the Liberal Democrats will now join the Labour Party in talking about the importance of building that important initiative into next year's spending plans. If not, will Tavish Scott be left to explain how week in, week out he can call for extra expenditure but never—not on a single occasion—say where on earth the revenue will come from?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a supplementary question from Sarah Boyack.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

In light of the £600,000 loss that was made on the gathering, I raise the concerns of the chair of the Edinburgh Destination Marketing Alliance, on which a debt of £300,000 has been dumped. The DEMA simply does not have the wherewithal to meet private sector debts. Given the raft of unanswered questions and the need to learn lessons from the loss, does the First Minister agree that the Auditor General for Scotland should be asked to examine the issue?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I agree with the decision of the City of Edinburgh Council to secure the future of the gathering. I am perfectly happy to put this in members' library: the gathering—the organisation and the event that it staged—generated more than £10 million of revenue for the Scottish economy and several hundred full-time equivalent jobs.

It is extremely wise of the City of Edinburgh Council to want to repeat the gathering event. That will guarantee for the capital city and indeed for all of Scotland many millions of pounds of revenue from an important tourist event.

I would have hoped that Sarah Boyack, as a local member, would have supported jobs and investment in the city of Edinburgh, as Scottish National Party members do.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

To ask the First Minister whether the recent opinion from the European Court of Justice on tobacco pricing affects the Scottish Government's plans to introduce a minimum price for alcohol. (S3F-1974)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The directive in the case to which the member refers is specifically about the excise duty on tobacco and has nothing to do with alcohol products. It is, therefore, entirely inappropriate and irrelevant to transfer the comments in the opinion to the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol for public health reasons. However, the European Commission has given an indication of its attitude to minimum pricing. In a written statement to Catherine Stihler MEP, it confirmed that European Union legislation does not prohibit member states from setting minimum retail prices for alcoholic drinks on public health grounds.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The First Minister will be aware that some organisations have questioned whether minimum pricing for alcohol is compatible with EU law. He referred to the statement that the European Commission has already issued. Is he aware that the Commission has also stated that two key criteria must be complied with if minimum pricing on alcohol is to comply with EU trade treaties? First, minimum pricing must apply to all relevant traders within a national territory. Secondly, it must have the same impact on domestic and imported products, if they are discounted. Can the First Minister confirm that the policy that the Scottish Government is pursuing will comply with those two key criteria?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We are aware of all the issues that must be considered to ensure that the arrangements and the specific price that is set are fair and proportionate, to be consistent with European law. They must be non-discriminatory and must exemplify and illustrate a substantial health benefit.

I hope that, before the matter is discussed fully, all members will take the opportunity to look at the University of Sheffield study for Scotland that was published on 28 September. The study identified substantial financial savings in the economy, running to billions of pounds a year, from a minimum price of 40p per unit of alcohol. It demonstrated that a minimum pricing policy would have substantial health benefits and postulated that it could save thousands of lives in Scotland by preventing unnecessary and early deaths.

When we weigh up, as we will, the considerations that lie behind the proposal, we should look at the substantial economic benefit—there is also a crime argument—of redressing Scotland's attitude to alcohol. Let us also remember the public health benefits that the University of Sheffield's report has identified. It is not that often that a Parliament decides on an issue that affects the lives of many thousands of our fellow citizens. I hope that all members will address this issue with the seriousness that it deserves.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am aware that the fact and, indeed, the content of legal advice are not published by the Scottish Government. However, the First Minister has acknowledged the concern that exists about the European Court of Justice judgment on tobacco pricing and its potential impact on minimum pricing. Given the seriousness of the issue that Scotland has with alcohol, which the First Minister has set out clearly, will he follow the precedent set by the previous Scottish Executive and share the substance of legal advice with party leaders, which would enable progress to be made on considering minimum pricing?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I understand that we have already had discussions with Cathy Jamieson about how we can try to do that. I hope and believe that such information can be made available to members to enable us to discuss and address the issue in a serious way. I hope that we will be able to pursue with Jackie Baillie the discussions that were held with Cathy Jamieson, to see what can be done to provide members with the maximum amount of information.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government intends to announce its decision on the proposed grid upgrade between Beauly and Denny. (S3F-1975)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism will make a determination before the end of the year on the applications from Scottish Power Transmission Ltd and Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Ltd to install an overhead power line between Beauly and Denny. We will notify the applicants, the Scottish Parliament and its committees and other interested parties of the decision as soon as it is made.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does the First Minister recognise that what purported to be an informed leak about the decision last weekend, far from softening up opposition to the upgrade, simply provided a platform for all the arguments that have already been heard in 105 days of public inquiry? Ministers have now had the report of that inquiry for 10 times as long as they took to make a decision on the Donald Trump golf course proposal. Will the First Minister now end the uncertainty and commit to an official announcement on a positive decision on the Beauly to Denny line, not just before the end of the year but, say, before the end of next week?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The minister has indicated that a decision will be made by the end of the year, and I am delighted to confirm that to Lewis Macdonald. I saw an illustration in the press of the Beauly to Denny inquiry and another of the Trump inquiry. I point out to Lewis Macdonald that—as he probably knows—the two inquiries were held under different pieces of legislation and had different timescales. The Beauly to Denny inquiry was held under the Electricity Act 1989 and took a year to hold its hearings. The minister is duty-bound to consider all the evidence that came before the inquiry over that time. I am delighted to say that the Trump inquiry took place according to the new, streamlined hearings system under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

At the Marcliffe hotel in Aberdeen.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

At the Marcliffe in Aberdeen.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order, Mr Rumbles.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We detected an enthusiasm across the chamber, even from the Liberal Democrats, for streamlining the planning process in Scotland. The public local inquiry, which was held to the satisfaction of all those who were represented at it, took just over two weeks.

I hope that Lewis Macdonald can understand the difference in timescale between a public local inquiry under the new streamlined procedures, with just over two weeks being required, and a public inquiry that was held under legislation that is so beloved by the Labour Party and which took almost a year.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Can the First Minister tell us what importance the renewable energy that can be produced in the north of Scotland has for meeting the challenging Scottish and United Kingdom climate change targets?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Rob Gibson has identified an important aspect of the matter. The natural resources around the north of Scotland account for perhaps a quarter, not of the UK's marine potential but of Europe's potential marine electricity resource from offshore wind and tidal power. That is an enormously important part of the future economy of this country.

Rob Gibson is quite right to say that it is not just our own hugely ambitious targets that require us to mobilise that energy. If the UK is to have any hope whatever of reaching its targets, that huge energy resource from the north of Scotland will have to be mobilised. He is right to point to the strategic importance of that fantastic resource for the economy of Scotland in the future.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government is satisfied with the progress of the influenza A(H1N1) vaccination programme and rates of uptake among health workers. (S3F-1966)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The vaccination programme is on track, and I commend the efforts made throughout the national health service to prepare for and deliver the programme on schedule.

At its launch on 21 October, we advised that the programme would commence through a phased roll-out. We are now ensuring that health boards and general practices receive supplies of the vaccine as soon as they become available. Our aim continues to be to have everyone in the priority groups vaccinated by Christmas.

Information on uptake rates among health care workers will become available as the programme progresses. We are keen to ensure that health and social care workers come forward for vaccination at the earliest opportunity in order to protect themselves and the patients who are in their care.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

If the First Minister regards uptake by health workers as important—an article in The Guardian last week highlighted that in England and Wales all the senior people involved are concerned about the critical nature of the matter—does he share my concern that in her statement to the Parliament this morning the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing said that "anecdotal evidence suggests" that uptake is good? If that aspect is so important, would it be more appropriate for us to have real figures rather than anecdotal hints?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I thought that I had dealt with that issue in my answer. I said that information on uptake rates will become available as the programme progresses, when we can move from anecdotal accounts to information that will be available to Ross Finnie and to the Parliament.

Ross Finnie will have noticed the variety of supportive comments from key health professionals, which were co-ordinated on the launch of the vaccination programme. Comments from the British Medical Association Scotland, the Unite union and the Royal College of Nursing Scotland were co-ordinated precisely to encourage uptake, to ensure that we do not face the difficulties that have been reported anecdotally in England and Wales. I salute the organisations for joining the Government and, I hope, all members of the Parliament in encouraging uptake of the vaccine among health service workers, which is crucial for the workers themselves and for the patients who are in their care.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Education and Lifelong Learning

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the recent report by the Centre for Public Policy for Regions, what its views are on expenditure on education per pupil in Scotland. (S3O-8252)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The report from the CPPR focuses predominately on Scotland's position prior to May 2007. It does not identify anything new about the significant expenditure on Scottish education during that period and the lack of improvement in educational performance under the previous Administration. In contrast, Scotland's current educational attainment is strong, with record exam passes. Those records are the result of steady improvements under the SNP Government and will be further improved through the introduction of the curriculum for excellence, which will drive up standards in teaching and learning.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I draw the cabinet secretary's attention to the website of the General Teaching Council for Scotland, which refers to four points regarding chartered teachers, the fourth of which is a substantial increase in salary. Would the minister care to comment on the increased payments for chartered teachers and whether those represent value for money? Can she give us the number of chartered teachers who are teaching in deprived areas in Scotland?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

On the latter question, I do not have the information to hand but I am happy to write to John Wilson with it.

Since the start of devolution, a major aspect of Scottish expenditure has been the teachers agreement, which has rewarded teachers for the job that they do but has increased the spend on Scottish education. Audit Scotland's report of 2006 and the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education on Scottish education, which was written by Graham Donaldson and published in January 2008, provide good information about the challenges that we face in improving the quality of teaching.

We welcomed the chartered teachers initiative when it was introduced by the previous Administration. Part of its purpose is to ensure that well-qualified and talented teachers remain in the classroom. We are supportive of the chartered teachers programme; however, I take it from John Wilson's question that he is not satisfied that all pupils—particularly those in deprived areas—are benefiting from chartered teachers. I am, therefore, more than happy to look at the analysis of where chartered teachers are used, now that several hundred are established, to identify whether pupils in more deprived areas are benefiting from teaching by chartered teachers.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the concerns that have been expressed by commentators such as John McLaren of the CPPR that, despite substantial increases in spending on education over the past 10 years, we have not seen commensurate improvements in standards. Indeed, there is evidence that Scotland is sliding down the international league tables. I know that the cabinet secretary will try to put the blame for that on the previous Administration. However, given that we are all in this together, can she tell us what specific action the present Government is going to take to address the problem?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The international comparisons do not stack up regarding some of the questions and issues that have been raised—for example, the comparisons between exams and qualifications in England and Scotland. I really think that there should be big health warnings around the CPPR report. There are far more robust analyses, which give us a better understanding of the state of Scottish education. The international surveys that the CPPR cites all took place prior to 2007.

Murdo Fraser is, however, right to say that we should monitor our position. In many of the international surveys, Scotland's position has slipped because more countries are now being included in the surveys. Nevertheless, Keith Brown and I have both acknowledged that there has been a flatlining in the performance of some of Scotland's education system and that we must increase the rate of improvement. Steady improvement is not sufficient when we have to compete with international education systems that are improving faster than ours. That is where the quality of teaching comes into play, and we can improve that in two ways. First, we can improve initial teacher education and continuing professional development. Secondly—and importantly—we can improve methods of teaching, and that is exactly what curriculum for excellence is about.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what recent progress has been made in taking forward the 12 recommendations in the teacher employment working group workforce plan. (S3O-8219)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We are continuing to make good progress. Four of the 12 recommendations have been completed. For example, we have held two seminars with local authorities to help improve the alignment between national and local workforce planning. Such seminars will now form a part of the teacher workforce planning exercise—that is in line with recommendation 1. We have commissioned the Government Actuary's Department to review the operation of the winding down scheme. We are currently considering its report and recommendations, which is in line with recommendation 6; we have introduced secondary subject modelling to teacher workforce planning, which is in line with recommendation 7; we have increased the preference waiver payment for secondary probationer teachers to £8,000, which is in line with recommendation 8; we have ensured that information to students contains relevant data about post-probation employment, which is in line with recommendation 10, and we have improved probationer understanding of employment prospects, which is in line with recommendation 11.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

On one level, I am delighted that the cabinet secretary did not mention the two recommendations that I want to ask about.

Recommendation 4 suggests that local authority employers should rely, wherever possible, on post-probationer teachers rather than on recently retired teachers to fill supply vacancies, and recommendation 3 relates to research on the impact of the recession on teachers' retirement intentions. What specific progress has the Government made in those areas in the light of the on-going concerns that have been raised by post-probationers that many retired teachers are returning to their former schools to take up supply posts as a result of the current economic climate and other factors?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

On recommendation 4, employment is the responsibility of local authorities. We wrote to them last December on the issue. The impression that we have gained from the seminars that have been held is that recommendation 4 is being adhered to, and that supply vacancies are going to post-probationers as opposed to recently retired teachers. However, I welcome any contrary information or evidence from members.

On recommendation 3, research is being conducted internally, and we need to await the results of the 2009 census. Again, at the local authority seminars that were held in October, views were mixed. Representatives from Glasgow, for example, had detected a rise in the average rate of retirals, but we are continuing to monitor that. Indeed, we can work with the Scottish Public Pensions Agency to see what pattern is emerging.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish Government has approached teacher employment in a spirit of partnership with councils, which is the spirit that has marked its dealings with local government. How good has the response been, and are there any particular local authorities that might not be approaching matters quite so positively?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

My ministerial colleagues and I visited every council during the summer and discussed issues such as teacher employment. From the 2008 census, which showed a drop of around 1,000 teaching posts, it is evident that some councils have not been replacing teachers as they retire. For example, we know that one in five of the teaching posts that were lost in primary and secondary schools in 2008 was cut by Glasgow City Council. That council, North Lanarkshire Council and Renfrewshire Council are among the four local authorities that are responsible for more than 50 per cent of the reduction. Of course, Jordanhill is very much a focus for teacher training for many people from that area, including mature students with families, who can be hit even harder than others. Two of those local authorities are reducing class sizes, but Glasgow is not. Quite clearly, we need to continue to focus on Glasgow.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

To ask the Scottish Government which active education private finance initiative project has the highest ratio of lifetime unitary charge to capital value. (S3O-8231)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The average weighted ratio of the lifetime unitary charge to the capital value for all signed school PFI projects is 4.8. The individual ratio is a matter for each relevant procuring local authority.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

Can the cabinet secretary give an assurance that any new school that is built with revenue finance will offer value for money to the taxpayer?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I said in my statement to Parliament in June that we will look to the Scottish Futures Trust to develop, recommend and implement approaches that will secure a better school building programme across Scotland and provide value for money.

The first stages of the new programme will involve direct capital investment, but we want to explore the possibility of using different funding approaches such as the non-profit-distributing model for later phases, and are asking the SFT to provide advice on that.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

In the interests of transparency, would it be possible to identify the capital cost in relation to the size bands of schools, so that we can get a sense of how much these schools are costing? Would it be possible to get some information about the expected contribution from each local authority for each of the 14 school projects? That information must be available to the cabinet secretary. Could she make it available more widely to Parliament?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

First, I congratulate Des McNulty on his appointment to his new post and I look forward to working with him.

I point out that the unitary charge for previous projects was variable for different schools. He will be aware from the statements that we have made that two thirds of the support for school building for secondary schools and 50 per cent of the support for primary schools will come from the Government, but clearly the contribution of each individual local authority to each individual school will be different because of procurement, value, the size of the school and so on. As the projects develop, the information for contracts that are procured and so on will be publicly available, and information on local authority spend will be available to local communities. Obviously, our contribution is evident through the contributions that we have to make to support any revenue funding or, indeed, capital funding.

The capital lines that will support the initial schools will be evident in the local government settlement that will be established with local government and, as I said, two thirds of the support for schools is part of the capital settlement that will be provided for local government from 2010 onwards. I am delighted that in 2010 we have secured an additional £10 million as part of that process—on top of the £2 billion of capital investment that is currently going into schools, which has already delivered more than 200 schools in the lifetime of this Parliament.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

To ask the Scottish Executive what support is being provided for apprenticeships and work-based training in community learning and development. (S3O-8204)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

There is currently no specific community learning and development modern apprenticeship framework. Organisations delivering CLD may access support for apprentices undertaking other frameworks such as learning and development, management and business administration.

The Scottish Government has supported the development of work-based training in community learning and development and is committed to ensuring flexible provision that builds a skilled and confident CLD workforce.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Given its importance in delivering the Scottish community empowerment action plan, better community engagement and effective partnership working with Scottish communities, will the Scottish Executive explore with the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council how investment in work-based training, such as the training that is provided by Linked Work and Training Trust Central can be better supported?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I congratulate Cathy Peattie on her recent appointment to an Opposition spokesperson's post. I recognise the work that she has done with the Linked Work and Training Trust Central, which obviously also covers my area.

There are potentially two routes through which this could be progressed. One is through Skills Development Scotland and the apprenticeship model. As Cathy Peattie said, it could also be progressed through the funding council. There are issues to do with that. The funding council currently designates as part-time students people who are taking the bachelor of arts in community learning and development degree programme, so it does not attract funding. As I have spoken with Cathy Peattie already, I am happy to facilitate a further discussion with her, me and the funding council, if that would be helpful.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will there be any sector-specific support for apprenticeships?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Earlier today, the cabinet secretary for education and lifelong learning launched our new scheme—invest in an apprentice—which is the latest support package available through ScotAction. Invest in an apprentice provides a financial incentive of £2,000 to small and medium-sized enterprises in the energy, manufacturing, food and drink, and textile sectors that recruit a 16 to 19-year-old apprentice. We believe that that is another demonstration of our responsiveness to the needs of our employers, and that it will open up job opportunities for young people. It is the third phase in our ScotAction programme and, like other apprenticeship support schemes, it is supported by the European social fund. It is obviously aimed at the sectors that have been particularly affected by the economic downturn and at sectors in which there is a real potential for growth as the economy recovers.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the University of Aberdeen regarding the provision of student accommodation. (S3O-8248)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Universities are independent, autonomous institutions and as such the Scottish Government does not intervene in institutional matters such as student accommodation.